Laws against public nudity [Archive]

Gary Naturist

10-02-2003, 03:43 AM

Based on what I have read, here are some variations across jurisdictions of laws against public nudity.

1. Simple nudity.
2. Nudity associated with disorderly conduct.
3. Nudity that causes offence to an individual.
4. Nudity that causes offence to the community.
5. Nudity that was intended to cause offence.
6. Nudity accompanied by lewd behavior.

I have ordered them from least appropriate to most appropriate, as I see it.

Re #1, I'm certain that the courts will eventually agree that simple public nudity should not be illegal, because there is nothing inherently wrong with display of the naked human body.

Re #2, the disorderly conduct could relate to the nude person or to the viewers of the nude person.

#4 is a fairer than #3, because #3 gives too much attention to the opinion of one person. Anyone can be offended by anything.

Re #5, it would be better to reword this be "intended to threaten or harass".

Re #6, it would be more appropriate to delete the reference to nudity and focus on the behavior.

I think that the minimum in law should be #4. However, I think that it would be better if the minimum was #6 (redefined to exclude the reference to nudity), with #4 and #5 being handled by social pressure/censure.

What do you think?

Gary

Gary Naturist

10-02-2003, 03:43 AM

RalphVa

10-02-2003, 04:40 AM

I think that 1, 3 & 4 should not exist. Nos. 3 & 4 are very subject to interpretation, and, as you pointed out, # 1 should not be. No. 1 would outlaw even art figure studies.

Ralph

10-02-2003, 05:58 AM

Gary,

You've missed one out - and for me it's where the law should step in, namely:

Nudity in public view knowing that it is likely that others will see you who may be caused alarm or distress.

Our Parliament would baulk at the idea of stating that simple nudity in public was a lawful act. We are, unfortunately, cursed with one or two rather idiotic judges who are so remote from ordinary working people that they probably think the rest of us all walk around in bear hides when not naked so they might think public nudity was acceptable in modern society. Luckily most wouldn't!

Stu

aunaturelone

10-07-2003, 08:49 PM

While our new governor in CA is not a nudist, he is certainly not anti-nude. This may be a golden opportunity to have someone more friendly to clothing optional recreation in Sacramento.

Some things may require the cooperation of the state legislature to get through but state park regulations are entirely within his control. It may be much easier now to get official recognition of traditionally nude areas on state land.

luvnaturism

10-07-2003, 11:49 PM

That would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath. He's going to be far too busy dealing with California's budget catastrophe.

Beyond that, I think what will really matter is the attitude of whoever ends up in charge of the state parks. Even Gray Davis, a classic micromanger, didn't get involved in the minutia of park regulations. Our new governor elect seems to be more of big picture leader who will leave the details to others.

Bob S.

10-08-2003, 07:26 PM

stu, your examople would fall in with #3 and #4.

Bob S.

10-09-2003, 09:09 AM

Bob,

Not exactly. I Gary's example actual offence would have to be proved. In mine a likelihood of offence being caused would be sufficient.

Example: Policeman sees naked person walking down a pathway in a park. No-one else is about. Policeman knows that a party of schoolchildren and a group of elderly women are in the park further along the path. In Gary's examples the policeman would be powerless to act until actual offence was caused. In mine he could prevent such offence.

Stu

NudeAl

10-09-2003, 07:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NudeAl:
The city of Chico, California today narrowly defeated a proposed anti-nudity law. By a vote of 3-4 the city council defeated the ordinance which was directed at mere nudity to prevent nude sunbathing in a city park. The park in question has a history of skinny dipping and nude sunbathing. This means that the current style of enforcement will continue. The only way they prosecute now is if there is obvious lewd behavior or a person makes a formal complaint. In the last several years there has only been one of these. The Naturist Action Committee was instrumental in getting this piece of legislation defeated. There is no state law prohibiting nudity in our state nor is there a federal law prohibiting it. Only local ordinances like this one. Hurray for our side!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10-09-2003, 10:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob,

Not exactly. I Gary's example actual offence would have to be proved. In mine a likelihood of offence being caused would be sufficient.

Example: Policeman sees naked person walking down a pathway in a park. No-one else is about. Policeman knows that a party of schoolchildren and a group of elderly women are in the park further along the path. In Gary's examples the policeman would be powerless to act until actual offence was caused. In mine he could prevent such offence.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But he doesn't know if they would be offended until they actually are. He can't prevent something that might not even happen and he can't assume something he doesn't know.

