He was breaking the law - and openly defying the law.No. It is the government authorities who have made the decision to waste public funds with their pointless prosecution of Stephen Gough.
Any country which does not respond to this is giving in to lawbreaker - anyone can thus change any law they dislike simply by a tactic of attrition - by continually breaking it and wearing down the authorities until they throw in the towel. If I came to visit the US and decided I didn't one of your laws, so I just kept on defying it until your judges or legislature decided they'd had enough and changed it, would that be OK? Maybe if someone didn't like nudist beaches and visited a beach and continually annoyed naturists by photographing them, that would be OK, would it?
Nobody elected Gough to make or change Scots law - he appointed himself to do that.
No, something is only offensive in law if it can be predicted to cause offence. Wearing a purple hat might offend one or perhaps even two people, but they are untypical and their offence is not foreseeable. Nudity, however, strikes at people's core values and is certainly known to cause offence.People will encounter things they find obscene and/or distressing, it happens no matter how many laws that they pass against it offences are still there. .
The person who is affected by the sight of a purple hat has an aberrant and untypical sensitivity and they can certainly be expected to unlearn it. Sensitivity to nudity is both commonplace and linked to cultural and social values, and the millions of people who feel this way should not have to recalibrate their sensibilities to accommodate one selfish and arrogant exhibitionist.Being offended is a choice and learned behaviour, it can be un-learned
Nonsense. Nobody objects to seeing his knees, his hands or his shoulderblades. The difference between acceptable nudity (i.e. the near nudity of wearing shorts) and complete nudity is that, with the latter, the sex organs are exposed. He makes it his business to ensure that, no matter what, his penis is visible to all.he is not forcing anyone to look at his penis, he is not going up to people grabbing their heads and forcing it into his crotch. He is walking, seeing his penis is incidental.
Nobody objects to seeing the top of his head or his feet, but he can somehow manage to wear a hat and socks and boots. In other words, he can wear clothing for his own comfort, but he can't don a pair of shorts for a few minutes while walking through a village, along a busy rod or past a children's play area, for the sake of others' comfort.
He has said that this is his intention - to force people to (his words) confront their own "skin phobia". Nobody asked him to do that. The public didn't say to him "please cure us of our skin phobia, Mr Gough". Quite the reverse - they don't want it, which is why h has many complaints and has spent six years in prison at taxpayers' expense.