What charges can be brought re public nudity? [Archive]

View Full Version : What charges can be brought re public nudity?

Gary Naturist

12-29-2003, 03:42 AM

What are the possible charges across all jurisdictions that could be brought against someone who is nude in public?

Two examples of public nudity:
* sunbathing nude in a park (no activity involved),
* going for a walk nude in a park.

A. Definitions not referencing any activity by the nude person:
1. Public nudity.
2. Being so clad so as to offend against public decency or order (Criminal Code of Canada).

B. Definitions that may or may not involve activity by the nude person:
1. Causing a disturbance.
2. Indecent exposure
3. Indecent exhibition.
4. Public nuisance.
5. Creating an unsafe situation.

C. Definitions involving some activity by the nude person:
1. Lewd conduct.
2. Offensive behavior.
3. Indecent behavior.

What can you add to the above lists?

Gary

Gary Naturist

12-29-2003, 03:42 AM

Rex

12-29-2003, 06:14 AM

Hi Gary,
I can only speak for Western Australia.
I think that most of these supposed "offences" are a stupid throwback to the days when we had no internet, no TV, no magazines, no cinemas etc and no rights to question the decisions made, for the good of the common, uneducated masses, by our "Lords and Masters".
The reality is that the "Lords and Masters" and the self-appointed guardians of public morality are still with us and sometimes we have to put them in their place.
I may have this wrong, because I don't have total recall, but I believe that for "offensive behavior", the prosecution has to prove that you have "an intention to shock".
I think that "intent" has a bearing on all sorts of so-called offences.
Maybe Stu can help us here, because he has legal training and, in his own way, I think he is a fair-minded sort of guy.
On the one occasion that my wife and I were arrested for being nude on a beach, the police did not know what to charge us with, because all the usual "offences" had been thrown out of court in WA, so, in desperation, they charged us with "not wearing a proper costume" under the 1902 Police Act. Within the City of Fremantle, where the alleged offence occured, a "proper costume" is being covered from level with the armpits to at least 3 inches of leg and a front skirt for both men and women [last reviewed 1930 something]. We were represented, free of charge, by an expensive, high profile lawyer and, as you would expect, acquitted.
As I pointed out afterwards, to an eager, delighted media, virtually all the people on the beach, most of the guys working on the building sites, and many people in the street, were not wearing a "proper costume".
Look, I'm not offering legal advice, but if you look into it, you may find that a lot of the so-called legal sanctions against nudity are just bluff and counter-bluff.
As I've said before, I'm a reasonable sort of person who does not go out of my way to give offence and maybe that's why I've managed to get away with a few things.

Frank R

12-29-2003, 06:44 AM

There is a big difference between the charges that can get you arrested (police action) and those you may actually appear in court for. Our police here held a big news conference (TV, radio, newspaper)and announced that any female appearing topless on 6th stree (where most of the nightclubs and bars are) would be arrested. The following day the city attorney held a big news conference to say there is not (and never has been in Texas) a law that prohibits females from going topless. Hence, for a short while, we had the police trying to enforce a law "to keep the peace" when there was no crime being committed.

Many times, simply demanding a trial we cause the charges to be dropped. I received a parking ticket once and went to courthouse and said I wanted a trial by jury, since, I stated, the no parking sign could not be seen. Rather than give me a trial, they just dropped the charges.

Rex

12-29-2003, 08:03 AM

Congratulations, Frank R.
Too many people think "you can't beat City Hall" and meekly give in.
I've known, for a long time, that the authorities will usually take the easy way out.Give them a hard time and they'll generally leave you alone.

12-29-2003, 08:49 AM

Here in the England you can add:

Insulting or disorderly behaviour intended or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. (Section 5, Public Order Act 1986). That was the offence that Mr Gough stands convicted of in his home town.

In Scotland they can clearly add:

Breach of the peace, and
Behaviour likely to cause distraction to traffic.

In both countries, if the behaviour is persistent and considered to be "antisocial", then application can be made to a magistrates court for an "Antisocial Behaviour Order" (ASBO). That Order will have conditions such as not to enter certain places or expose certain parts of the body. Although this is technically a civil order, if you breach any condition of an ASBO you can be imprisoned for upto 5 years!

Stu

Rex

12-29-2003, 09:08 AM

On reading what can happen to a person in primitive, superstitious countries like England and Scotland, it makes me wonder what could have happened in more modern, enlightened countries, such as Afghanistan, under the Taliban.

MikeJB

12-29-2003, 11:08 PM

Insulting or disorderly behaviour intended or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. (Section 5, Public Order Act 1986). That was the offence that Mr Gough stands convicted of in his home town.
-----------------------------------------------

I dont think this law would apply to most people who would fall under the simple public nudity crowd because these people never "intend to" and surely are not "likely" to cause alarm or distress. Most places you have to be DOING something other than the nudity itself that brings alarm or distress, so really these "intended" or "likely to disturb" laws are a bunch of crap.

Gary Naturist

12-30-2003, 01:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:

I dont think this law would apply to most people who would fall under the simple public nudity crowd because these people never "intend to" and surely are not "likely" to cause alarm or distress. Most places you have to be DOING something other than the nudity itself that brings alarm or distress, so really these "intended" or "likely to disturb" laws are a bunch of crap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>An important element in laws that relate to public nudity is whether there is any reference to intent. If there is, then the nudist can simply say that he did not intend to (whatever).

If the law focuses on the actual effect on a single individual, then the nudist has a problem.

However, the law may focus on what the effect would be on the average member of the community in the the particular situation. I think that reference to "likely" does this.

The best laws are ones that focus on the action of the person rather than on simple nudity.

Gary

Frank R

01-01-2004, 07:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rex:
On reading what can happen to a person in primitive, superstitious countries like England and Scotland, it makes me wonder what could have happened in more modern, enlightened countries, such as Afghanistan, under the Taliban. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Great post Rex. Boy, I am really glad now that we won the American Revolution! When I think of how backward (in my opinion) some of our laws are, I am ever so grateful that we live in a republic and not a democracy.

01-01-2004, 08:07 AM

Mike

"I dont think this law would apply to most people who would fall under the simple public nudity crowd because these people never "intend to" and surely are not "likely" to cause alarm or distress."

Most magistrates courts in the UK would accept hat a person being naked in a public place would be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. And as Gary says, that's all that is needed.

Gary

"the law may focus on what the effect would be on the average member of the community in the the particular situation. I think that reference to "likely" does this."

Exactly right!

"The best laws are ones that focus on the action of the person rather than on simple nudity".

IMO the best laws are the ones that protect the safety and feelings of people using public places from the antisocial behaviour of others.

Frank R

"Great post Rex."

Rex was being ironic. I'm sure he doesn't really believe that people in Afghanistan under the Taliban had more basic freedoms than a British subject.

"When I think of how backward (in my opinion) some of our laws are, I am ever so grateful that we live in a republic and not a democracy."

Your President seems to think that the US is a democracy - read his speeches - he called your country "the world's greatest democracy". Most republics are democracies (e.g. Ireland, France, Germany, Russia). There is even a country called "The Democratic Republic of Congo".

My dictionary defines "republic" as "a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power".

One difference between the UK and the US is that, theoretically speaking, ultimate power rests with the Monarch. In reality, our Queen is merely a figurehead and government is conducted by elected representatives. There are people in the UK who would like to see our country become a republic and substitute Queen Elizabeth for, say, President Blair. Apart from the fact that there would be a different head on currency and postage stamps, not much else would change concerning the way we are governed or the rights of the people.

Stu

MikeJB

01-01-2004, 02:02 PM

-------------------------------------------------Mike

"I dont think this law would apply to most people who would fall under the simple public nudity crowd because these people never "intend to" and surely are not "likely" to cause alarm or distress."