10-10-2003, 05:55 AM

cyndiann

"But he doesn't know if they would be offended until they actually are. He can't prevent something that might not even happen and he can't assume something he doesn't know"

Of course he can, and must, make assumptions. This situation could apply to any behaviour that causes offence. The sight of a group of people having an orgy might not actually cause offence but I would not expect a police officer to ignore such a thing until people were actually offended. Here in the UK the police are expected to protect people BEFORE they suffer injury or offence, not let it happen first and then do something.

Stu

Frank R

10-10-2003, 04:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
cyndiann
...Here in the UK the police are expected to protect people BEFORE they suffer injury or offence, not let it happen first and then do something. Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu,

It sounds like you would have loved living in Nazi Germany or even Red China today. Those nations were and are first class at "protecting" people before any crime was ever committed. The last thing on earth I want is police who arrest people because the police officer thinks that person "might" commit a crime. Why wait that long - just decide that anyone who refuses to goose step wearing what clothes you think necessary be locked away forever. That will sure take care of any problems with nudist or anyone else who thinks freedom means just that, the right to be free.
But thanks for the information Stu. If what you say is true, it will be a cold day in hell before I ever set foot in the UK.

Rocket

10-10-2003, 04:31 PM

Frank,

Same thing in the USA or Canada..

If you doubt..just walk to your nearest 7-11 and see what happens..

People don't have the right to do all they want if it impacts others..

Jochanaan

10-10-2003, 04:57 PM

It is true that anyone in the US or Canada would be arrested if they walked naked down a busy street. But some of us are idealistic enough to wonder if they should be. And some radicals are idealistic enough to challenge the laws they see as unjust and oppressive.

Bob S.

10-10-2003, 10:25 PM

"Minority Report" is alive and well. In that movie, Tom Cruise played a special investigator in a future society where he would get reports on crimes that are going to be committed in the future and then goes out to stop the crime from taking place by arresting the offender before the crime.

So what would Mr. Policeman do in that situation? Is it an arrestable offence? Or would he just warn the naked man that others were coming (which sounds much better)?

And what if said parties ahead are actually members of a nudist resort? Mr. Policeman would then have no reason to act as he is protecting no one. Also, what if he went into the path knowing that it is rarely used and it was a rainy day? There would be very little likelyhood of him coming across anyone else.

In your law, there is no crime committed as there is no victim. This is the ultimate thought crime, one where the thoughts are being taken from the non-existent victim. This law would be easily abused.

Bob S.

Gary Naturist

10-11-2003, 03:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
It is true that anyone in the US or Canada would be arrested if they walked naked down a busy street. But some of us are idealistic enough to wonder if they should be. And some radicals are idealistic enough to challenge the laws they see as unjust and oppressive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is not absolutely true. There are parades that take place every year on major streets in San Francisco (Bay to Breakers), Berkeley (How Berkeley Can You Be), Seattle (Fremont Summer Solstice Parade), Toronto (Gay Pride Parade) and maybe others where participants are nude and are tolerated by the authorities and even cheered by the spectators.

Gary

10-11-2003, 11:43 AM

Actually, Jochanaan said "anyONE". Try doing it alone and see what happens and how accepted it is. There's safety in numbers.

Bob S.

10-11-2003, 02:52 PM

"People don't have the right to do all they want if it impacts others.. "

But the judges and legislature must decide to what extent the behaviour impacts others and at what point the rights of the person are being infringed by the rights of the viewer.

Rik has been adamant about getting an answer to his question of why nudity is so bad, why it should be a punishable offense?

Why should the rights of the naked person be infringed by the rights of the person who is looking? And do not go to the fact that the majority do not want to see it. That is irrelevant in arguing the legitamacy of laws. Many laws are around that have the support of the majority but have failed on the side of being legitimate.

Bob S.

Rocket

10-11-2003, 05:10 PM

It's against the Criminal Code to be naked without legitimate excuse in Canada punishible by summary conviction.

BTW...these gays being nude at a rally doesn't impress me but Canada has become so Liberal with "gay rights" it's almost unbelievable.

We have a Chapters BookStore (similar to WaldensBooks of USA) and they have removed all firearm magazines. You simply can't buy them there anymore..but they did leave the Gay magazines. In Canada, it's more socially acceptable to be gay than own a gun!!!

namedun

10-11-2003, 06:50 PM

uh...yeah! Gay's don't tend to directly cause quite so much death as guns. Although I do admit, taking gun books off shelves is excessive. Anyone planning on using a gun doesn't need to go out and buy a book to do it.

