Nudity Laws By U.S. State

[pek1]

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I have a question: I have seen the various links regarding what states it's legal to be nude in or clothing-optional, but I can't make sense of it. Can we make this thread continue on and on so that all states/Canadian territories and other countries laws are explained? In other words, what states/countries/territories is it legal to be nude outside? Suppose I am on public hunting land in Minnesota. Is it legal?</span>

[RalphVa]

Following is from http://naturistaction.org/StatesProvincesTerritories/states.html

617.23 Indecent exposure; penalties.

Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. A person who commits any of the following acts in any public place, or in any place where others are present, is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(1) willfully and lewdly exposes the person's body, or the private parts thereof;

(2) procures another to expose private parts; or

(3) engages in any open or gross lewdness or lascivious behavior, or any public indecency other than behavior specified in this subdivision.

Subd. 2. Gross misdemeanor. A person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor:

(1) the person violates subdivision 1 in the presence of a minor under the age of 16; or

(2) the person violates subdivision 1 after having been previously convicted of violating subdivision 1, sections 609.342 to 609.3451, or a statute from another state in conformity with any of those sections.

Subd. 3. Felony. A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if:

(1) the person violates subdivision 2, clause (1), after having been previously convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for violating subdivision 2, clause (1); section 609.3451, subdivision 1, clause (2); or a statute from another state in conformity with subdivision 2, clause (1), or section 609.3451, subdivision 1, clause (2); or

(2) the person commits a violation of subdivision 1, clause (1), in the presence of another person while intentionally confining that person or otherwise intentionally restricting that person's freedom to move.

Subd. 4. Breastfeeding. It is not a violation of this section for a woman to breast feed.

[Pete Knight]

Well that's cleared that up then!!!!!!!

Far too vague, it leaves the interpretation of "wilfully and lewdly" open to all kinds of 'opinion' and as we know there are those out there that believe any kind of nudity is morally unacceptable, whereas if I were the presiding judge I would view it entirely differently.

I presume there are guidelines to prevent personal viewpoints from clouding any judgement!!

In the UK the SOA 2003 was introduced to try to remove any ambiguity in the existing laws, they were the result of using any description other than saying penis, or genitals (They are naughty words after all!!!). Our police still have trouble with knowing which law is current and those that have been repealed, but at least the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) is able to decide what cases to take to court or not.

Its really sad that whilst nudity 'per se' is not illegal, a police officer can ask someone to cover up and if they refuse the officer arrests them on a public order charge, heads they win, tails we lose.

Pete Knight

[nimrod]

I could not agree with you more Pete. The California law reads the same way, very vaque with the use of the words "willfull" and "lewd". Also, law permits individual cities within the state to pass laws that can ban nudity instead of following state law that, even though vaque, does not outright ban nudity.

[DoctorSurferDude]

In Florida...it depends on what COUNTY you are in more than anything else (even if you are on federal land).

[Naturist Mark]

Reading the laws is of very limited use. You also need to know the customary practices of law enforcement, procedural rules (like California's Cahill Policy or Vermont's Leahy guidelines), and most especially court precedent.

There is not a state in America that has passed a law making Topfreedom legal, but in New York, Ohio, Washington D.C. and a number of other places it IS legal because the courts have ruled that breasts are not genitals, or "private parts", or that the statutes that make exposure of the female breast but not the male breast illegal is void under that State's equal protection or equal rights laws.

At one time a researcher attempted to do a state by state survey of not only the statutes, but the how they actually applied for the rec.nude faq. It was a monumental and incomplete task, long since out of date and abandoned.

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Reading the laws is of very limited use. You also need to know the customary practices of law enforcement, procedural rules (like California's Cahill Policy or Vermont's Leahy guidelines), and most especially court precedent.
If our nudist activity were to create a disturbance, even if we aren't the ones causing the trouble, we could probably still get charged with disorderly conduct or something similar. The behavior of the people we encounter can determine whether we get in trouble or not.

[gymnoboi]

not only is it vague but it talks about "private" parts. Who is to say what is private to who? For me I could care less about my genitals,, I just don't want anyone to see my ears http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[pek1]

Originally posted by gymnoboi:
not only is it vague but it talks about "private" parts. Who is to say what is private to who? For me I could care less about my genitals,, I just don't want anyone to see my ears http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Which explains the hat, huh? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Seriously, though. Lewd conduct and everything else . . . suppose a person is just hiking nude. Is this lewd conduct? I can understand if a guy has an erection and is masturbating or a woman is masturbating herself, but . . . where's the line? I'm sure I'll learn this when I attend law school in a couple years.