Most magistrates courts in the UK would accept hat a person being naked in a public place would be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. And as Gary says, that's all that is needed.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah it just seems kind of dumb that youd get arrested just for being naked and minding your own business and besides your appearance, youre not causing any real harm to anyone. I think you should have to be arrested more for whatever actions you are taking and not the fact that youre naked. I think nudity just bothers some people more than truly shocking and alarming them, it might seem that way but some people overreact and really it has more to do with the fact that they simply dont like the sight of it than it actually harming them in any way.

---------------------------------------------
"The best laws are ones that focus on the action of the person rather than on simple nudity".

IMO the best laws are the ones that protect the safety and feelings of people using public places from the antisocial behaviour of others.
------------------------------------------------

Being nude is not unsafe to those individuals and just because their feelings "might" be hurt isnt a good enough reason to arrest someone. People's feelings get hurt in all sorts of ways, its just something people gotta deal with, if they dont like the nudity then they should simply look the other way or go someplace where they dont have to be exposed to it anymore. I think what he was trying to say though is that when someone is convicted of doing something and they happen to be nude, the law should concentrate on whatever crime they commited and not merely on the nudity as some courts will do, they'll focus entirely on the fact that the person is nude and not even acknowledge whatever crime they did because they would feel that the nudity is more important and thus overrides whatever crime they did. I think the laws should allow people to be nude but if they are seen as doing anything wrong or suspicious then they should be arrested like anyone else. When I talk about something wrong or suspicious im talking about an action other than the mere fact that the person is nude.

Kari P

01-01-2004, 11:47 PM

Stu,

"Most magistrates courts in the UK would accept hat a person being naked in a public place would be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress."

This is what I don't like in your local law: the word "likely". It would be much better if it was required in each individual case to be shown that harassment, alarm or distress has actually been caused to someone (an eyewitness who says so) and in conditions that the offended cannot easily avoid it. A shortly passing offence coming from what one has momentarily seen or heard should not be considered as punishable.

But there is an aspect in the law you must admit. If it can be shown with reliable research that only a quite small proportion of people would suffer from any "harassment, alarm or distress" when seeing nudity in a public place, then the law cannot be used against it. I know that there will never be such a survey you could admit to be reliable. And with the indefinite word "likely" in the law we cannot know how small the measured proportion should be.

01-02-2004, 10:02 AM

Kari P

01-02-2004, 12:55 PM

Stu,

"there isn't any real interest in this topic on the part of academics or the public."

There should be. Naturist organizations should show that there is a social demand to this kind of independent academic research that they cannot order themselves or support in any way because there are people who would not rely on the results if they did it.

I can accept your definition of significant proportion if the first percentage was a bit higher and the second was attached to the strong negative feelings that are mentioned in the law: "harassment, alarm or distress".

Remember that you already agreed that a fair study should ask for acceptance of nudity in several classes of public places. Naturists are not coming to the streets in the first phase. If they gain acceptance for nudity in some public places they can be satisfied with it for some time. Not forever - this is an endless struggle.

"The nudity IS the crime. Period."

No period. It is a crime only if the law says it explicitly. Otherwise we are in the current situation discussing if nudity satisfies the characteristics of another offence defined in the law without using the word "nudity" in its definition. The naturist approach is that the characteristics of such an offence aren't automatically satisfied with simple nudity.

If there was a generally accepted research that proved either the acceptablity or unacceptability of nudity in a situation, then that specific situation is clear: nudity is not or is a crime. Can you see that also you need this kind of research if the law is what it currently is with no mention of nudity?

Kari P

MikeJB

01-02-2004, 04:18 PM

Mike

"Yeah it just seems kind of dumb that youd get arrested just for being naked and minding your own business and besides your appearance, youre not causing any real harm to anyone".

I consider causing shock and offence to people who are using their own public places to be a type of harm.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but that shock and alarm is more misunderstanding of nudity in general and the fact that our society is brainwashed to think that nudity is bad, usually without any proof or any facts to back that idea up. I think most people would agree that there needs to be some other offense going on besides the nudity before something can be done.

------------------------------------------------
"it might seem that way but some people overreact and really it has more to do with the fact that they simply dont like the sight of it than it actually harming them in any way."

No. They might not like the sight of somebody with green hair, or a club foot, or a man in a kilt, but they don't find that offensive in the same way they do where somebody is intentionally exposing their genitals. It's only an overreaction in your opinion. The fact is that many people find the idea of public nudity to be repulsive and shocking. That's why it's generally not acceptable in public places.
------------------------------------------------

Beleive me. People can be shocked by green hair or someone in a kilt just as much as seeing genitals. There are someplaces you can be beaten up or killed just for wearing something that someone finds offensive or shocking and it can be just one or two people, but if those people are bigger than you or have weapons then just having those one or two people not liking it can cause you to get hurt. I think this happens alot in gangs when people wear clothing that is objectionable or more likely that might be seen as something a rival gang would wear. Im just trying to say that nudity isnt the only thing that bothers or shocks people in the way you describe and im sure some things other tha nudity cause more of this than nudity itself. Ive seen people react that way to clothing and colored hair n such the same way you say the public reacts to nudity, so keeping clothes on people is not the answer and nudity shouldnt be seen as any worse than these things are and some of those things actually are insulting and offensive to people, whereas nudity is natural and should not be offensive in any way shape or form.

------------------------------------------------
"People's feelings get hurt in all sorts of ways, its just something people gotta deal with,"

OK. I don't like your nudity. I think your nakedness is revolting and you are upsetting my children. So you go away and deal with it. (?) You see, that attitude isn't very helpful, is it? People are entitled to use public places without suffering angst or distress. The tiny minority who are indifferent to the feelings of others must be controlled. That's what the law is there for.
------------------------------------------------

Beleive me, even if I could be nude in a public place and I ran into you and my nudity offended you, if you were polite and respectful to me then I would respect your feelings and move someplace where you didnt have to see or deal with me and thus the problem would be solved, not everyone is like that though but when and if they are then I would respect their feelings, depending on the situation of course. The only thing I wouldnt like about your comment is not what you said but the way you said it, if youre rude or hateful like that then people wont respect how you feel weither they are nude or not because you dont make the effort to be respectful and show your feelings in a polite way. We are not indiferent to your feelings but we want to be nude in public as much as you want to be clothed and avoid seeing us and I think there needs to be some sort of mutual understanding here so that we can both be happy.

------------------------------------------------
"they'll focus entirely on the fact that the person is nude and not even acknowledge whatever crime they did because they would feel that the nudity is more important and thus overrides whatever crime they did."

The nudity IS the crime. Period.
-------------------------------------------------

This statement had more to do with situations where a person is doing some sort of offense along with the nudity and while the court finds both things to be offenses, they focus on the nudity and usually punish the person just for this and totally ignore the crime itself, which usually is more serious and demands a worse sentence than the nudity does but the nudity bothers these people so much they seem to have a need to deal with it more than the crime and thus the person gets off much easier than they should. I dont see nudity as a crime and I just think that when someone is doing something bad, even if they are nude, the court should concentrate its efforts on dealing with the crime.

-------------------------------------------------
"I think the laws should allow people to be nude.."

I know you do. But I don't.
-------------------------------------------------

Well technically the laws dont say alot of times weither nudity is actually illegal or not, most dont even mention the word "nudity" they just use "likely to cause offense" or something like that and the whole situation is in a grey area because the law doesnt expilcitly say that nudity is wrong but yet it doesnt say its ok either and when using these "likely to cause offense" things means you can arrest someone for almost anything and really the law needs to be more clear.

