Wording of state laws

[coloartist]

My main interest is in nude hiking which I have done plenty of over the years. I live in Colorado and most trails are deserted.

However I do run into an occasional clothed hiker in which case I try to cover up by putting on my hiking shorts over my boots and falling backwards into the bushes. The law in Colorado (and many other states):

Indecent exposure.

(1) A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.

My dictionary defines genitals (or genitalia) as pertaining to the external sexual organs.

I do not understand where female breasts, male or female buttocks can be included.

[coloartist]

My main interest is in nude hiking which I have done plenty of over the years. I live in Colorado and most trails are deserted.

However I do run into an occasional clothed hiker in which case I try to cover up by putting on my hiking shorts over my boots and falling backwards into the bushes. The law in Colorado (and many other states):

Indecent exposure.

(1) A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.

My dictionary defines genitals (or genitalia) as pertaining to the external sexual organs.

I do not understand where female breasts, male or female buttocks can be included.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coloartist:
My dictionary defines genitals (or genitalia) as pertaining to the external sexual organs.

I do not understand where female breasts, male or female buttocks can be included. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It depends on how the court interprets it. In Ohio and New York breasts and buttocks have been judged to not be sex organs (or more quaintly - 'private parts'), thus thongs and topfreedom are affirmatively legal there (unless a local jurisdiction has a more restrictive law - most do not).

Every State has its own indecency laws and its own case history concerning them. At least half of the states do not prohibit topfreedom for women (that is, freedom for women to go without a top wherever males can), but to my knowledge this has only been confirmed by the courts in New York and Ohio.

Some local police and prosecutors are notorious for enforcing indecency laws even when those laws don't apply (i.e. an alternate charge of disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and 'resisting arrest' should you object). Thus 'legality' may not be a defense against hostile law enforcement. But most cops prefer to go after real crime.

Most states also have some sort of equal protection or equal rights guarantee in their constitutions or legal codes, thus even where women's breasts are explicitly criminalized by law, those laws are of questionable legality. Unfortunately its going to take a lot of women being arrested and prosecuted to firmly establish those rights (as in NY and OH).

Summary of State Laws concerning Nudity, Topfreedom & Thongs (1998) (http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu/~brahm/legal_sum.html)
NAC State Laws pages (more up to date) (http://nac.oshkosh.net/StatesFrames/state_laws_and_legislation.html)

-Mark

[Capricorn]

Perhaps the law should allow all beach users at their discretion to be totally nude or partially so. Special areas should be provided to accommodate those who for any reason are offended or uncomfortable when they see others totally nude.

[Angel]

And it depends on where you live in Colorado. Colorado Springs city council recently amended the Public Indecency statute to specifically criminalize simple nudity, specifically citing the female breast as a body part that must be covered in public or in any area that could be viewed by the public.

See this thread for the full text of the changes: http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000072 . (You may have to cut and paste the link into your browser if it's broken.)

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Angel:
Colorado Springs city council recently amended the Public Indecency statute to specifically criminalize simple nudity, specifically citing the female breast as a body part that must be covered in public or in any area that could be viewed by the public.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's no way that this statute will stand up if completely challenged in court.

Gary

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coloartist:
My main interest is in nude hiking which I have done plenty of over the years. I live in Colorado and most trails are deserted.

However I do run into an occasional clothed hiker in which case I try to cover up by putting on my hiking shorts over my boots and falling backwards into the bushes. The law in Colorado (and many other states):

Indecent exposure.

(1) A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.

My dictionary defines genitals (or genitalia) as pertaining to the external sexual organs.

I do not understand where female breasts, male or female buttocks can be included. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I had a good laugh over your description of trying to cover up. Been there, done that.

If the law references genitals, then it does not include breasts or buttocks.

Re wording of state laws and the phrase "likely to cause affront or alarm". There are at least 3 different ways that this can be determined:

1. In the opinion of the viewer.
2. With reference to community standards.
3. Taking into account the intentions of the nude person.

Re #2: Some courts hold that it doesn't matter if a particular person might be affected in this way. What is more important is what the community can tolerate. Some state/provincial laws are written or interpreted this way.

Re #3: Some laws consider the intentions of the nude person rather than the reaction of the viewer.

Both #2 and #3 make a lot of sense to me. It is #1 that is the problem for nudists.

Gary

[coloartist]

In my search I have contacted federal, state, county and local authorities, normally asking for the most senior ranger/officer for an interpration. I now know that each ranger/officer seems to be very well aware of the law but quite varied in their interpretation.

US Forest Service Rangers seem to be the most liberal, but in most cases in Colorado would have to drive 60 miles to check out a complaint.