Namedun

Rocket

10-11-2003, 08:14 PM

People who misuse guns cause deaths. Following that logic..we should outlaw cars. Car fatalities happen literally everyday!!!

BTW...unsafe sex practises do cause AIDS. I am aware (not from first hand experience) of what goes on in Gay Bath Houses.

NudeAl

10-11-2003, 08:47 PM

As an owner of several guns myself I can assure you that unsafe gun practices can also cause deaths. I don't understand how giving up your right to any reading material on any subject makes you any safer or wiser or more free.

I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You know this brings up an interesting idea. I love to go target shooting. But it is a pain in the *** to go to a shooting range and pay someone else just to go out and shoot your own damn gun. So why can't I set up a shooting range in my own backyard? I mean provided I have all the safety measures in place. Because it would freak out everyone in the neighborhood! Same thing as nudity right? So here's what we do, we get the NRA to join up with us see? We support their cause and then they do the same for us, sounds great right? Get old Charleton Heston standing up there buck naked with a shot gun talking about our right to keep and bare arms and legs and, uh, well you get the picture. Must admit it is a stunning visual. I think this would actually work in Arkansas and Kentucky.

Gary Naturist

10-12-2003, 03:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
BTW...these gays being nude at a rally doesn't impress me but Canada has become so Liberal with "gay rights" it's almost unbelievable.

We have a Chapters BookStore (similar to WaldensBooks of USA) and they have removed all firearm magazines. You simply can't buy them there anymore..but they did leave the Gay magazines. In Canada, it's more socially acceptable to be gay than own a gun!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think that it's possible to be too liberal when the topic is human rights, of which gay rights is a subset.

And yes, it is more socially acceptable to by gay, or to be gray-haired, than to own a gun, if the gun is meant for killing people. Up here in Canada, that's just not socially acceptable.

Gary

Rocket

10-12-2003, 07:55 AM

Gary,

There's always been "gay rights". Gays, like all citizens are protected under the Human Rights Act. They ask for SPECIAL RIGHTS...and from what I've seen..the push the envelope.

The vast majority of firearms owners aren't using their guns to shoot people. You don't really think that 1 Billion dollar licensing scheme by the dullard Liberal Party is going to help things do you? I hope not..

For the fellow in San Diego. The blast of your firearm would distract the neighborhood..so no..you can't shoot your gun in your backyard. I know, it's tough living in San Diego (I've been there) but that's the way it is.

BTW..this is the same reason you can't walk nude in your backyard. Your nudity will also distract the neighbor hood. If you want to do, just build a high fence..and be nude all you want. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-12-2003, 08:35 AM

Frank

"The last thing on earth I want is police who arrest people because the police officer thinks that person "might" commit a crime."

OK. The police have reliable information that Joe Smith has a plan to murder a member of your family. So they should wait until it happens and only then do something, right? Somehow I don't think the police even in your country would let that happen without doing everything within their power to stop it.

You talk a lot about freedom. Freedom is a relative and not an absolute concept. I don't have the freedom to take someone's life and a nudist doesn't have the freedom to go naked into the public places that we all have to use and pay for and upset or offend people.

"If what you say is true, it will be a cold day in hell before I ever set foot in the UK."

Fair enough, Frank. You stay in your freedom-loving America! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jochanaan

"It is true that anyone in the US or Canada would be arrested if they walked naked down a busy street. But some of us are idealistic enough to wonder if they should be."

There is no law against wondering.

"And some radicals are idealistic enough to challenge the laws they see as unjust and oppressive."

You don't have to break a law to challenge it, as I have said here several times. Other than in the most extreme circumstances, if you break a law made by a democratically elected government then you are not only behaving illegally, you are behaving immorally. We can all find laws that we disagree with but if we all just decided one day to break them then the whole system would collapse and anarchy would rule. Fortunately most of us are too responsible to behave in that way, and there is sufficient room in prisons for those who are not.

Bob S.

"So what would Mr. Policeman do in that situation? Is it an arrestable offence? Or would he just warn the naked man that others were coming (which sounds much better)?"

The policeman would have many options but, in practice, he would probably warn the man either to cover up or get out of the public place immediately. If he did not do so, or repeated the behaviour, he would be arrested.

"And what if said parties ahead are actually members of a nudist resort? Mr. Policeman would then have no reason to act as he is protecting no one".