------------------------------------------------
"This is what I don't like in your local law: the word "likely". It would be much better if it was required in each individual case to be shown that harassment, alarm or distress has actually been caused to someone"

One of the purposes of the law is to be preventative - to save people from suffering angst before it happens. If a policeman saw a naked man walking towards a primary school what is he supposed to do? Just ignore it until he gets complaints? I think not!!! Where I live that sort of behaviour would cause uproar - people would expect him to be arrested immediately!
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but that still means that they dont have to prove that anything would happen. What if the nude man walked by the school and nobody complained and he thus didnt cause any offense, the policeman wouldve wasted his time and caused a bigger scene than if he just had let them man go on his way and arrested him when someone filed a complaint. Usually here in the US, weither the law says nudity is wrong or not, most policemen ive heard things from usually say they wont take any action against nudity until someone files a complaint and so until someone actually does, the policeman does nothing because there really is no reason to beleive or any proof that the person is actually going to do something wrong. Most of the time even if someone does complain, the police find the person to not be causing any harm and usually let them go. So thats where your "likely to cause offense thing" doesnt work and we need laws that are more explicit but also leave room for the police to decide things on their own.

------------------------------------------------
"If it can be shown with reliable research that only a quite small proportion of people would suffer from any "harassment, alarm or distress" when seeing nudity in a public place, then the law cannot be used against it".

It depends what you mean by "small". How about equating it with the number of people who will say that they want the right to be naked in any public place? I bet in this case the 'prudes' would outnumber the 'nudes' many timesover!
------------------------------------------------

I think he is just saying that if the people who actually find the nudity in that area is small compared to the ones who either dont care or dont wanna cause a scene then the law cant really do much because it only offends a small number of people and isnt worth the police time to do anything about it.

-------------------------------------------------
"I know that there will never be such a survey you could admit to be reliable".

Probably not - and not because I won't accept findings that go against my own arguments - but because there isn't any real interest in this topic on the part of academics or the public. If a proper survey were to be carried out that was statistically sound then I would accept the findings.
-------------------------------------------------

I think that a national survey that had very precise questions and that was answered by almost the entire nation that would really put this whole issue to rest and people could have a good idea of how the public as a whole feels about nudity and the country could decide an actual law to either allow public nudity, ban it or make some sort of compromise with the nudists and the public. I just think if we knew what the public thought as a whole that nudists and textile might accept it and we could put this whole bloody issue to rest finally and stop wondering who really does like or dislike it.

------------------------------------------------
"And with the indefinite word "likely" in the law we cannot know how small the measured proportion should be."

A "significant proportion". That would mean at least 20% of the population would find it so unpleasant that they'd go and find a policeman. Or at least 50% express negative feelings such as embarrassment to the idea. Now I wonder if such a survey has ever been done....
-------------------------------------------------

20% isnt very much and that isnt MOST of the population, to have most or even a signifcant amount would have to be something more lik 5)-75% of people being opposed to nudity, which I dont think that many people are actually opposed to it, especially not in the way u describe it.

Frank R

01-02-2004, 05:20 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:

"This is what I don't like in your local law: the word "likely". It would be much better if it was required in each individual case to be shown that harassment, alarm or distress has actually been caused to someone"

One of the purposes of the law is to be preventative - to save people from suffering angst before it happens. If a policeman saw a naked man walking towards a primary school what is he supposed to do? Just ignore it until he gets complaints? I think not!!!

It would appear me Stu that what you desire is some sort of totalitarian police state where people are arrested because they someone thinks they "might" commit a crime. My readings in history tells me the Nazis and communist did really great jobs of locking up people who they thought "might" not be happy in the "thousand year Reich" or "the workers paradise." Police can and do a wonderful job of preventing crime by being present. It follows therefore that the vast majority of crimes are committed when the police are not around. But of course if you just go out and start arresting people because you think they "might" commit a crime, pretty soon almost the entire population will be behind bars.

Answer me this too if you will. When these people who have been arrested because "someone" thought they might commit a crime get to court, what are they going to charged with? Thought crimes? In this country, to be convicted of a crime, you must be found guilty of a specific violation of law "beyond a reasonable doubt" by a jury of your peers. Of course in the "Brave New World" you English like to write about, that won't be a problem will it Stu?

Tell you what Stu, I will report to the police that I believe you are thinking about assaulting some nudist so you need to be locked away. After all, you might be so shocked that you go wild and commit a crime. Sounds good to me and you have said the function of the police is to prevent crime so you really should have no objection.

MikeJB

01-02-2004, 10:12 PM

One of the purposes of the law is to be preventative - to save people from suffering angst before it happens. If a policeman saw a naked man walking towards a primary school what is he supposed to do? Just ignore it until he gets complaints? I think not!!! Where I live that sort of behaviour would cause uproar - people would expect him to be arrested immediately!
------------------------------------------------

I think your complaints have to do with nudity in general, so why would a nude man walking towards a primary school and a nude man walking down a busy street be any different? Im sure youd try to use the political addage *protect/save the children* but I mean really most police wouldnt go after a man just because he is nude without some sort of complaint or some offense being done. I mean just by him being nude, that doesnt say that he is going to cause a crime or cause someone to be shocked or alarmed. For all the policeman knows the nudist could be walking through an area where people live and work that dont mind people being nude and nothing would happen and thus the man would get needlessly arrested. Besides kids seeing nudity isnt bad and its actually good for them and just because he is walking in front of a school is no reason for a policeman to arrest him.

01-03-2004, 01:42 AM

Kari

"Naturist organizations should show that there is a social demand to this kind of independent academic research"

I agree.

"Naturists are not coming to the streets in the first phase. If they gain acceptance for nudity in some public places they can be satisfied with it for some time. Not forever - this is an endless struggle".

So you won't be happy with any kind of compromise. You want to be able to be naked anywhere and at any time you like regardless of whether the rest of society wants that. Then you wonder why I am so opposed to the actions of Steve Gough. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"The naturist approach is that the characteristics of such an offence aren't automatically satisfied with simple nudity."

The judicial approach - and that's the one that counts - is that nudity in circumstances likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress constitutes an offence.

"Can you see that also you need this kind of research if the law is what it currently is with no mention of nudity?"

Such research would certainly clarify public attitudes that could guide our courts.

MikeJB

"Yeah but that shock and alarm is more misunderstanding of nudity in general and the fact that our society is brainwashed to think that nudity is bad, usually without any proof or any facts to back that idea up".

That's just your own perspective that people are "brainwashed". I might think that people who believe in God are brainwashed but I wouldn't stand outside a church and blaspheme. People's feelings should be respected, especially in public.

"I think most people would agree that there needs to be some other offense going on besides the nudity before something can be done."

Most nudists, perhaps. Not the rest of society.

"I would respect your feelings and move someplace where you didnt have to see or deal with me and thus the problem would be solved",

That's nice to know. But if you are naked in a place where there are a lot of other people who aren't naked, then that should indicate that you are likely to cause offence.

"how you feel weither they are nude or not because you dont make the effort to be respectful and show your feelings in a polite way."

Surely, as being clothed in public is the norm, it's incumbent upon the naturist, in the interests of politeness, to check out first whether or not other people mind his or her nudity.

"they focus on the nudity and usually punish the person just for this and totally ignore the crime itself,"

It doesn't work like that. The nudity can be the essence of the crime, a contributory factor, or merely ancilliary to it. In the latter case the crime would not be ignored. If you mugged someone whilst naked you would be charged with the mugging (i.e. robbery) and the nudity (causing harassment, alarm or distress).

"but the nudity bothers these people so much they seem to have a need to deal with it more than the crime and thus the person gets off much easier than they should."

So you agree that nudity really bothers people. Good!

"the laws dont say alot of times weither nudity is actually illegal or not, most dont even mention the word "nudity" they just use "likely to cause offense"

Correct. The law is thus flexible to deal with whatever form of antisocial behaviour comes along; it isn't prescriptive so that, for example, a person changing swimming trunks behind a tree would fall foul; and, if times and public attitudes and sensibilities change then that can be accomodated.

"Yeah but that still means that they dont have to prove that anything would happen."