Pete</span>

[Digger1799]

Vermont actually has No Law banning Public Nudity. There are a couple of towns up there where one could walk down Main St. (and many do) totally naked. Every summer it becomes an issue, but always goes away once the weather cools off.

All laws ar evague for a reason. If it was black and white, we would not need attorneys LOL So yes, Interpertation Is the Big Part

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Digger1799:
Vermont actually has No Law banning Public Nudity. There are a couple of towns up there where one could walk down Main St. (and many do) totally naked. Every summer it becomes an issue, but always goes away once the weather cools off.

All laws ar evague for a reason. If it was black and white, we would not need attorneys LOL So yes, Interpertation Is the Big Part

California has no law against nudity per-se either, as the recent Huntington Beach story points out. Neither does Washington or a bunch of other states. However, many local prudes arrest and fine people for simple nudity claiming that just being nude is "lewd conduct." The Seatte Naked Bike Ride was a recent example.

Often it's not the law, its the puritan enforcement that is the real problem when going naked. Just hiking nude is not lewd under numerous court decisions, but sometimes that doesn't stop pruitan police state thugs from ruining your day.

Blessings
Bob

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by gymnoboi:
not only is it vague but it talks about "private" parts. Who is to say what is private to who? For me I could care less about my genitals,, I just don't want anyone to see my ears http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Laungage is a real problem when we live with a web site that censors the very words in our native language that mean what we are talking about. We end up using euphamisms and other words not quite what we mean, as several people have pointed out recently. We can't use either of the "C" words, for example, which would clearly describe what we mean. Censors rule, even when bodies are said to be "acceptable," body words are not.

Blessings
Bob

[kphoger]

i just compiled a US map, color-coded by state law. how do i post it?

[Bob S.]

kphoger, if the map is on your PC, go to the "Add Attachment?" link and add it. If it is online right now, click on the image (next to last button from left above this message box and add the url of the image.

Bob S.

[kphoger]

oh, i just tried, and it far exceeds the allowable file size. 847 instead of 150.

[kphoger]

State laws based on the NAC website, as of 07/23/07. Additional laws and rulings may have positive or negative bearing; for example, New York law prohibits public display of the female breast, but a court ruling determined it only applies to commercial setting. Furthermore, nudity may be further restricted by more local jurisdictions.

(( BTW, I never realized just how much of a "Bible belt" our country has until I made a map of this. ))

=================

All public nudity is prohibited:
ID, NM, OK, AR, TN, NC, IN, MI, NY

Public nudity is prohibited if it is likely to cause affront or alarm:
AK, HI, WA, UT, AZ, CO, TX, SD, IA, MO, AL, KY, OH, WV, PA, DE, RI, NH, ME

Public nudity is prohibited if it is lewd and/or its intent is sexual:
OR, CA, NV, MT, WY, ND, NE, KS, MN, WI, IL, LA, MS, FL, GA, SC, VA, NJ, CT

Indecent exposure is prohibited, but not defined by law:
MD, MA, VT

The legal definition of nudity specifically includes the female breast:
WY, UT, AZ, LA, TN, IN, DE, NY

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by kphoger:


All public nudity is prohibited:
ID, NM, OK, AR, TN, NC, IN, MI, NY

Public nudity is prohibited if it is likely to cause affront or alarm:
AK, HI, WA, UT, AZ, CO, TX, SD, IA, MO, AL, KY, OH, WV, PA, DE, RI, NH, ME

Public nudity is prohibited if it is lewd and/or its intent is sexual:
OR, CA, NV, MT, WY, ND, NE, KS, MN, WI, IL, LA, MS, FL, GA, SC, VA, NJ, CT

Indecent exposure is prohibited, but not defined by law:
MD, MA, VT

The legal definition of nudity specifically includes the female breast:
WY, UT, AZ, LA, TN, IN, DE, NY

This list shows why just reading the statute is insufficient to explain the law. Which is absurd because that makes it almost impossible for the public or authorities to know and follow the law ...

Example ---> New York defines the female breast as "nudity" and by statute prohibits all public nudity - except that definition has been nullified by the New York courts. - Topfreedom is the law in NY - even though it is not expressed in any statute.