For 2 months my neighborhood had a problem with a "crack house". The officers have never seemed to time their visitations so as to keep the evidence from going to the great toilet bowl in the sky. One night at 3 AM I called the City to complain about the noise and traffic and they asked me if I would run up the house and get the address. If I were to do that in my normal night time attire or lack thereof, I would be the one arrested.!

You know you have surprised a nude hiker when you round-the-bend and he/she has both legs in only one leg hole.

[Nude in the North]

I've never understood the "Likely to cause Afront or Alarm" part of these laws.

(1) A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.

Does that mean it's ok to expose one's genitals as long as it's under circumstances that are not "Likely" to cause affront or alarm?
Being in your own yard or hiking on a seldom traveled trail would make it Unlikely that anyone would be alarmed at seeing you. Since it's unlikely that you would meet anyone.
Affront means to insult. How could seeing genitals "insult" someone in the first place. I can only speak for my own, but I have never heard them Insult anybody.
How can a person know if something is going to alarm someone else? And why should it matter as long as there isn't any aggressive action or perveted motives attached?
I'm "Alarmed" when I see someone with Purple and Orange , Spiked hair and nose rings. Should those people be arrested? I get alarmed when I see someone wearing a leather jacket with chains on it. Should they be arrested too?
Lot's of things alarm some people. Should we just go out and arrest everyone that alarms those people? Or teach those people not to be alarmed at everything they see.

Personally I don't think any law that reads, " to cause affront or alarm" makes any sense.
All a nudist should have to do is ask, what part of me mowing my lawn, gardening, or taking a walk is alarming? If a person is doing things that are legal while dressed, then doing them nude should be legal too.

Steve

[Gary Naturist]

Whether some action is "likely to cause affront or alarm" is a matter of opinion. But whose opinion? Depending on the particularly wording, it could be the person who saw the nude person, the nude person him/herself, or the local community (i.e. its standards).

Gary

[coloartist]

Good point. Let's call these ideas the "Purple Hair, Leather and Chains Defense". I couldn't agree with you more.

I've always focused on the misuse of the term genitalia (you have to love that word !) but the intention of the hiker/mower/walker person may be the weak link. My intention (when starting out) is to get some fresh air, to enjoy the freedom of being nude, to be more comfortable without sweaty clothing, and to add an element of danger to an activity that might be rather uninteresting at times. I carry shorts also. But I agree with Gary that from my experience that running into another hiker has been more alarming for me.

Of course as is always the case my intentions when starting out and my intentions when trying to argue against a citation are two different things. Suddenly my "getting a thrill hiking naked" becomes "there were red ants in my shorts and I was getting them out".

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nude in the North:
I've never understood the "Likely to cause Afront or Alarm" part of these laws.
Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is the great nudist loophole!:-)

It means that nudity is OK where it is practiced in an isolated area or somewhere where traditional practice has established its use as a clothing optional location. Thus no-one can claim to be 'affronted or alarmed' to see nudity at a traditional nude beach- even if it is not an 'official' nude beach. No one should claim to be 'affronted or alarmed' by a skinnydipper in the deep wilderness where you are unlikely to be seen by others.

As a practical matter this makes it possible to take care of necessary body functions and washing up in the wilderness without breaking the law so long as reasonable precautions are taken to not be seen by unwitting strangers.

On the other hand, a flasher intends to cause "affront or alarm" in their victims. Streaking is usually dealt with the same as flashing even though few people can claim to be alarmed, and the 'affront' to witnesses is largely contrived.

[coloartist]

The nudist loophole (thank God for small favors !) would seem to open the door for strip joints and other types of businesses. The patrons in these cases are not affronted or alarmed. But laws against this activity then (intentionally or not) gives us who prefer a more natural lifestyle a bad name.

Legislating morality is not logical. In my opinion there is not one state law that makes complete sense, particularly when lawmakers are trying to protect us from heaven knows what !!!

What really gets me going is that 100 years from now, when I'm taking the Eternal Dirt Nap, all of these laws will have changed. And I'll bet they are more permissive.

If people are so alarmed or offended by nudity, why are strip joints so popular, and why is porn a multi-billion dollar business?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coloartist:
The nudist loophole (thank God for small favors !) would seem to open the door for strip joints and other types of businesses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The nonsensical part about using 'public indecency' laws against strip clubs is that their nudity happens behind closed doors, as is the nudity in a gym locker room or doctor's office.

Last year Ohio had an AFA-sponsored bill to 'regulate adult businesses' which also would have outlawed school showers, gym locker room, and possibly even public rest rooms since it was so broad and reckless in its scope. It would also have classified nudist resorts as 'adult businesses'. Thanks to Naturist opposition it was defeated in committee.

I am not a particular fan of strip clubs, and I can understand the public interest in wanting to regulate them IF they cause problems in their locales by attracting bad elements, illegal activities etc. But using overly broad 'public indecency' laws to regulate what goes on behind closed doors just doesn't add up.