Thought crimes

[Bob S.]

In the child porn topic, stu made the comment about "thought crimes." That gets me thinking now about the indecent exposure laws. Virtually all laws on the books relating to that have the "victim's" reaction as reason for citing that law. If I go outside naked and someone finds my body shocking, disturbing, alarming, etc. they can cal the police and report that.

So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble. Because of their bias, I am in trouble. The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator." This is like the opposite of thought crimes, where instead of being arrested for something you thought of, you are being arrested for something someone else thought of.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

In the child porn topic, stu made the comment about "thought crimes." That gets me thinking now about the indecent exposure laws. Virtually all laws on the books relating to that have the "victim's" reaction as reason for citing that law. If I go outside naked and someone finds my body shocking, disturbing, alarming, etc. they can cal the police and report that.

So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble. Because of their bias, I am in trouble. The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator." This is like the opposite of thought crimes, where instead of being arrested for something you thought of, you are being arrested for something someone else thought of.

Bob S.

Bob,

"So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble."

It's the ACT itself that's got you into trouble, Bob, not the thoughts of the victims.

"Because of their bias, I am in trouble."

I wouldn't call it a "bias", it's a conditioned response that (I would contend) most people have - namely being shocked, upset, disturbed etc by the sight of nudity in public.

"The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator.""

That's certainly not the case here. If you look at public order law it talks about "intending to cause, or in a way he knows is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress". The new indecent exposure law will be similarly worded. Consequently the offence is committed if, and only if, the perpetrator had the requisite "mens rea" or guilty intent.

If I were to re-draft the law on indecent exposure, I'd have two levels of offence. The most serious would be a sexual offence and it would be necessary to prove a lewd or sexual intent. The lesser offence would be a public order offence and it would be worded something like:

"1. It shall be an offence for any person in, or from, or directed towards, any public place, to expose their genitals or pubic area, their buttocks, or, in the case of an adult female, her naked breasts, in the knowledge that another person may see them who may be shocked, alarmed, disturbed, offended, upset or annoyed.

2. The offence at subsection 1 is not committed if the place concerned is a place in which a person may reasonably expect to see nudity or the body parts mentioned in subsection 1.

3. Any person convicted of the offence at subsection 1 above shall be liable upon conviction to a fine as at level 4 on the standard scale, or three months imprisonment, or both"

I think this sort of wording would protect naturists at their normal places, ensure that someone skinny-dipping at an EXTREMELY remote place would not fall foul of the law, and would allow for some common sense and discretion, whilst at the same time making the law crystal clear for the public, the police and the courts. I think I might suggest this wording to the government department concerned. What do you think?

Stu

[Nude in the North]

"1. It shall be an offence for any person in, or from, or directed towards, any public place, to expose their genitals or pubic area, their buttocks, or, in the case of an adult female, her naked breasts, in the knowledge that another person may see them who may be shocked, alarmed, disturbed, offended, upset or annoyed."

So what your saying is if someone has some pubic hair extruding from the sides of their bikini or above the waist band of such a swimsuit, that they are guilty of indecent exposure if a person viewing them should be annoyed by seeing it.

There are alot of people that have pubic hair that extends beyond what a normal bikini swimsuit covers. Especially Women.
I hope you don't intend to Jail every woman that doesn't take the time to get a bikini wax before going to the beach.

Steve

[Frank R]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
... Virtually all laws on the books relating to that have the "victim's" reaction as reason for citing that law. If I go outside naked and someone finds my body shocking, disturbing, alarming, etc. they can cal the police and report that. So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble. Because of their bias, I am in trouble. The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator." Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very good point Bob except you appear to believe these laws were written to prevent some crime. With laws like these, they are often written in a very vague way so as to discourage anyone from doing anything that "might" be against the law.

I think the main purpose of these laws is to intimate people into not doing anything since they are not sure exactly what the law says. Most of us do not the time and resources (i.e.-money) to fight these laws all the way through the court system and these "dam you to hell naked perverts" politicians think they can score points with the general population attacking nudist to "save the children".

Having served as an election judge for many years, I can tell you from first hand knowledge that a lot of people who vote have no clue what or who they are voting for. I was always shocked that in primary elections, many people do not even know what party a person is running in.

[Trailscout]

Nude in the North,
You make a very astute observation.

I am also concerned that Stu's proposal would not allow for the expansion nude bathing into new sections of beach as public acceptance of nude bathing increases. It sounds very much like he wants to keep us in our ghettos.

Also his requirement that we go to remote beaches or riverbanks may impose too much of a burden on nudists to avoid being seen at all costs. This is especially discriminatory on those with mobility handicaps.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
1. It shall be an offence for any person in, or from, or directed towards, any public place, to expose their genitals or pubic area, their buttocks, or, in the case of an adult female, her naked breasts, in the knowledge that another person may see them who may be shocked, alarmed, disturbed, offended, upset or annoyed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Upset or annoyed??? Surely you don't support the idea of making laws because people might be upset or annoyed.

To annoy: "To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts."

Rik

steve,

I was very careful not to say "pubic hair" but "pubic area" in the anatomical sense - i.e. the area of skin about the size of a human hand starting at the base of the pubic bone. In other words, even the skimpiest of bikinis would cover it!

trailscout,

"I am also concerned that Stu's proposal would not allow for the expansion nude bathing into new sections of beach as public acceptance of nude bathing increases."

It would certainly put limits on it, yes. IF - and I mean IF, the public acceptance of nude bathing does increase (and I don't think that is either likely nor desireable), then there would be grounds to increase the numbers or clothing optional/naturist beaches.

"It sounds very much like he wants to keep us in our ghettos."

I make no secret of the fact that I am FOR segregation, nor do I apologise for that, and I've made out my case here several times. I don't like the term "ghetto" because it implies slum areas and deprivation - in other words, naturists consigned to poor, remote or inaccessible beaches. You are entitled to a reasonable share of good and easy to reach beaches with good facilities just like the rest of us. When you have them, the case against segregation diminishes.

My suggestion:

"not committed if the place concerned is a place in which a person may reasonably expect to see nudity or the body parts mentioned in subsection 1."

This would protect not only designated naturist beaches, but non-designated ones where it is commonly known that nudity is likely to be encountered.

"Also his requirement that we go to remote beaches or riverbanks may impose too much of a burden on nudists to avoid being seen at all costs. This is especially discriminatory on those with mobility handicaps."

What's the alternative? To allow people with mobility handicaps to go nude whilst others remain clothed? Now that WOULD be discriminatory. The only alternative is to make every beach and other place of public resort clothing optional, and this wouldn't be acceptable to me or most other non-naturists.

Rik,

Whatever law you come up with has to allow for some discretion both by the police and the courts. We have to trust these institutions to some extent to act reasonably - hence the "reasonableness" clauses.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Rik,

Stu's comment also presumes that public attitudes cannot shift toward greater tolerance or even affirmation of social nudity.

Rather than scrupulous efforts to avoid being seen, maybe we need to push the envelope just a bit. I.E. what you saw on continental beaches where nude bathers are not entirely out of sight of textile beaches. The curious could simply wander over to the nude side and try dropping their clothes for an afternoon. We want to make nudity a little more less exotic, a little more attainable.

[Trailscout]

Stu,

I presume that we must now debate how big shall be the hand that covers the pubic area!

I have a non-nudist female relative who makes no effort to shave her triangle and due to her heredity, a rather modest bathing costume reveals considerable pubic hair on either side of her loins. I sincerely hope you will allow her to enjoy a day at the beach without fear of arrest.

Stu, you admit that nude or CO areas should rightfully be allowed to expand with increasing demand, but what hurdles lie ahead for those who wish to occupy additional beach? Must it always be contiguous to existing nude beaches? (Parking capacity may render that action impractical).

Your desire for "segregated" beaches raises more questions: Do you intend to put us a half mile walk from other bathers or from car parks?

At present we have terrible access problems imposed upon us.

How would you determine whether or not a beach is an unofficial but traditional nude beach? This would put an unreasonable burden upon someone to prove traditional use.

As to the issue of the disabled, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act to guarantee access to public facilities. This law is certainly not enforced when it comes to nude beaches. Existing nude beaches should accomodate the handicapped and negotiations for the siting of new nude beaches must be reasonably located to permit access to all citizens.

[Nude in the North]

Stu;
You said : "I was very careful not to say "pubic hair" but "pubic area" "
I chose to misinterpret what you said because I could. And believe me when I say that those 98% of people you love to refer to would do the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the "Pubic" area you refer to would expand to cover any hairy area of the body except maybe the Head. So if you mean an area within 3 inches of a sex organ , say that. If you mean just the sex organ, say that. But saying "pubic area" leaves too much to interpretation.

Now let's talk about women's breasts. You say exposing any part of them should be indecent exposure. That would put almost every woman in the USA and probably most of Europe in jail. I don't think I have ever seen a Womans swimming suit that didn't expose some parts of her breasts.

Why is it that none of the Indecent Exposure laws use the term "Penis"? Are our lawmakers so ashamed of their bodies that they can't even say the word that best describes what they want to outlaw?

