What exactly counts as nude.

[eaglepeakpete]

Recently a scooterist was nicked here for not wearing his crash helmet.He had it on his arm.He got off because the law does not say the crash helmet should be worn on the head, and technically he was wearing it.
I wonder if the same could be applied to nudes, if for example you worn your shorts on your arm, you could argue you were wearing shorts.If you have a hat on are you nude? It might be fun to challenge some of the stupid laws and let people be free.

[Rebecca]

that is a ver good point, you should do some research on it and if itis viable it might spark a revolution of people walking around (mostly) naked. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[RichNH]

I think most laws regarding nudity are written so that they specify what needs to be covered, not what articles of clothes need to be worn.

But I like the thinking outside the box....

Rich

[DoctorSurferDude]

I think the word "Naked" serves a better definition here. Cause you can still be wearing a helmet and shoes and be naked as a jaybird.

[MJ_KC]

Most laws that I have read will go into excruciating detail about exactly what has to be covered with clothing that is opaque.

[Nudony]

I think most laws regarding nudity are written so that they specify what needs to be covered, not what articles of clothes need to be worn.

Correct. In many states, the nipples for woman and sex organs for all have to be covered. Technically, that means if a woman wore nipple coverings (pasties) and a piece of cloth over her privates, and a man wore a pouch containing his genitals, they would not be breaking the law.

But who wants to chance it?

[NakedGary]

Not so in most cities "Nudony"

Typical Nudity code:

It is unlawful for any person to appear, bathe, sunbathe, walk or be in any public park, playground, or beach, or the waters adjacent thereto, located within the city, in such a manner that the genitals, vulva, pubis, pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus, anal region, or pubic hair region of any person, or any portion of the breast at or below the upper edge of the areola thereof on any female person, is exposed to public view or is not covered by an opaque covering.
A. This section shall not apply to children under the age of ten (10) years.
B. This section shall not apply to live theatrical performances performed in a theater, concert hall, or other similar establishment located on public land.
C. Some cities and States: Human male genitals in a discernably turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
.

[nudenwv]

hmmm. interesting thread! i'll let someone else challenge that. let me know if it works!

[kphoger]

i wonder if paint qualifies as an "opaque covering".

[Tampanude]

and a piece of cloth over her privates
I seem to recall a court case where a woman was prosecuted for streaking but it was dismissed because her "genitalia" as interpreted as reproductive organs were not in display..

The argument was successfully put forth that her ovaries were not visible

chaulk one up for her lawyer to have researched the letter of the law so well

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by Tampanude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and a piece of cloth over her privates
I seem to recall a court case where a woman was prosecuted for streaking but it was dismissed because her "genitalia" as interpreted as reproductive organs were not in display..

The argument was successfully put forth that her ovaries were not visible

chaulk one up for her lawyer to have researched the letter of the law so well </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that happened in Maine (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nudism2.htm) a few years ago. <UL TYPE=SQUARE> 2002-FEB-20?: ME: Students beat indecency charge: Two female students at the University of Maine went streaking near their school. The police caught them and charged both with indecent conduct. One of the defendants argued that the law applies only to perpetrators who "knowingly expose their genitals in public." One of the women asked the arresting officer if he "saw my genitalia." He was forced to reply that he had not. The judge, a woman, noted that female genitalia are "primarily internal," and thus not visible, dismissed the charges for lack of evidence. [/list]


Recently a scooterist was nicked here for not wearing his crash helmet.He had it on his arm.He got off because the law does not say the crash helmet should be worn on the head, and technically he was wearing it.
I wonder if the same could be applied to nudes, if for example you worn your shorts on your arm, you could argue you were wearing shorts.If you have a hat on are you nude? That is basically what happened in Toronto (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1386866) - nude marchers in a "Pride Day" parade had charges dropped because since they were wearing shoes they were not in fact totally naked. Note that in the US most statutes refer to the body parts being covered, not on the articles of clothing themselves.

-Mark

[scubare]

Interesting thread. How do all of these statutes line up with freedom of expression when demonstrating or protesting nude? I have heard that is one of the reasons that World Naked Bike Ride is allowed in many cities.

[Nude in the North]

I've even read some laws where if the outline of a penis is apparent through otherwise opaque , you can be charged the same as if you were nude.

"charges dropped because since they were wearing shoes they were not in fact totally naked."

That might work if you were charged with Public Nudity. But Indecent Exposure only takes one to have his zipper down.

[nudebushwalker]

What I find odd at times, is when some journalists report on someone being "nude" or "naked", and you can easily see that person is wearing briefs, a g-string or short shorts...

It's as if some parts of the mass media are trying to redefine the very meaning of "nude"..