True. If you drive a car in a dangerous fashion you would be charged even if you hadn't actually caused an accident and no-one was hurt. So why do we have a law against "dangerous driving"? Surely the police should have to prove that harm was actually caused first? Or someone should have to "file a complaint" before the police would take action? The answer is that it is preventative - to stop the bad thing happening in the first place. If the nude man can show to the court that no-one was likely to be offended then he would be acquitted. But remember that a police officer who encounters the nudity is a human being too. He or she can be offended.

"I think he is just saying that if the people who actually find the nudity in that area is small compared to the ones who either dont care or dont wanna cause a scene then the law cant really do much because it only offends a small number of people and isnt worth the police time to do anything about it".

OK, so the small number of people who want to be nude in public have rights but the small (in your opinion) number who find it offensive don't. Hmmm.

"I just think if we knew what the public thought as a whole that nudists and textile might accept it and we could put this whole bloody issue to rest finally and stop wondering who really does like or dislike it".

Agreed. I would accept the outcome of such a survey. But if it showed that most people reacted negatively towards the idea of permitting nudity generally in public places would you accept that and be content to be naked only in private or in designated naturist areas?

"20% isnt very much"

20% is a heck of a bigger proportion than the nudists! If 20% find what 2% want to do is so objectionable that they would call the police then in my book it's the 2% who should conform. Besides, I'm sure you know that the proportion who would react negatively to public nudity would be much greater than 20%. Ryan's survey, for what it's worth, showed that well over 70% indicated emotions ranging from shock to discomfort. People are entitled to use public places without encountering behaviour that causes the to feel uncomfortable.

Frank R

Your response was really bizarre. Did you actually read what I wrote? I never said that someone should be arrested because they MIGHT commit a crime. In most countries of the world, including your own, there is preventative legislation of some sort - that is laws that prevent crime before it happens not when it's too late.

Here in the UK I can't walk the streets with a flick knife, or pepper spray, or a firearm, or a stick of dynamite, in my pocket. If I do then regardless of whether I have used these items I can be arrested and charged with a "possession" offence.

Here in the UK I can't drive over the speed limits, or use my mobile telephone whilst driving, or drive on the wrong side of the road, or run a red traffic light. These are offences in their own right even if I don't cause an accident.

If I stand in a residential street in the middle of the night and shout obscenities, or threats etc I would be at least warned by the police and eventually arrested even though I had caused no physical harm - and even if no-one had complained about me.

No doubt you will say that I live in some sort of Nazi-style totalitarian police state. If that's what you think then I think you need to get on an aeroplane and come and see for yourself.

The nude person in a public place has already committed an act - he has either entered a public place nude, or become nude whilst in it. Most people would know whether or not such nudity was appropriate - whether it would be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". If they carry on regardless then they are behaving in an antisocial way in a public place. And that can be - and often is - criminal. It's the behaviour, not the thought, that is criminal.

"In this country, to be convicted of a crime, you must be found guilty of a specific violation of law "beyond a reasonable doubt" by a jury of your peers".

That applies here too. Our lay magistrates are the people most likely to hear minor offences against public order. They have no legal training and are ordinary members of the community. For more serious offences we have juries - again comprised of ordinary citizens.

MikeJB

"Im sure youd try to use the political addage *protect/save the children* but I mean really most police wouldnt go after a man just because he is nude without some sort of complaint or some offense being done".

I can't speak for America but they certainly would here! You can be your last dollar on that.

"I mean just by him being nude, that doesnt say that he is going to cause a crime or cause someone to be shocked or alarmed."

As far as the police are concerned, the nudity alone is sufficient to warrant arrest if they believe that people are likely to be caused "harassment, alarm or distress". That's what happened to Steve Gough last year.

"For all the policeman knows the nudist could be walking through an area where people live and work that dont mind people being nude and nothing would happen and thus the man would get needlessly arrested."

If the nudist can show that is the case then that would be an end to it. I can't think of any parts of the UK where that would be likely to happen, though.

"Besides kids seeing nudity isnt bad and its actually good for them and just because he is walking in front of a school is no reason for a policeman to arrest him."

If anyone decided to get naked outside my daughter's school then getting arrested would be the best thing that could happen to them. They would be happy to be in the hands of the police rather than the parents! You don't think kids seeing nudity is bad - I do - they are my kids and not yours.

Stu

Kari P

01-03-2004, 09:37 AM

Stu,

"One of the purposes of the law is to be preventative - to save people from suffering angst before it happens."

Yesterday I didn't have time to handle this point that I basically agree with you on. You also made good additions to the thing in your later post.

The question is about which offences are harmful enough to be prevented by police action. I don't compare driving too fast or otherwise incautiously (or drunk!) to walking naked. In my thoughts only an offence that is a real danger for someone's life, health or property is worth of a preventive action. Nudity isn't such offence. I know you use the word "danger" about unexpected nudity, but I cannot accept it. Could you explain where's the danger in it?

"If a policeman saw a naked man walking towards a primary school what is he supposed to do? Just ignore it until he gets complaints?"

As Mike did, I would also ask where is the difference to walking naked on any street. You may think you are protecting children against a potential or even likely molester, a sexual pervert. But does his nudity show such intent with a great probability? Any clothed man walking towards the school could equally have such bad intents.

If you say you simply want to protect the children from seeing nudity, then what's really bad in it? Children brought up in a standard textile family, who already have seen some nudity, would only laugh at the man, they wouldn't be upset or offended in any harmful way. In this case it's the parents, not them all but only those with your attitude to nudity, and not the children, who you would protect. But I think the law should not protect against offences based on merely knowing someone was doing something questionable.

As you should know, I'm actually not talking for an unrestricted right to be naked in public places. To answer your questions: If public nudity isn't generally allowed, then the police officer should do his job by asking the man to dress in the first place. But there's no difference to any other place; the presence of kids who could see the naked man doesn't make the situation any worse.

"So you won't be happy with any kind of compromise. You want to be able to be naked anywhere and at any time you like regardless of whether the rest of society wants that."

I knew you would take this point and make this kind of comment because of my words "endless struggle". Don't think it's me who really wants it. I would be content with a result which shows that nudity is quite well tolerated (to the extent that makes it undoubtedly legal) in nature and in rural areas including roads with infrequent traffic. There are other naturists, especially in densely populated countries what Finland isn't, who wouldn't be satisfied with this for ever.

What I actually meant was that the same research is to be remade, say with intervals of ten years, to check if the acceptance of public nudity in the various classes of places has changed in either direction. You shouldn't expect that no change will ever happen. This is why a research made only once isn't sufficient.

Kari P

01-03-2004, 10:22 AM

"The question is about which offences are harmful enough to be prevented by police action."

Yes, but that depends upon how you define 'harmful'.

"In my thoughts only an offence that is a real danger for someone's life, health or property is worth of a preventive action. Nudity isn't such offence".

To me, where a risk of causing any kind of unnecessary suffering can be avoided it should be. Suffering can be physical or mental, and the latter includes shock, disgust, embarrassment or offence and even significant discomfort. The "danger" lies in risking such feelings.

"As Mike did, I would also ask where is the difference to walking naked on any street."

Not much difference - except that adult nudity around small children would be highly emotive and would invoke a very hostile reaction from parents and some distress to the children.

"You may think you are protecting children against a potential or even likely molester, a sexual pervert. But does his nudity show such intent with a great probability? Any clothed man walking towards the school could equally have such bad intents."

Kari - that isn't and never has been an issue. Ask any typical group of parents if they would be happy with a naked man walking around their child's school whilst accompanied by the head teacher and local community policeman and you would get a resounding "NO!!!" As I have tried extremely hard to explain to Mike, it's not about what someone might or might not do when they are nude that bothers people so much as the nudity itself.

"If you say you simply want to protect the children from seeing nudity, then what's really bad in it?"