Of course not. Nudist resorts are an entirely different matter. But there are, to my knowledge, no "nudist resorts" in the UK to date.

"Also, what if he went into the path knowing that it is rarely used and it was a rainy day? There would be very little likelyhood of him coming across anyone else."

The officer would still tell him to cover up or get out of the public place just in case someone came along who would see him. You shouldn't confuse England with the US, Bob. You would be hard pressed to find any country walk in England of any size where the chances of coming across another person, including kids or a courting couple or a dog walker etc, are close to zero - even on a rainy day. If the walker was, e.g., sunbathing in an exceptionally remote spot, then the policeman might tell him to be vigilant for others who may come along and to cover up if they do so, but otherwise leave them to it. Also remember that under English law, the policeman himself can be "offended" by the nudity!!!

"In your law, there is no crime committed as there is no victim. This is the ultimate thought crime, one where the thoughts are being taken from the non-existent victim. This law would be easily abused."

Bob, in practice these laws aren't abused. In fact, they are very rarely used!! In fact, I would go so far as to wager that most police officers have never and will never exercise these powers during their entire police service! Preventative laws are there to protect people, not to persecute them.

Stu

Nude in the North

10-12-2003, 08:41 AM

Rocket,
Can you tell us what year and what country this "Human Rights Act" was passed?
Would this "Act" cover all Human rights or just the ones you select to allow it to cover.

And What part of the history of the human race does the few years since the passage of this "Act" is considered "Always".
If there have always been Gay Rights, why do governments keep passing laws to give them rights. It sounds a bit pointless to give rights to people that have "always" had them.

Oh, and by the way. Blacks Beach isn't a Legal Nude beach. It's simply an accepted one. There have been no laws passed to make it Legal to be nude there. Haulover beach in Florida is the Only Legal Nude beach in the USA. Do you still think that's fair?

Steve

Rik

10-12-2003, 11:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
In Canada, it's more socially acceptable to be gay than own a gun!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just spotted that little gem and thought "yeah, she's talking some sense" and then I spotted the three exclamation marks and realised she was being ironic.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing and I doubt she would understand why.

Rik

namedun

10-12-2003, 11:50 AM

um, the backyard shooting range metaphor isn't very good. The reason you can't just start shooting things in your backyard isn't because you will freak out your neighbors by ?distracting them?, the reason is you will freak out your neighbors because they will feel unsafe. Shooting ranges are a tad more regulated than anyones home-made do it yourself backyard shoot-out complex. The main reason your required to go to a shooting range is because the range is most likely not in the center of a residential area, and because whoever built the place probably had a lot of experiance in stopping and containing lethal flying projectiles.
For all these reasons, it seems wrong to equate shooting a lethal weapon in the privacy of your backyard, to merely removing your clothing in the privacy of your backyard. Being naked has a significantly less chance of killing or hurting one of your neighbors than firing a gun.

Be happy be nude /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Namedun

Nude in the North

10-12-2003, 12:01 PM

Actually My neighbor does shoot guns in his backyard. He has a gun repair shop just 3 houses away from me and from time to time he test fires them in his backyard. Nobody ever complains about it because he knows what he's doing and other than being startled once in awhile when the sound breaks the silence of the neighborhood he's not hurting anybody.
Sort of like being nude. Other than startling someone once in awhile, nobody get's hurt.

Steve

Bob S.

10-12-2003, 07:45 PM

"The police have reliable information that Joe Smith has a plan to murder a member of your family. So they should wait until it happens and only then do something, right? Somehow I don't think the police even in your country would let that happen without doing everything within their power to stop it."

stu, you tell us to stop comparing public nudity to slavery, oppression, etc. So would you please stop comparing nudity to murder. This is a no-brainer. And plus, Joe Smith has already committed a crime, conspiracy to commit murder.

"he policeman would have many options but, in practice, he would probably warn the man either to cover up or get out of the public place immediately."

Common sense rules!! And for my supposition that the group headed for Joe was that they were all nudists, just clothed on this walk. They would not have minded seeing a naked person.

"The officer would still tell him to cover up or get out of the public place just in case someone came along who would see him."

I still don't get that, stu. He is being careful not to let anyone see him using a rarely used path and still you are not letting him be naked? Give Joe a break!

Bob S.

10-13-2003, 12:46 AM

Bob

"stu, you tell us to stop comparing public nudity to slavery, oppression, etc. So would you please stop comparing nudity to murder. This is a no-brainer."

OK, but even if we are talking about a less serious crime, let's say assault or criminal damage, do we not expect the police to try to prevent the crime? Here in the UK the police are told that their duties are "the prevention and detection of crime and upholding the Queen's Peace".

"And plus, Joe Smith has already committed a crime, conspiracy to commit murder."

Many, if not most, premeditated murders are committed by an assailant working alone. Conspiracy requires the involvement of two or more persons conspiring together to commit an indictable offence. Planning a murder on your own is not a crime.

"I still don't get that, stu. He is being careful not to let anyone see him using a rarely used path and still you are not letting him be naked? Give Joe a break!"

It's a judgement call, Bob, but here in the England we are a lot of people on a small island. Joe is taking a significant risk that he would be seen and people would be offended and so the cop would be reasonable in telling him to cover up - or else. It's probably very different where you live.

Stu

Gary Naturist

10-13-2003, 01:51 AM

Rocket said: "They ask for SPECIAL RIGHTS...and from what I've seen..the push the envelope."

By SPECIAL RIGHTS, I assume that you mean rights not enjoyed by heterosexuals. What rights are those?

Rocket also said: "BTW..this is the same reason you can't walk nude in your backyard. Your nudity will also distract the neighbor hood. If you want to do, just build a high fence..and be nude all you want."

A good looking young woman enjoying the sun topfree in her back yard might also distract the neighborhood. Would you also require her to build a high fence?

How about a good looking young woman wearing a bikini in her back yard? A fence for her as well?

Gary

10-13-2003, 09:01 AM

Gary,

"A good looking young woman enjoying the sun topfree in her back yard might also distract the neighborhood. Would you also require her to build a high fence?"

I would - most definitely - and I bet Rocket feels the same way!

"How about a good looking young woman wearing a bikini in her back yard? A fence for her as well?"

No way! Where are my binoculars!!!

Stu

Frank R

10-13-2003, 04:35 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB] Frank

"The last thing on earth I want is police who arrest people because the police officer thinks that person "might" commit a crime."

OK. The police have reliable information that Joe Smith has a plan to murder a member of your family. So they should wait until it happens and only then do something, right? Somehow I don't think the police even in your country would let that happen without doing everything within their power to stop it.

This may shock you Stu but the fact is I can legally plan to murder anyone I want and I can even plan to overthrow the United States Government. The US Supreme Court says so. It is only after I have taken an affirmative step to carry out my plans have I broken any law. The mere planning is not a crime, only attempting to carry it out is. Have no fear, I will most certainly stay here in the USA. Tell me this, why did you guys ever bother to fight Hitler if you wanted to adopt his views his law and order?

10-14-2003, 08:58 AM

Frank,

"I can legally plan to murder anyone I want and I can even plan to overthrow the United States Government. The US Supreme Court says so. It is only after I have taken an affirmative step to carry out my plans have I broken any law. The mere planning is not a crime, only attempting to carry it out is."

It's the same here - merely planning to commit a crime until you either conspire with others to do it, or take steps that are more than merely preparatory to its commission. But that doesn't mean that our police are helpless to do anything if they know that a crime is about to be committed. We have preventative legislation here that can be used in such cases to facilitate arresting and detaining people. It is very rarely used, but it is there on the statute books - and quite right too. The law isn't just there to punish wrongdoers - it exists to protect the citizens too.

Somehow I reckon that if your law enforcement authorities discovered that a terrorist had made a plan to commit a major atrocity in your country, they would act to thwart it before it happened, and not just allow it to happen. If their policy is to do the latter then suicide bombers and such like are going to reap some real damage to your nation in years to come.

"Tell me this, why did you guys ever bother to fight Hitler if you wanted to adopt his views his law and order?"

We didn't. In some ways our laws are more restrictive than yours - e.g. we have no right of gun ownership etc. But in return we have a far lower serious crime and murder rate than you have. There is always a trade-off between civil liberties and freedom from crime. If you ever did come here you would see that, in the things that really matter, we are no less free than you are.

Stu

Bob S.

10-14-2003, 07:30 PM

"Many, if not most, premeditated murders are committed by an assailant working alone."

That's what I meant, premeditated murder, not conspiracy. I'll have to check out my sister's college law enforcement books.

And for any potential physically harmful crime, the police do have the responsibility to prevent it if they know that a crime will be committed. But I think that even you (and the police) prioritize crimes. If a police officer saw a naked man and a clothed man with a gun approaching a group of people, which one of the men would he choose to stop (asuming he could only get to one of them)?