-Mark

[kphoger]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Example ---> New York defines the female breast as "nudity" and by statute prohibits all public nudity - except that definition has been nullified by the New York courts. - Topfreedom is the law in NY - even though it is not expressed in any statute.

New York law prohibits public display of the female breast, but a court ruling determined it only applies to commercial setting.
it wasn't nullified; its reach was just restricted.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by kphoger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Example ---> New York defines the female breast as "nudity" and by statute prohibits all public nudity - except that definition has been nullified by the New York courts. - Topfreedom is the law in NY - even though it is not expressed in any statute.

New York law prohibits public display of the female breast, but a court ruling determined it only applies to commercial setting.
it wasn't nullified; its reach was just restricted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not exactly.

Both the majority and the concurring opinions (http://www.naturisteducation.org/Toni_Egbert_Library/State_Supreme_Courts/NY_v_Santorelli/ny_v_santorelli.html) in Santorelli included equal protection rationales for the nullification of the gender discriminatory aspects of Penal Law § 245.01, although the majority also argued that under People v. Price - which involved an entirely different statute - incidental exposure of the female breast was not a violation under non-commercial circumstances. The Chief Justice's concurring opinion clearly stated that that additional justification is irrelevant since the constitutional equal protection arguments are over-riding.

Localities may pass more restrictive laws, but unless they treat male and female breasts identically they too would violate the equal protection guarantee in New York's Constitution.

-Mark

[Tyco]

Far be it from me to want to cause "affront or alarm"..... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

[pek1]

Originally posted by Tyco:
Far be it from me to want to cause "affront or alarm"..... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">What would we want to offend people for? Perhaps we shouldn't leave our homes in case we offend people by what we do or don't do, huh? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif</span>

[pek1]

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Is anyone offended by my avatar (at left)? Sue me. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/snobby.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif</span>

[Bobx23456]

Public nudity is prohibited if it is likely to cause affront or alarm:
AK, HI, WA, UT, AZ, CO, TX, SD, IA, MO, AL, KY, OH, WV, PA, DE, RI, NH, ME


Well, that's not a very accurate summary for this state, WA.

"if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm."

To be illegal here the person has to have intent to be obscene and to know that his conduct would cause affront or alarm.

The clear language of the law would be hard to prove both knowledge and intent. However puritan police make arrests knowing that the brutality of the arrest itself is a deterant/punishment sufficient to force compliance by most people. In addition, most lower courts are guilty until proven innocent which turns the tables of the law and makes the person prove that he didn't intend to affront anyone. Negatives are much harder to prove than positives.

It is likely, however, that the 3 men arrested at the Seattle Nude Bike Ride a couple of weeks ago will not be convicted because the law really doesn't prohibit naked bike riding in Washington unless they intend to be indecent and know that someone will be alarmed or affronted.

Blessings
Bob

[Bobx23456]

Nudity laws also vary within states.

For example, in Washington State the law is quite different in a State Park than it is elsewhere. In a Washington State Park "disrobing" is specificaly defined by the legislature as "not a crime." Disrobing in a state park is s "civil infraction" with a fine of $42. You can get a "ticket" similar to overtime parking, but you can't get arrested.

The laws about nudity are often local and vary even within the locality sometimes.

[Naturist Mark]

It is likely, however, that the 3 men arrested at the Seattle Nude Bike Ride a couple of weeks ago will not be convicted because the law really doesn't prohibit naked bike riding in Washington unless they intend to be indecent and know that someone will be alarmed or affronted.
Not to mention that since the WNBR is a political protest, there are 1st Amendment rights involved too - where courts have repeatedly ruled that nudity is permissible as free speech.

Of course recent rulings by the Supreme court have nearly nullified the 1st Amendment, but normally only in allowing prior restraint (Damn ... I remember when this used to be America).

Washington State may still have a State right to freedom of speech in its constitution - Roberts and Alito don't yet have the authority to nullify rights granted by the individual states.

-Mark

[Rabid_Clam]

Well, we are back to the 'supposed to' state of being. You are 'supposed to' be dressed to cover genitels and mamary glands. And if not, you are 'supposed to' be hauled into court and punnishment is 'supposed to' be issued agains you.

Does that 'supposed to' part ever have an end ??

[Agde]

Originally posted by RalphVa:
617.23 Indecent exposure; penalties.
Subdivision 1. ...etc...
Sounds like there needs to be a basic law that says something like "Any law that is not understandable to the object of the law is invalid." http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
...breasts are not genitals...
Now THAT is an understandable, tidy formulation! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif