Why should public nudity not be illegal?

[Gary Naturist]

You have been asked to appear as a witness before a committee of lawmakers, or a court of law, to explain why public nudity should not be considered illegal.

In order to have the maximum impact, you need to be able to summarize your assertions in no more than five points of no more than 25 words each.

Note: Assume that it will be possible for public nudity to be controlled on public property by social pressure and on private property by the owners.

Your (up to 5) points of no more than 25 words each are ...

Gary

[Gary Naturist]

You have been asked to appear as a witness before a committee of lawmakers, or a court of law, to explain why public nudity should not be considered illegal.

In order to have the maximum impact, you need to be able to summarize your assertions in no more than five points of no more than 25 words each.

Note: Assume that it will be possible for public nudity to be controlled on public property by social pressure and on private property by the owners.

Your (up to 5) points of no more than 25 words each are ...

Gary

[stevenf64]

There are so many points you could make, from medical to social to spiritual, however you would have to judge to see if they were actually open to the idea. Lets see if I can start the list.

1)A lot of skin almeants are created by not having enough air contact. This would go for body as well as feet (imagine feet in boots all day)

2)Nudism takes away body shame and allows for more open and honest discussion

3)Although I am sure that there are people who prey on children everywhere it is much harder for them to hide there true intent in a nudist setting

4)It allows for more frank and honest discussions about physical abnormalities

5)It allows for more openness regarding the changes that our children go through (one of the major concerns regarding children going thru puberty is I think some of them feel no one would understand because they are the only ones who are or have gone through it).

6)Doctors have proven that not enough exposer to the sun in the winter is the reason for a lot of depression

7)Its preaty hard to hide who you are behind what you have when we are all on egual footing (makes keeping up with the Joneses a lot easier)


The list goes on and on, but I will leave some points for others to make. However let me say, as someone who lives up in New England, that I for one know that there are times that clothes are a needed.

steve

nude when possible, clothed when practical

[nudeM]

From an economical standpoint, being able to be nude in public would reduce the requirement of air conditioning. Being able to go swimming in the public pool then sit out in the breeze would further reduce the need for air conditioning.

Doing yard work, nude, you would not be confined to wet, sticky clothing. A gentle breeze will cool you off.

Don't have to worry about concealed weapons. Where would you hide the weapon?

As stated already, the list could go on and on.

[wannabenaked2001]

In the context of "public nudity", it is a victimless crime. While some may argue there are those who will be "offended", this does not constitute a "victim". Personally I find some of today's clothing offencive (ie, logos on T-shirts, baggy jeans worn below the waist to display underwear, etc.) (OK, to be honest the jeans just look silly to me, not really "offencive")

Some may object on moral grounds, but I truley belive the goverment must not dictate "morals".

[Rex]

Unless I had very sound reasons to think differently, my very considerable experience of putting a case for nudists' rights would lead me to assume that I was not going to get a fair hearing.
I would expect to be virtually under attack, even if the judicial panel or whatever appeared friendly and reasonable.
I would go in only on various health angles, but, under these circumstances, I would talk about various legal options which may be exercised by some unknown third person.
Some very assertive person, [not me, of course], may decide to challenge the law, or may decide to sue etc.

[Trailscout]

Public nudity is not illegal by federal law, but ironically, states, counties and municipalities are free to pass laws against it.

This constitutes an abbridgement of freedom of expression. The rights and personal freedoms granted to us nationally cannot be constitutionally curtailed at the local level. (The same principle should apply to gun control laws and the Right to Bear Arms). That does not prevent local governments from passing laws specific to their borders, as long as those laws do not diminish personal rights guaranteed to all Americans. Or do we need to revisit the Dred Scott decision?

[MikeJB]

I really do think that public nudity is a human right if not a part of the first amendment because to me its a form of expression and to deny people this goes as far as being a breach of this amendment and the people's freedom of expression. I mean I know people might be "offended" by nudity but personally I dont see why they are or think they should be and personally if you can apply being offended to nudity, you can apply it to baggy shorts, bikinis, thongs, etc. I think that nudity is beneficial to children and teens. Nudity is also practical for most yardwork and most other types of labor *saftey issues aside, thats just common sense*. I also beleive that the government shouldnt enforce morals, because we are too diverse and have too many opposing morals for one government to set up one set of morals for everyone to follow. Its like with the gun thing, people can legally bare arms, but are denied this in several areas and dispite some saftey issues, this is a breach of their rights. The same goes for nudity and I think nudity falls under the freedom of expression and while federal law says that nudity in and of itself is not illegal, many state and local laws try to say it is? Now how can this be legal? I could go on and on about this but I think I have some logical view points here.

[Bob S.]

I'll give some reasons later, but let me now make a counterpoint to Trailscout's message.

The Federal Government does not regulate nudity. They leave that to the states. There is no right to be naked granted to us by the federal govt. That means that the states and localities have the power to make such laws and why we laws that vary so widely from state to state.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Yeah but they say nudity isnt lewd in and of itself and basically say that its ok, so why dont they just tell everyone that its legal and just say that you cant make any law making it illegal *baring situations where its practical, i.e climate and saftey situations*. If the feds just let the states make the rules, then they can basically decide whatever they want and youll end up with 50 different thoughts about nudity and no one will ever know weither its legal or not.

[BareInBare]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the Presidential Oath of Office. The Constitution is used in this oath as well as supposedly being the greatest document created by our forefathers, yadda, yadda. The problem is that if states are allowed to ammend their own versions of laws, then is it not a violation on the President's part to not defend our rights? Seems to me that he is then not holding up to his oath to defend the Constitution. Am I wrong?

Sure, there are other factors. It is not as simple as the President standing up and saying that it is OK to be naked. There are channels to go through such as House and Senate approvals on bills and laws. BUT, we are not asking for a law. As Trailscout said, it is NOT illegal by Federal Law to be nude, but we could use some form of help by someone "preserving" our Constitutional Rights.

I actually did a paper for a Government class last semester in college about the violation of our rights to be nude...and I received an A+ on the paper.

Joel

[MikeJB]

Maybe you should make it appearant to the president that you find the individual states that are banning nudity are violating the constitution by doing this because the constitution allows freedom of expression and the federal law says nudity is illegal and that you think its odd how the federal law says nudity is ok but these smaller state and local laws can somehow go beyond the constitution and say its illegal. If you cant tell the president then maybe you could tell someone else who would be in a position to challenge or change the laws in the states. I think maybe the president could do something if he didnt have his head stuck in this whole Iraq thing 24/7. I mean I know thats important and im glad they caught that Saddam guy but I dont think he should get so into it that he forgets his duties to our country and his need to deal with OUR problems as well.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JerseyNudist:

I actually did a paper for a Government class last semester in college about the violation of our rights to be nude...and I received an A+ on the paper.

Joel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could you make a copy of this paper available to this site?

Gary

[nudeM]

The states have the right to enact their own laws, only the laws cannot supercede the constitution. This is why the laws on nudity is different from state to state.

Is the ability to be nude considered to be a form of freedom of expression? It could, but it is also considered to be a way of life for some. This is where the constitution comes into play. The government cannot tell you "how" to live, but it can leave it up to the states to provide "guidelines" by which there are standards set. Once you overstep the bounds of these standards, then it is the states, not the U.S. Government, who decides the penalties. It is also the states who must stay within the standards that the constitution provides.

Whew, talk about s*** rolling downhill. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[BareInBare]

Yes, but the states setting "legal" guidelines for how we should live is a smaller scale example of Communism, is it not?

MikeJB is correct, the president could do something for us and our domestic problems if Iraq wasn't his priority. I am not saying that there are not bigger domestic issues than whether we can live nude or not without being bothered, there are far more important things that need attention such as homeless and economy. I cannot remember the last president who actually put time in to the domestic front..oh, yeah, Bill Clinton.

I will try and dig up the paper, I think it was an essay or a editorial of some sort. When and if I find it I will post it here.

Joel

[BareInBare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Could you make a copy of this paper available to this site?

Gary </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here is the article, it was in fact a response on a current event at the time and it was during all the BS going on in Florida over the nudist camps.

Joel


The article I have chosen for my first editorial is entitled, Lawmaker aims to button
up children away at nudist camp and was written by Willoughby Mariano for the Orlando
Sentinel on July 1, 2003.

This article explains that a Florida state representative, John Quinones, wants to
stop teenagers from being permitted to attend summer nudist camps without adult
supervision. His goal is to introduce a state law that would dictate how and when children
ages 11-18 can socialize au natural. spokespeople for the American Association of Nude
Recreation (AANR) have reported that camps like this throughout the state and other
parts of the nation have operated without incident for more than ten years; and they have
also stated that each camp has the highest security measures in place to protect the teens
and families. Quinones and other lawmakers have urged Governor Jeb Bush to launch an
investigation into criminal acts and complaints against these camps. However, there is no
proof of incident to move upon.

This article encompasses several of the points in Chapter One. Fistly, the proposal
in Florida by Quinones had not become issue until after a New York Times article ran
claiming rumour to indecent activities in such camps. This is an example of how a myth or
story has helped to perpetuate politicians view on making an unnecessary law. This also
relates to the question in the chapter that we explored on ?How Much Should
Government Do?? These news stories about the nudist camps become ideologies so that
the american people think that the lawmakers are doing something viable. But is this not a
form of Conservatism or Populism? Here I see that the lawmakers in Florida want to
dictate what is right and wrong in the private lives of it?s contituants. This is why I feel I
am more Liberal. The government has far more important things to do than to decide for
adults whether their children should be allowed to spend time in a summer camp that is
designed around the family lifestyle. Specifically, when there is no evidence to support
claims by the representatives that there is any wrong doings at the said camps.

Joseph Michalec
Source:
Orlando Sentinel Online
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-locnude01070103jul01,0,171265.story?co
ll=orl-news-headlines

[Bob S.]

Well, I would first need to address the need to get topfreedom rights for women:

Women's breasts are simply larger, functional versions of men's breasts. To have women be forced to cover them is discriminatory according to their gender.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Yeah I actually tried telling my dad about how womens breasts are larger more functional versions of male breasts and honestly he didnt buy it. He tried to tell me that because women ARE different because theyre "wired" differently and have different feelings and emotions, thats why they are not allowed to show their breasts like males are. I mean to me thats a bunch of crap, I see how women are different n all but I dont really see how that applies to women's breasts being treated any differently than male ones. I mean if you can go beyond the whole wiring and emotional and hormone crap then basically womens breasts are the same as mens, just bigger and actually serve a purpose. I dont see how this would be reason enough to deem them unacceptable.

[MikeJB]

Jersey Nudist, I think that article you wrote was really good and I see why you got an A+ on it. Im sure if I wrote an article on that subject for my previous english class, my teacher wouldve liked it too. I just dont see any reason for people to go after these nudist camps and say that they have problems when there is no proof that anything has or even is likely to happen there.

[Jochanaan]

Here goes:

1. The sight of a naked human does not materially harm anyone. Offense does not constitute material harm.

2. The establishment of a dress code in a public place is prejudicial discrimination. Nudity is neither more nor less than another mode of dress.

3. Although the Government may have the right to regulate sexual activity in a public place, nudity is not a sexual activity.

4. Discomfort with nudity has been shown to have harmful effects on one's psychological well-being.

5. For these reasons public nudity ought not to be prohibited.

[Gary Naturist]

Thanks, JerseyNudist. Good points.

Gary