Steve

[Bob S.]

stu, I knew that you were going to argue about "acts." I know this road as well, but I will get on the on-ramp again. Your untimate argument is that there should be a dress code for society. You have no problem with me walking outside. You have no problem with me clothed during that walk. You do have a problem with me naked during that walk. Translation, you are asking me to wear something, IOW, a dress code. You don't care about my behaviour, just what I am wearing.

"I wouldn't call it a "bias", it's a conditioned response" OK, so it is a conditioned response. A conditioned response still represents a bias. According to my dictionary, a bias is a "predisposition or prejudice." Even if you have learned it from your parents, that makes it a prejudice. And it is the opinion of the "victim" that defines whether a crime has been committed. How does the "victim" feel? What are her thoughts in reference to the nudity? What was her reaction? And you know full and well that it does not matter what the naked person's intent was. It only matters if someone was upset, alarmed or distressed.

Do women over there have equal rights? Over here, slowly but surely, laws are falling or being challenged to allow for female toplessness where male toplessness is allowed. Why make women cover their baby-feeding organs? Female breasts should not be considered "private parts." They are an innocuous part of the anatomy. Their only function is to produce milk and act as a feeding receptacle for babies. We all have nipples, yet because the female breast is larger, we have sexualized it.

Bob S.

[greensunshine]

Dear Bob S and Stu,

Something that was completely overlooked was the gals who have no breast other than a nipple...are their breast still considered a sex organ...where do we actually make the distinction in what is exceptable for viewing and not /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

While we are on the subject of anatomy...how bout the outline of a mans penis...for some such as what I have read in the past by you Stu, that too is considered by your definition indecent exposure...just by the way you define the human body.

And actually Stu, what is your point in getting us to respond to most of your stupid and as I would call them inappropriate comments????

Grow up Stu and take a good look at yourself...and please don't forget your how shall we say it "Look at your Penis" with the lights and glasses on??? After you do that, take a look at some of the pics on this website...after all you have naked pics on your computer if you are able to make all the comments that I have tried to ignor over time...and after you finish looking at both...compare the two. See yours isn't anymore special or different /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ooops, did I just respond to one myself??? Oh, well we all make dumb mistakes...My turn /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

greensunshine,

"And actually Stu, what is your point in getting us to respond to most of your stupid and as I would call them inappropriate comments????

Grow up Stu and take a good look at yourself..."

I was a little surprised and hurt by your comments. I credited you with being more tolerant and insightful of other views than you obviously are. Please tell me ONE comment that I made that was either stupid or inappropriate.

I am a grown up. But that doesn't mean I have to share your perceptions of how the world is or should be. I have enjoyed exchanging views with people such as Bob and Trailscout and others here in a friendly and constructive way and without acrimony or personal comments. If you want to ignore my postings then please feel free to do so.

Stu

[missouriboy]

Bob S and greensunshine: please be careful not to encourage more silly laws by referring to breasts as "organs." They are merely glands.

Calling them organs leads to some people calling them "sex organs."

[greensunshine]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
Bob S and greensunshine: please be careful not to encourage more silly laws by referring to breasts as "organs." They are merely glands.

Calling them organs leads to some people calling them "sex organs." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oooops /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But from what I have read, if Stu had his way we would all be wearing tents that left nothing to one's imagination and I really couldn't help but to pick on Bob S for a moment /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, and words like breast, nipple, penis, testicle would all be removed from every dictionary on this planet. And Sex is something that too would only happen when the female was in so called heat...come to think of it...it is highly unlikely we would even have this BB, if it weren't for so called people like Stu...if the world were more open minded, we wouldn't need it other than maybe as an info board /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
With all the right parts in all the right places, such as a nipple on each of my breasts (and I have 2 breast), a tummy and a normal healthy vagina (I only have one of those) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"But from what I have read, if Stu had his way we would all be wearing tents that left nothing to one's imagination... "

No. Tents would leave EVERYTHING to the imagination. It's nudity that leaves nothing to the imagination. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Greensunshine - how many times have I got to repeat that I support your right to practice naturism at proper venues, but also that you should have more and better venues. My argument isn't about that. It's about nudity IN PUBLIC. That's quite different.

"Oh, and words like breast, nipple, penis, testicle would all be removed from every dictionary on this planet."

Ewwww I hate it when you talk dirty /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif My family has other names for such unmentionable bits of the anatomy. No. Don't ask!

"..if it weren't for so called people like Stu..."