My kids have never seen nudity before. We taught them that nude = rude and they mustn't do it. We would purposely react with shock if they came downstairs naked or in their underwear when they were small. My 8-yr old doesn't have a clue what a naked man looks like. I want her to learn that when I consider that she is old enough and right now I don't think that she is.

"Children brought up in a standard textile family, who already have seen some nudity, would only laugh at the man, they wouldn't be upset or offended in any harmful way".

I think my kids have been brought up in a fairly standard way. Whilst my brother didn't stop my niece seeing him naked about the home, my best friend behaved more like I did. There are very many children here in the UK who have never seen an adult person naked.

"But I think the law should not protect against offences based on merely knowing someone was doing something questionable."

If someone is nude in public then that's not just "questionable" - it's positively irresponsible, antisocial and, arguable, criminal.

"I would be content with a result which shows that nudity is quite well tolerated (to the extent that makes it undoubtedly legal) in nature and in rural areas including roads with infrequent traffic."

Sorry, Kari, but where is MY protection here? Don't people like me count in this? I would find that gross and totally unacceptable.

"You shouldn't expect that no change will ever happen. This is why a research made only once isn't sufficient."

If change happens then it happens. Sometimes there will be change that I like and approve of and sometimes the change will not be to my liking. But I'm entitled to a viewpoint and a say in change rather than just to be a silent victim of it. And I'm entitled to fight against changes that I believe will damage my quality of life. Yes, research should be done. That will serve to indicate the extent of the change within society. I will conform to the will of the majority even if that goes against my own preferences. Somehow I doubt that Mr Gough and his friends would be so democratic or considerate.

Stu

MikeJB

01-03-2004, 11:18 AM

"The question is about which offences are harmful enough to be prevented by police action."

Yes, but that depends upon how you define 'harmful'.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but I think he means as far as people's saftey or the protection of property and not just people's feelings, you cant prevent people's feelings from being hurt. That seems to be your biggest complaint more than anything else.

------------------------------------------------
"In my thoughts only an offence that is a real danger for someone's life, health or property is worth of a preventive action. Nudity isn't such offence".

To me, where a risk of causing any kind of unnecessary suffering can be avoided it should be. Suffering can be physical or mental, and the latter includes shock, disgust, embarrassment or offence and even significant discomfort. The "danger" lies in risking such feelings.
-------------------------------------------------

Where is the "risk" in seeing nudity? You dont know that such nudity would even cause any such problems and even if it did, such things can be dealt with without the police having to intervene. I think as far as those kids are concerned, the teacher or parents that are watching them could explain WHY the man is nude in such a way so that they'll understand and not be shocked or disgusted anymore. That way the problem is solved and the nude man can go about his business in peace. I think you are largely overreacting about how much damage nudity really does. Most people dont get hurt by it in such ways. Most people around here would just a) ignore you B) laugh at you or think its really funny c) be rude and say some sort of vulgar words or d) call the cops. Most of the time either a) b) or c) happens, usually a) or b). So really your chances of actually doing what you say would happen to people is just totally bogus.

---------------------------------------------
"As Mike did, I would also ask where is the difference to walking naked on any street."

Not much difference - except that adult nudity around small children would be highly emotive and would invoke a very hostile reaction from parents and some distress to the children.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but our main concern is what would be the difference in saftey if say a nude man walked by a school compared to a clothed man walking near a school? I would trust the naked man more than I would the clothed man because a) rapists dont usually walk around nude b) they sure as hell couldnt come onto the schoolgrounds like that and c) im sure most kids would get a good laugh out of him. I think you really like using these powerful words behind your arguements and try to make it sound like it would be some big deal like youve actually seen people's reaction to someone nude over them responding to questions about such things. People would react differently if you asked them than say if they saw the nudity for themselves.

-------------------------------------------------
"You may think you are protecting children against a potential or even likely molester, a sexual pervert. But does his nudity show such intent with a great probability? Any clothed man walking towards the school could equally have such bad intents."

Kari - that isn't and never has been an issue. Ask any typical group of parents if they would be happy with a naked man walking around their child's school whilst accompanied by the head teacher and local community policeman and you would get a resounding "NO!!!" As I have tried extremely hard to explain to Mike, it's not about what someone might or might not do when they are nude that bothers people so much as the nudity itself.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but you treat nudity like its something bad and thus someone has bad intent. It has been proven dozens of times that mere nudity in and of itself isnt harmful without some sort of offense going along with it. So until the nude man did harm a kid there wouldnt be any reason to think he is anymore dangerous than say a clothed man would, which personally I would think would have more access to a school grounds and would be trusted around parents/teachers more and thus kids would be in greater danger, whereas the nude man wouldnt harm them because most sex offenders dont go around near schools naked because they dont wanna look suspcious and also wouldnt be able to go into the school because of their nakedness and also kids might actually find them funny and be amused and have more fun than if they saw some boring old clothed guy which they see everyday. I just think in this context that having a nude man walking near a school wouldnt be any more dangerous to a child than a clothed man walking near the school. I dont see how someone can turn from being an innocent man into a criminal just by removing his clothing, its like youre saying he has changed his whole persona.

-------------------------------------------------
"If you say you simply want to protect the children from seeing nudity, then what's really bad in it?"

My kids have never seen nudity before. We taught them that nude = rude and they mustn't do it. We would purposely react with shock if they came downstairs naked or in their underwear when they were small. My 8-yr old doesn't have a clue what a naked man looks like. I want her to learn that when I consider that she is old enough and right now I don't think that she is.
-------------------------------------------------

Well thats really nice and all and im glad they turned out to be such nice little angels, but does that mean that all kids would react to nudity in such ways? No, I dont think so. So why should a nudist have to cover up just to please the parents of a few prudish kids who go nuts just because they see a nudist and dont know how to handle it properly. If a child of a nudist family saw such a thing, it wouldnt bother them the way that it would for a prudish textile child.

-----------------------------------------------
"Children brought up in a standard textile family, who already have seen some nudity, would only laugh at the man, they wouldn't be upset or offended in any harmful way".

I think my kids have been brought up in a fairly standard way. Whilst my brother didn't stop my niece seeing him naked about the home, my best friend behaved more like I did. There are very many children here in the UK who have never seen an adult person naked.
------------------------------------------------

Yes thats nice but it still doesnt prove that most kids seeing a nude man would invoke any other emotion besides thinking it was funny or a little embarassing. You go from saying that to saying that a kid would be emotionally or mentally scared for life and have powerful emotional issues, I think seeing it as humorous and having emotional disorders because of it are two very different things and im sure very few kids would react in such ways and if they did that obviously means that they have issues and need counseling.

-----------------------------------------------
"But I think the law should not protect against offences based on merely knowing someone was doing something questionable."

If someone is nude in public then that's not just "questionable" - it's positively irresponsible, antisocial and, arguable, criminal.
-------------------------------------------------

See Stu, youre making nudity out to be something alot more than what it is. I think most people at the very most likely would find nudity "questionable", the rest of people might just frown or ignore it or laugh at it but basically just consider the source and not worry about it. You treat a man in public like he is some disorderly criminal who has robbed a store or destroyed property or harmed someone in public. Nudity and these things are quite different and shouldnt be equalized.

-------------------------------------------------
"I would be content with a result which shows that nudity is quite well tolerated (to the extent that makes it undoubtedly legal) in nature and in rural areas including roads with infrequent traffic."

Sorry, Kari, but where is MY protection here? Don't people like me count in this? I would find that gross and totally unacceptable.
------------------------------------------------

I think he is talking about making nudity legal in areas that most people would not frequent and thus if people saw it, very few if any, there would be little problems or offense, especially if they expected such nudity to be taking place here, theyd know about it or simply avoid the area if it bothered them that much. I think this sort of thing does protect you because I dont think you frequent such areas and thus if nudity was kept there then most likely youd never see it and thus you are still protected from it.

-------------------------------------------------
"You shouldn't expect that no change will ever happen. This is why a research made only once isn't sufficient."

If change happens then it happens. Sometimes there will be change that I like and approve of and sometimes the change will not be to my liking. But I'm entitled to a viewpoint and a say in change rather than just to be a silent victim of it. And I'm entitled to fight against changes that I believe will damage my quality of life. Yes, research should be done. That will serve to indicate the extent of the change within society. I will conform to the will of the majority even if that goes against my own preferences. Somehow I doubt that Mr Gough and his friends would be so democratic or considerate.
-------------------------------------------------

That seems like a good idea, I mean if we can get support by the majority that nudity is ok beyond a shadow of a doubt then you oughta support it because you like to go along with what the majority thinks then if they want nudity, you should go along with them otherwise be one of the few who is left out. I dont think nudity will ever be 100% accepted everywhere but I think we can bump it up to at least 50-75% of the population either supporting it outright or at least accepting it.
Stu

MikeJB

01-03-2004, 12:28 PM

-------------------------------------------------
So you won't be happy with any kind of compromise. You want to be able to be naked anywhere and at any time you like regardless of whether the rest of society wants that. Then you wonder why I am so opposed to the actions of Steve Gough.
-------------------------------------------------

Steve Gough wants mostly the same thing we do, but with two differences a) hes not a nudist/naturist and b) he is rude and uncaring in his actions, although im sure that might just be because the way he says things as most activists seem to be rather rude and use powerful words just to vent and not necessarily to hurt anyone's feelings. I just think that most nudists want public nudity accepted but want some sort of compromise so that they can be happy and the majority of people are not overtly harmed in any way.

-------------------------------------------------
"The naturist approach is that the characteristics of such an offence aren't automatically satisfied with simple nudity."

The judicial approach - and that's the one that counts - is that nudity in circumstances likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress constitutes an offence.
-------------------------------------------------

How is simple nudity in and of itself likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress? Most people seeing someone nude would not feel this way, embarassed and a bit upset maybe but not in such an exaggerated way that you describe and certainly not worthy of an offense. Just because they might be a bit rude doesnt mean they should be put under an offense. People are rude everyday and dont get in trouble for it and most nudists dont intend to or do anything to be rude, people just feel they are rude. I personally dont see any reason why a person should react in a negative way to nudity anyways.

-----------------------------------------------
"Can you see that also you need this kind of research if the law is what it currently is with no mention of nudity?"

Such research would certainly clarify public attitudes that could guide our courts.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah I mean most laws dont even mention nudity, so how do we really know they apply to nudity or not?

------------------------------------------------
"Yeah but that shock and alarm is more misunderstanding of nudity in general and the fact that our society is brainwashed to think that nudity is bad, usually without any proof or any facts to back that idea up".

That's just your own perspective that people are "brainwashed". I might think that people who believe in God are brainwashed but I wouldn't stand outside a church and blaspheme. People's feelings should be respected, especially in public.
------------------------------------------------

Our society gets people to beleive in all sorts of things that are wrong everyday. We have an overt sexual concentration in our society that is neither good nor helpful just by using this context it proves that not everything society promotes is good or helpful so how do we know that nudity is harmful like society says just because it says that? Most of the time it says that without any facts or proof. Besides Stu if you wanted to, it would be your right to stand outside a church and say whatever you wanted about it, so I dont see any difference between that and us saying that society is brainwashing us about nudity. Maybe it isnt as excessive or in the context of brainwashing because it doesnt really alter or damage our minds in any way but it influences us to think in an unhealthy way though and develop values that could harm us or others.

-------------------------------------------------
"I think most people would agree that there needs to be some other offense going on besides the nudity before something can be done."

Most nudists, perhaps. Not the rest of society.
-------------------------------------------------

Maybe not though, but im just talking from a common sense perspective here. I just think that someone walking nude down a street under most circumstances isnt a crime but if they are doing this AND causing some sort of offense such as stealing, harassing or harming someone then I would call the police, but I wouldnt mention the nudity, just the action they are commiting. *im trying to be careful with my words so I dont fall into the loopholes that most lawmakers do*

------------------------------------------------
"I would respect your feelings and move someplace where you didnt have to see or deal with me and thus the problem would be solved",

That's nice to know. But if you are naked in a place where there are a lot of other people who aren't naked, then that should indicate that you are likely to cause offence.
-------------------------------------------------

Once again Stu, im trying to come to a compromise here and think of how I can acheive my goal but also be open to and respectful of the feelings of those around me. If I were to be nude in public, i would certainly want to know the feelings of those around me and make sure they didnt mind my nakedness and if they did, then I would certainly respect their feelings and move on and hopefully go someplace where my nudity wouldnt cause alot of harm. I know I cant please everyone but just the fact that I show that im respectful of others feelings shows that while I want to acheive my goal and have the right to be naked out in public, I still wish to respect the feelings of those who chose not to see me in such settings. I think its just like anything else you wear or do that offends someone you come across, I think you should have the right to wear and do such things but also think about the person's feelings and respect their wishes if they chose not to see you in such settings.

-------------------------------------------------
"how you feel weither they are nude or not because you dont make the effort to be respectful and show your feelings in a polite way."

Surely, as being clothed in public is the norm, it's incumbent upon the naturist, in the interests of politeness, to check out first whether or not other people mind his or her nudity.
------------------------------------------------

I know that and while you cant be perfect with this, you can still try your best to see what peoples feelings are around you and adjust yourself to try your best to respect them while still maintaining your nakedness. I just dont like the rude people who even though they dont like your nudity, cant express their feelings in a kind and respectful manner and instead are rude and thoughtless but yet expect you to care about how they feel in return. Those are the kind of people I wouldnt waste my time with because im trying to be kind and respectful to them and I expect the same from them in return.

------------------------------------------------
"they focus on the nudity and usually punish the person just for this and totally ignore the crime itself,"

It doesn't work like that. The nudity can be the essence of the crime, a contributory factor, or merely ancilliary to it. In the latter case the crime would not be ignored. If you mugged someone whilst naked you would be charged with the mugging (i.e. robbery) and the nudity (causing harassment, alarm or distress).
-------------------------------------------------

That doesnt always happen Stu, especially over here where people can be tried for crimes but usually the nudity gets more attention than anything else and the crime is either put on the back burner or ignored completely and thus the criminal gets a lesser offense than they really should get and they get it for something that probably wasnt even a factor in their crime in the first place *i.e they werent nude because they wanted to commit the crime or the nudity didnt function as part of the crime* Your situation is the ideal situation and thats how most courts should function, but im just saying how it ends up happening sometimes.

-----------------------------------------------
"but the nudity bothers these people so much they seem to have a need to deal with it more than the crime and thus the person gets off much easier than they should."

So you agree that nudity really bothers people. Good!
-------------------------------------------------

I think as far as some court cases go, yes. I dont think that it should bother them and definitely not be more important than something like murder or rape or vandalism. I think you gotta find out 2 things 1) what is the real crime(s) and 2) which ones are the most important and which ones really need to be focused on.

------------------------------------------------
"the laws dont say alot of times weither nudity is actually illegal or not, most dont even mention the word "nudity" they just use "likely to cause offense"

Correct. The law is thus flexible to deal with whatever form of antisocial behaviour comes along; it isn't prescriptive so that, for example, a person changing swimming trunks behind a tree would fall foul; and, if times and public attitudes and sensibilities change then that can be accomodated.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but that leaves the law open to interpretation alot and courts can say almost anything falls under that because it is so vague. Im not saying that it doesnt work for nudity, I just think that as far as nudity goes there needs to be another more explicit law governing nudity that says what is accepted and what isnt. I just think in most cases with nudity, unless there is a big offense going on or someone is hurt or property is damaged then its best to just let it go because the law is so gray and the courts could get away with almost anything. I just think we need something closer to an actual law that says exactly what nudity is wrong.