"Joe is taking a significant risk that he would be seen"

Not in my hypothetical. I said it was raining and he was traveling on a rarely-used path, one with so many obstacles that only the most experienced hikers dare to hike it. There, he can't encounter children or old people.

"A good looking young woman enjoying the sun topfree in her back yard might also distract the neighborhood."

Gary, she must be very attractive! Who is she, Helen of Troy? If she is in her own backyard, how would the neighborhood be distracted? They must be all crowding around her fence, peering in.

Bob S.

namedun

10-14-2003, 08:55 PM

Would you guys please get off this pre-crime prevention thing? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gary Naturist

10-15-2003, 12:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Gary, she must be very attractive! Who is she, Helen of Troy? If she is in her own backyard, how would the neighborhood be distracted? They must be all crowding around her fence, peering in.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bob, I was just focusing on Rocket's comment: "BTW..this is the same reason you can't walk nude in your backyard. Your nudity will also distract the neighbor hood. If you want to do, just build a high fence..and be nude all you want."

Her concern seems to be distracting the neighborhood, and I was pointing out that it would be possible for someone not nude to distract the neighborhood. I don't think that it's reasonable to require that a high fence be built for anythingg that would distract the neighborhood, so why build one for nudity?

It's not really the distraction, it's the nudity.

Gary

nudeM

10-15-2003, 06:22 AM

Since I started loving the nudist lifestyle last year, I decided to begin going nude in the backyard. At times, I hid behind boards, laid in the tall grass and usually very quiet. That all changed when I decided to ask the neighbors. I was uncomfortable trying to hide my nudism, so I decided to ask the neighbors if they would object to my being nude in the backyard. To my amazement, no one objected. They all stated they had no problems with it.

I have four neighbors (back fence is split between two yards). I asked only three of them (still leary about the fourth). She is an elderly lady who doesn't get out much. I know for a fact that the others have seen me at one time or another (seen one of them glancing). A couple of them made some remarks about seeing me, but no objections. I do know they have seen me because we have a above-ground swimming pool. So, naturally you have to climb the ladder to get in. This past summer has been great.

What I told the neighbors was that I enjoyed being nude outside and if my nudity would offend them. They all stated that my yard is my yard and am free to go nude anytime. Sure, if I started to have wild parties, orgys or anything in that matter, then I'm sure things would be different. But since I don't hang around that kind of people, then I am free to be nude outside anytime. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

10-15-2003, 07:09 AM

Bob,

"I meant, premeditated murder, not conspiracy."

Merely planning a crime is not a crime in itself. But here the police can and, occasionally, do, intervene to prevent crime.

"And for any potential physically harmful crime, the police do have the responsibility to prevent it if they know that a crime will be committed."

Why only "physically" harmful crime? What's so different about causing "physical" damage as opposed to psychological or emotional harm? In some ways they can be worse! Even rape, whilst being a physical crime in nature, more often does not result in physical injury.

"But I think that even you (and the police) prioritize crimes. If a police officer saw a naked man and a clothed man with a gun approaching a group of people, which one of the men would he choose to stop (asuming he could only get to one of them)?"

The clothed man with a gun, of course. Then come back for the naked man later.

"Not in my hypothetical. I said it was raining and he was traveling on a rarely-used path, one with so many obstacles that only the most experienced hikers dare to hike it. There, he can't encounter children or old people."

OK, well it would be down to the judgement of the police officer on the day. He would know that he would have to justify whatever decision he made subsequently in court anyway. But, as a rule of thumb, the onus is upon any nude person using a public place to ensure that he wouldn't be seen by another person who might be offended by the sight. The plice officer himself might be just that offended person!

"... so I decided to ask the neighbors if they would object to my being nude in the backyard. To my amazement, no one objected. They all stated they had no problems with it."

That is both enterprising of you and extremely considerate. Good for you! What would you have done had they said "well, actually, we find nudity REALLY offensive, and would prefer it if you didn't do it."? I know some people who would say precisely that.

Stu

Rocket

10-15-2003, 03:37 PM

Gary,

Here in Canada...sunbathing in the nude in one's backyard IN VIEW of others is against the Criminal Code. If someone does this here..in my neighborhood..I promise..I would complain to the police..AND IT WILL STOP.

Someone in a bathing suit is still clothed...

If someone wants to sunbathe nude in their backyard..I have no problem with it if: (1) they have a high enough fence no one can see (2) everyone else in the neighborhood freely consents.