Oh. I'm not even a "person" now.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Missouri, thanks for that word. I didn't want to use the term "organ" but I couldn't think of the appropriate anatomical term. Thanks.

Greenie, I was not overlooking anything. I've even mentioned the idiocy of the law before. Like the time when a primetime newsmagazine (Dateline NBC?) did a report on men who, because of a hormone imbalance, have female breasts, not too big, but definitely noticeable. They actually showed the men's "female" breasts on TV. But they couldn't show a woman's breasts on TV, even if they looked just like theirs.

And actually, greenie, I prefer smaller breasts on women.

Bob S.

[hw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"Oh, and words like breast, nipple, penis, testicle would all be removed from every dictionary on this planet."
Ewwww I hate it when you talk dirty /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif My family has other names for such unmentionable bits of the anatomy. No. Don't ask!
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Aww, come on Stu. Can you at least give us a hint? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Inquiring minds want to know. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[shãybare]

Stu, you may have other names for them but they still mean the same thing. When someone says they have to take a dump or do number 2 or go poo-poo, do you picture something other than someone taking a sh-t?

Sorry gentlemen, but I fear that such a disclosure would be most indelicate.

Stu

[hw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Sorry gentlemen, but I fear that such a disclosure would be most indelicate.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry Stu, but I am not a "gentlemen". /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I have breasts and a vagina! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Hope I wasn't too graphic for you, I'd hate to think I gave you the " Willies". /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh my God! Pass me the smelling salts! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stu (apoplectic!)

[hw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Oh my God! Pass me the smelling salts! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stu (apoplectic!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry Stu, didn't mean to offend your eyeballs. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

[Fresh Air]

I don't think the "crime" is how the person precieved you. I think the crime is more along the lines of infringement of rights. You do have the right to be nude, for whatever reason you choose, until it has the potential too or may infringe upon the rights of another. They might be flexing their right not to have to see naked people anywhere anytime, and infringing on others rights is a crime.

Fresh Air

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Oh my God! Pass me the smelling salts! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stu (apoplectic!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And so we uncover another of stu's phobias....

how can he enjoy life with so many things to avoid?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Oh my God! Pass me the smelling salts! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stu (apoplectic!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And so we uncover another of stu's phobias....

how can he enjoy life with so many things to avoid? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That was something we British call a "joke" cyndiann. Don't you have "jokes" where you live? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

[Bob S.]

"They might be flexing their right not to have to see naked people anywhere anytime, and infringing on others rights is a crime."

Fresh Air, the only reason why they have the right not to see someone else naked is that it is illegal to be naked in public. And nudity in public is illegal because they are flexing theri rights. No one has the right to nor see naked people "anywhere, antime." They can go to a nude beach and expect to see nudity.

And it still goes to show that it is thought of the "victim" that makes it a crime. With no victim, there is no crime. If you go outside naked and someone else sees you, but is not affected, then no crime is committed. If you go outside, someone sees you and they are affected, there is a crime committed. This crime lies in the reaction (read thought) of the "victim."

Bob S.

[shãybare]

Yes, Stu, we do have jokes here. Except that here we call them politicians.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
Yes, Stu, we do have jokes here. Except that here we call them politicians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What we call our politicians is a something I couldn't think of printing on here so I'll spare everyone's blushes.

Stu

[missouriboy]

Over here, the dirtiest jokes are lawyers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They might be flexing their right not to have to see naked people anywhere anytime... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh... but there is no such right. Went back over my federal and state constitutions quite thoroughly and neither one has clause or amendment referring to a right not to see nekked folks. Consequently state and local governments are entirely free not to pass laws regarding nudity if they wish. If it were a "right",they'd have no choice in the matter.

Now government has a historical power to enact "morals" laws. This power is derived from the common law tradition predating (and recognized by) the constitution. However the courts have steadily whittled away at the authority of common law over the years. Laws that would have been asserted as permissable and proper at one time are ruled impermissable and improper at a later time.

The most common tool for the whittling is the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law shall not be denied any person. Hence when "separate but equal" became intolerable in the eyes of the law, Jim Crow died. When the NY Supreme Court enshrined female toplessness as a constitutional right in that state, the 14th amendment figured prominantly. When the Supreme Court of the US ruled that the Texas Sodomy Law was invalid, it was the 14th amendment that made it so.

Of course when censorship laws get struck down it's the 1st amendment they use. Other times it could be the 4th, 5th or even the 9th.

But the constitution is not an invulnerable shield. Let's just say that if a herd of buffalo get agitated enough they'll stampede right over you regardless of what the courts say. (Stampede right over the courts too, with the President and Congress in the lead if the hysteria is strong enough.)