-------------------------------------------------
"Yeah but that still means that they dont have to prove that anything would happen."

True. If you drive a car in a dangerous fashion you would be charged even if you hadn't actually caused an accident and no-one was hurt. So why do we have a law against "dangerous driving"? Surely the police should have to prove that harm was actually caused first? Or someone should have to "file a complaint" before the police would take action? The answer is that it is preventative - to stop the bad thing happening in the first place. If the nude man can show to the court that no-one was likely to be offended then he would be acquitted. But remember that a police officer who encounters the nudity is a human being too. He or she can be offended.
------------------------------------------------

Yes but unless the driver was actually speeding or breaking a traffic law, then the fact that he was driving dangerously would merely be up for interpretation, the same with the nude man and they could be convicted without actually breaking any law or causing any offense. The court would just interpret that they would do that without anything actually happening. I think that even if someones nudity offends a police officer that isnt grounds enough to arrest or ticket them without actual proof that they are causing a crime because then the police could arrest or ticket anyone that cheesed them off. Most police ive heard from have said that even if someone did offend them unless they are actually commiting a crime then there isnt anything they can do about it. Police take their authority way too seriously sometimes.

-------------------------------------------------
"I think he is just saying that if the people who actually find the nudity in that area is small compared to the ones who either dont care or dont wanna cause a scene then the law cant really do much because it only offends a small number of people and isnt worth the police time to do anything about it".

OK, so the small number of people who want to be nude in public have rights but the small (in your opinion) number who find it offensive don't. Hmmm.
-------------------------------------------------

I just dont think that someone should be arrested because say like only 1 or 2 people out of the whole area are just offended by their nudity. I think it has to be more than just that. Those 2 people dont represent the feelings of the majority. They could in fact be the only 2 who are even offended by such a thing and why should just those 2 be able to deem someone of doing criminal actions?

------------------------------------------------
"I just think if we knew what the public thought as a whole that nudists and textile might accept it and we could put this whole bloody issue to rest finally and stop wondering who really does like or dislike it".

Agreed. I would accept the outcome of such a survey. But if it showed that most people reacted negatively towards the idea of permitting nudity generally in public places would you accept that and be content to be naked only in private or in designated naturist areas?
-------------------------------------------------

I think that the survey would need to be really precise and would need to have questions that would result in a yes or no answer and not something that could easily lead to an entirely different answer if the words were jumbled around just a bit. I dont know how or what questions could be asked but I just think that it would have to be very precise and ask questions that people could answer honestly either yes or no and not in the middle so that you dont have any grey areas. I also think youd need to ask most if not all the people in the country to get an accurate reading of the overall feelings of the country. A handful of people from each state wouldnt cut it, youd have to ask alot of people or at least people that have a big influence on the society *ie teachers, parents, church officials, doctors, etc*. What im basically saying is that it cant be like these internet polls where you get 80% of the people supporting something and try to say that the majority of people support this when really the whole number of people who voted are only a small majority of the entire country. Like you cant have a handful of people voting and have 80% of them vote yes and try to say thats how the entire country feels about the issue, now if you asked the entire country this question and 80% said yes then that would be different.

-------------------------------------------------
"20% isnt very much"

20% is a heck of a bigger proportion than the nudists! If 20% find what 2% want to do is so objectionable that they would call the police then in my book it's the 2% who should conform. Besides, I'm sure you know that the proportion who would react negatively to public nudity would be much greater than 20%. Ryan's survey, for what it's worth, showed that well over 70% indicated emotions ranging from shock to discomfort. People are entitled to use public places without encountering behaviour that causes the to feel uncomfortable.
------------------------------------------------

I never go along with those internet polls because they are innacurate at best and 20% of people still doesnt represent the entire country because 80% are still unaccounted for and those people might just be fine with nudity and thus if they thought nudity was ok then that would mean alot more for us nudists than the 20% who didnt support it, even if 2% of us are nudists, we would still have 80% supporting us. I bet that 20% of people just get shocked or disgusted by nudity while the 80% just either find it questionable, funny or just ignore it or dont care altogether.

----------------------------------------------
Your response was really bizarre. Did you actually read what I wrote? I never said that someone should be arrested because they MIGHT commit a crime. In most countries of the world, including your own, there is preventative legislation of some sort - that is laws that prevent crime before it happens not when it's too late.

------------------------------------------------
Here in the UK I can't walk the streets with a flick knife, or pepper spray, or a firearm, or a stick of dynamite, in my pocket. If I do then regardless of whether I have used these items I can be arrested and charged with a "possession" offence.
------------------------------------------------

Stu, over here most places you can carry a gun, but until you fire that gun and shoot someone or fire it someplace innappropriate or in a way that would endanger people then there isnt anything the police can do about it until you fire that gun or point it at someone or threaten to kill them with words or gestures. Just having the gun in your pocket isnt enough most places to get you into trouble. Now if you brought that gun into the airport these days, now thats another story.

-------------------------------------------------
Here in the UK I can't drive over the speed limits, or use my mobile telephone whilst driving, or drive on the wrong side of the road, or run a red traffic light. These are offences in their own right even if I don't cause an accident.
-------------------------------------------------

Stu, those sorts of things are againt the law anyways, so theyre already illegal even if you dont do anything. We are talking about nudity, where the law isnt so clear cut, traffic laws are usually clear cut and precise.

-----------------------------------------------
If I stand in a residential street in the middle of the night and shout obscenities, or threats etc I would be at least warned by the police and eventually arrested even though I had caused no physical harm - and even if no-one had complained about me.
------------------------------------------------

Thats probably true over here, but you could still stand outside and yell obsceneities but if you did it in the middle of the night or stand in the middle of a busy street doing it then yes you might be caught by the police but then again there are such laws against things like that whereas nudity is more grey in that area.

-------------------------------------------------
No doubt you will say that I live in some sort of Nazi-style totalitarian police state. If that's what you think then I think you need to get on an aeroplane and come and see for yourself.
-------------------------------------------------

Those things you mentioned have nothing to do with nudity. Nudity does not cause such problems and there is no clear cut law against it like with those other things.

-------------------------------------------------
The nude person in a public place has already committed an act - he has either entered a public place nude, or become nude whilst in it. Most people would know whether or not such nudity was appropriate - whether it would be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". If they carry on regardless then they are behaving in an antisocial way in a public place. And that can be - and often is - criminal. It's the behaviour, not the thought, that is criminal.
-------------------------------------------------

Stu, being naked out in public is different than say carrying a firearm in public or yelling in the street at night. For instance with the firearm, why would you need to carry such a thing, besides protection, unless you intended to shoot someone which most people beyond the need for protection would only carry a gun around for such a reason. Also why would someone go out into the street in the dead of night to yell obscenities unless they wanted to a) wake the neighbors or b) upset someone with their vulgar language? These two things show that someone intends to or at least theres reason to beleive that they would cause harm. Someone being nude just standing there or walking down the street is doing nothing to show that they intend to or are likely to cause such actions. Being nude is not a crime.

-------------------------------------------------
"In this country, to be convicted of a crime, you must be found guilty of a specific violation of law "beyond a reasonable doubt" by a jury of your peers".

That applies here too. Our lay magistrates are the people most likely to hear minor offences against public order. They have no legal training and are ordinary members of the community. For more serious offences we have juries - again comprised of ordinary citizens.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but being nude doesnt break any specific violation of law, because there isnt anything specific reguarding nudity in law.

------------------------------------------------
"Im sure youd try to use the political addage *protect/save the children* but I mean really most police wouldnt go after a man just because he is nude without some sort of complaint or some offense being done".

I can't speak for America but they certainly would here! You can be your last dollar on that.
-------------------------------------------------

Well maybe your police are more strict there but ive heard people talking to police here and ive even talked to one or two and most of them wont lift a finger unless they get a complaint or see someone actually commiting an offense, of course this does not mean youd be safe from the cops if you went outside nude, im just saying you have a better chance of being legal while being nude if you do it here than if you did it where Stu lives for example.

-------------------------------------------------
"I mean just by him being nude, that doesnt say that he is going to cause a crime or cause someone to be shocked or alarmed."

As far as the police are concerned, the nudity alone is sufficient to warrant arrest if they believe that people are likely to be caused "harassment, alarm or distress". That's what happened to Steve Gough last year.
------------------------------------------------

How by just seeing someone nude, can they assume that people will be shocked or alarmed? For all they know the people could just ignore the nude man and not do a damn thing about it. I think its a mostly grey area if you try to interpret what people are going to think about nudity. It can go all sorts of ways.

-----------------------------------------------
"For all the policeman knows the nudist could be walking through an area where people live and work that dont mind people being nude and nothing would happen and thus the man would get needlessly arrested."

If the nudist can show that is the case then that would be an end to it. I can't think of any parts of the UK where that would be likely to happen, though.
-------------------------------------------------

Yes but unless the man can go around and ask everyone's permission if they dont mind him being nude then there isnt any way to prove that but also there isnt any way to prove that the people would be offended either so the police have no proof that they will cause offense either.

-------------------------------------------------
"Besides kids seeing nudity isnt bad and its actually good for them and just because he is walking in front of a school is no reason for a policeman to arrest him."

If anyone decided to get naked outside my daughter's school then getting arrested would be the best thing that could happen to them. They would be happy to be in the hands of the police rather than the parents! You don't think kids seeing nudity is bad - I do - they are my kids and not yours.
-------------------------------------------------

Well okay, so if I had kids and they were the ONLY ones offended by the nudity, that would give me the right to go demand the cop arrests this guy? Even if no other kids were offended and even if I could just simply explain to my kids WHY he was nude, like say if it was a hot day or something? Im just saying even IF the kids were offended, there are ways to deal with such situations without bringing the cops into it and causing a bigger issue than needs to be caused. If I had kids and some nude guy walked in front of their school and they were offended, id deal with it however the kids reacted to it but I would definitely talk with them and explain it to them before id call the cops, unless the man was doing something questionable or causing harm or harassing the kids intentionally then I might call the cops. Mostly though id just deal with the situation myself and if other parents feel the need to call the cops on the guy then thats their business, not mine. I just think that sometimes its better to look for other options than just going for the call the cops option.

Kari P

01-04-2004, 05:42 AM

Stu,

"Ask any typical group of parents if they would be happy with a naked man walking around their child's school whilst accompanied by the head teacher and local community policeman and you would get a resounding "NO!!!""

I can imagine to get this response but not for the reasons you gave it. Most parents are extremely concerned about their childrens' safety, counting expressly pedophiles and some other perverts (public masturbators and so on). To them a naked man is a threat on security regardless of that they cannot explain why his open nudity shows bad intents. They aren't used to public nudity and many of them think to "know" it is illegal. If they knew for sure the man's harmless intent most of them wouldn't say like you that it is a bad thing for the children to see a naked man - which is a thing every child here has already seen. If they want a harmless nude to be stopped by the police, they want it because they simply don't accept public nudity, not because their children shouldn't see him.

"My kids have never seen nudity before."

They could handle seeing unexpected nudity easier if they had seen it earlier, e.g. at home. From what I have read, I could say that you have overprotected them from what is not at all worth to be protected. You made "decency" a too big thing. They made well with it because you apparently were a very authoritative parent, which is uncommon these days.

"My 8-yr old doesn't have a clue what a naked man looks like. I want her to learn that when I consider that she is old enough and right now I don't think that she is."

How do you let her learn it? I'm sure you cannot expose yourself to her. But in fact exactly this would be the most natural way.

"I think my kids have been brought up in a fairly standard way."

And I think the same about my kids (13, 11 and 8 years). Only during the last two years I have been naked at home more than "normally", and you must now know what normality is here. We have certain cultural differences which make it difficult to understand each other - we see "normality" very differently. But as Rik told as a response to my very first post in this forum, your way is not a standard in your culture.

I think that also family nudity, its commonness and its consequences on children is a thing to be researched more. There are already studies on it, but sadly you don't give them value.

"Sorry, Kari, but where is MY protection here? Don't people like me count in this?"

I was talking about the possible outcome of a research that asks for acceptance of nudity in several places. You already said you could adapt to it whatever it was.

Maybe you wanted a discuss about why I feel that nudity could be more easily accepted in nature and rural areas than in urban areas. The reason is: the less eye-witnesses, the less potentially offended people. First, the measured acceptance can be already better. And second, let's do some probability calculations (I'm really a mathematician).

The number of people who might see a naked person during the whole time he is naked is a random variable X. We don't know beforehand what the number is; it vaguely depends on place, starting time and duration, but finally it can be whatever. But we know surely that the expected value of X, denoted by E(X), can be near zero in some places and very small (say, not above four) in many other places belonging to the class "nature and rural areas", if the nakedness lasts only some hours during times when people don't usually move.

The acceptance of nudity in the place is represented by a number p between 0 and 1 telling the probability of a single person eye-witnessing nudity to be seriously offended. But what if there are many people (their number x) who see it? Making a simplifying but fair assumption of independence, the expression

q(x) = 1 - (1 - p)^x

tells the probability that at least one of the x eye-witnesses is seriously offended, which probability increases as x increases.

To get real figures, assume that p = 0.1. Then

q(0) = 0
q(1) = 0.1
q(2) = 0.19
q(3) = 0.27
q(4) = 0.34
q(5) = 0.41

and so on. We can finally ask for the expected value of q(X), which to me seems to be an honest measure of acceptability. It can be proven that q(E(X)) is an overestimate of E(q(X)), so

q(E(X)) = 1 - (1 - p)^E(X)

gives an upper bound to the expected probability of someone to be seriously offended. E.g. with E(X) = 4, E(q(X)) is less or equals q(E(X)) = 0.34.

So, the probability of a single person to be seriously offended can be measured to a non-negligible value, but with low expected values of X, the total probability of someone seeing to be seriously offended, can be in acceptable figures. When E(X) is less than 1, the total probability is less than p itself, and finally at E(X) = 0, it is naturally zero.

Is this enough to explain why it really should be easy to accept nudity in places where virtually no one sees it?

Kari P

Frank R

01-04-2004, 04:38 PM

May I suggest that some of the posts here are, to say the least, far too long. A post to a public BB should make a point, not just be a short book posted to a board.

Here in central Texas, if you wish to write a letter to the editor, you cannot exceed 200 words. Why just think of a letter to the editor when making your post and try and keep it to 200 words or less?

01-04-2004, 04:45 PM

I agree. I ignore long posts no matter who posts them. How many words does it take to make a point? Quoting every word that someone says and then making a long statement on each quote is senseless and boring.

MikeJB

01-04-2004, 10:34 PM

Yeah maybe some of the posts are a bit too long but then again some of them are fairly interesting and i like debating things with people and some people only know how to express themselves in long paragraphs and lots of words so I figure as long as they do it in a constructive way and dont ramble on or go into tangents then I really dont care how long it is.

florida-david

01-05-2004, 07:35 PM

OMG mikeJB - you have succeeded in making posts longer than stu's - what's wrong with you boy, have you gone to the dark side??? i like your previous rambling style much better....

averagejoe

01-05-2004, 08:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:
Yeah maybe some of the posts are a bit too long but then again some of them are fairly interesting and i like debating things with people and some people only know how to express themselves in long paragraphs and lots of words so I figure as long as they do it in a constructive way and dont ramble on or go into tangents then I really dont care how long it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would make much more sense if it wasn't one long sentence. To paraphrase Churchill, never use a long sentence when a short one will do.

01-06-2004, 12:33 AM

Commas and periods help to make what one writes easier to read and understand.