I am not going to give my consent, and I am very sure others here feel the same way..SO NO ONE IS GOING TO BE NUDE IN PUBLIC HERE.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Naturist Mark

10-15-2003, 04:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Here in Canada...sunbathing in the nude in one's backyard IN VIEW of others is against the Criminal Code. If someone does this here..in my neighborhood..I promise..I would complain to the police..AND IT WILL STOP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! A 'Nudist' who is offended by nudity!

Nice troll http://radiodiag.homestead.com/files/troll.gif

-Mark

Rocket

10-15-2003, 06:39 PM

Not the case at all..

Just think there is a TIME AND PLACE for everything.

I've been to nude beaches..and swims..but that doesn't mean I am going to mandate nudity anywhere and believe it should be public. I don't believe it should be public..

Geeze...you read too much into what is said. I like sex..put if my neighbor was doing it in public view..I would be opposed to that as well.

BTW...haven't said someone CAN'T be nude in their property..just have a high fence so others can see..or if that's too much..just do something to block the view.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NudeAl

10-15-2003, 07:24 PM

Let me get this straight if you happened to see one of your neighbors in their backyard sunbathing nude minding their own business you would call the cops? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

What the !@##*! ? /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

You are no nudist nor are you a naturist I would even say you are not even remotely nude tolerent. I doulbt if you have ever even been to a nude beach or resort. In fact I have never heard you make even one pro nude remark.

I think you are missing the whole point of this board. But then again maybe you are a troll.

Rocket

10-15-2003, 07:41 PM

NudeAl,

Calm down...

One doesn't have the right to impose nudity on others..and so this person isn't minding their own business.

Yes..if it happens in my neighborhood..I'll complain...I have a right to enjoy my backyard (in this case my parent's) without seeing that.

It's not going to happen though..because no one is going to do this.

I haven't polled my neighbors, but in all the years I lived there, I never saw anyone lying naked out there. Everyone put something on. If someone wants to lie sans clothes..just build a tall fence or do something to keep from view. Or....go to a nude beach.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW..what's a pro-nude remark? As I said, there's a time and place for everything. Being exposed in public simply ISN'T the place and it's not the TIME either when there's others present.

I've been to a nude beach...but I guarantee..if I was camping and showering in a campsite..I won't be exposed. I just ask from others the same courtesy..

NudeAl

10-15-2003, 07:58 PM

What ever floats your boat.

I guess I don't see this as a big problem. Now if they are standing out in their front yard in the middle of the day waving at every car that goes by then I think they may be going a bit far. I would have a problem with that. But even then I think I would take the mater up with them before I went and called the cops.

As to pro nude remarks that is I have not heard you utter any kind of encouragement toward the nude lifestyle.

Naturist Mark

10-15-2003, 08:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
One doesn't have the right to impose nudity on others..and so this person isn't minding their own business.

Yes..if it happens in my neighborhood..I'll complain...I have a right to enjoy my backyard (in this case my parent's) without seeing that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So this is a nudist who is offended by other people's nudity? Who considers someone sunbaking nude in their backyard to be 'imposing nudity on others'.

Yeah

http://www.clicweb.fr/clip/dessins/troll.gif
nice troll

Bob S.

10-15-2003, 08:09 PM

"But here the police can and, occasionally, do, intervene to prevent crime."

Police would always do their best to internvene to prevent crimes. But in all seriousness (or joshing), Joe wouldn't encounter any police officers in the hiking trail. At least in my hypothetical. So there! But I do wonder why there is a victimless crime over there?

"What's so different about causing "physical" damage as opposed to psychological or emotional harm?"

Well, phsically harmful has visible injuries; I didn't really mean anything extra by that. I had a headache and was getting sleepy. But viewing simple nudity will not cause any physical or emotional harm to most people. Only a small minority will be severely and adversely affected by it. I've already given my reasons why.

"The plice officer himself might be just that offended person!"

I find that to be very iffy at best. I'm not sure if that is how it is over here, but I am sure there are some jurisdictions where that may be the case.

"If someone wants to sunbathe nude in their backyard..I have no problem with it if: (1) they have a high enough fence no one can see (2) everyone else in the neighborhood freely consents."

1) Rocket, if someone does as Gary did and asks, then there would be no reason for a high fence. And if they cannot be seen from public property, then they would have the legal right.

2) The only people that need to give consent are those who would be directly affected. Not everyone in the neighborhood.

"I am not going to give my consent, and I am very sure others here feel the same way..SO NO ONE IS GOING TO BE NUDE IN PUBLIC HERE."

Define public. I thought we were talking about backyard nudity.

"Yes..if it happens in my neighborhood"

Not if it is happening five yards away.

" I never saw anyone lying naked out there."

Maybe because they have been lying naked out of your eyesight. What you don't see can't hurt you.

Bob S.

10-15-2003, 08:40 PM

I saw this story on the main INA page: "The Right to Go Naked in Public in Chico Prevails." So what and where is Chico? The only place I've heard of that even comes close to that is Chicago.

10-15-2003, 09:47 PM

Chico is in California. Somebody should post the NAC Alerts on this website so people know what is going on.

I do post them on mine.

********************************************
NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
ADVISORY
********************************************
http://www.naturistsociety.com/NAC/
********************************************

DATE : October 9, 2003
SUBJECT: Chico anti-nudity ordinance defeated
TO : All naturists

Dear Naturist,

By a 4-3 vote of its city council, the City of Chico, California has
rejected a new anti-nudity ordinance.

Municipalities consider nudity restrictions with alarming frequency, but
this was a special and significant instance. Unlike most others, the
Chico proposal did not come as a reaction to adult entertainment.
Instead, the proposed Chico ordinance was a direct attempt to ban
recreational nudity on public land. Portions of Bidwell Park are
traditionally used for skinny-dipping and nude sunbathing. Eliminating
nudity there was the sole reason for the ordinance, and recreational
nudity on public land became the specific target and focus of the public
debate.

The Naturist Action Committee played an important role in the defeat of
the proposed ordinance. NAC board member and California attorney Charles
Harris provided the City Council with informational material and
testified before the Council's Internal Affairs Committee on September 9.

NAC board member Don Stanton, also a California lawyer, met individually
with Chico City Attorney David Frank. Stanton testified against the
ordinance in a public hearing held before the City Council on October 7.

Local public involvement was a key to the defeat of the proposed measure.
Citizens testified convincingly concerning the normalcy and inherent
inoffensiveness of mere nudity.

The Chico Police Department currently enforces California state law
concerning indecent exposure. Police act only upon the receipt of a
complaint, and nudity is illegal only if it involves sexual intent. In
recent comments, Chico Police Chief Bruce Hagerty recalled having
received only one complaint about nudity.

A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY

The win in Chico is important because the proposed ordinance was a direct
assault on the responsible nude use of public lands. The Naturist Action
Committee recognized the need to act quickly and vigorously, and NAC is
pleased to have been a part of this victory.

HELP NAC CONTINUE TO HELP NATURISTS!

The Naturist Action Committee exists to advance and protect the rights of
naturists throughout North America. NAC is a volunteer nonprofit
organization that relies on the grass roots participation and financial
support of naturists who understand that individuals working together can
make a difference.

Won't you take a moment to help NAC by sending a generous donation? You
may send your donation to the address below, or you may call toll free
(800) 886-7230 to donate by phone using your MasterCard or Visa.

NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Thank you for choosing to make a difference!

Naturally,

Bob Morton
Chairman & Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

-------------------------------------------------
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton - <ctnudists@aol.com>
Board Member Don Stanton - <dfs@sunset.net>
Board Member Charles Harris - <harrisnaturist@comcast.net>
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick - <naturist@sunclad.com>
--------------------------------------------------

nudeM

10-16-2003, 06:25 AM

For everybodys information, Chico is in northern California between Sacramento and Redding. I do believe there is a college campus as well. It is a town of roughly 40,000.

10-16-2003, 09:16 AM

Thank you, Cyndiann and nudeM, for the info.

Yukon1

10-16-2003, 11:47 AM

The laws in Alaska and the Yukon Territory are pretty vague (as are most such laws), but I've never seen a charge attempted - against a naturist - in either jurisdiction. I've just added a paragraph about that legality to my Web site - http://www.yukonalaska.com/nudehiking/ :

Of note, the legality of nude hiking in the Yukon was established way back in 1977 by a court decision that commented regarding the anti-nudity law (Section 174 of the Criminal Code): "this offence is not aimed at conduct such as swimming nude at an isolated beach, even where the accused misjudges the loneliness of the beach." In Alaska, you are safe unless you "intentionally expose [your] genitals to another person with reckless disregard for the offensive, insulting, or frightening effect the act may have on that person."

Murray