Arkansas anti-nudism law: sensible or silly?

[Bob S.]

The Miller Test has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. It only has to do with the quality of content of speech or expression.

The Arkansas law is unconstitutional on all sides of the First Amendment. Speech and Press are violated in the advocacy issue. Anyone is allowed to advocate for anything, even violations of the law so long as they are not violent, riotous, or any other law that protects the immediate safety of citizens. If there is a law I don't agree with, I can advocate for its defeat the same as I can advocate for a practice that is currently illegal.

Religion is violated as some religious rites should be done naked and the government has no business getting involved in the dress codes of religious leaders in private.

Peaceable assembly is violated as long as the meetings are done in private and are peaceable, the government cannot demand anything of the meetings, including dress codes.

Petitioning the government may be violated as petitioning the government is a form of advocacy.

Any person who is charged under the nudist portion of the law does not even need a lawyer, just a copy of the First Amendment. ACLU, NAC, AANR, and many other rights legal groups will gladly assist in any test case for this law.

Bob S.

[BinCo]

I like the use of "private parts".

As used in this section, "nudism" means the act or acts of a person or persons congregating or gathering with his, her, or their private parts exposed in the presence of one (1) or more persons of the opposite sex as a form of social practice.

For many people the belly button is considered "private". This law is as stupid as the people who wrote it. And they wonder why so much of the country makes fun of the backward ways down yonder.

[Steve]

I thend to think the arguments regarding the constitutional relevance for AR law's mute. My guess is that even if they are linking nudism to sex-they allow adult theatres and book stores there-it will still be allowed.

saying that-there are no nudist clubs that I am aware of or nudist beaches in AR

[Kouak]

I like the use of "private parts".

As used in this section, "nudism" means the act or acts of a person or persons congregating or gathering with his, her, or their private parts exposed in the presence of one (1) or more persons of the opposite sex as a form of social practice.

For many people the belly button is considered "private". This law is as stupid as the people who wrote it. And they wonder why so much of the country makes fun of the backward ways down yonder.

Nudists don't consider their genitals as private parts. Therefore nudists can go nude in public since none of their private parts (there are none) are being exposed!

[NakedGary]

Quote by "Kouak"

Nudists don't consider their genitals as private parts. Therefore nudists can go nude in public since none of their private parts (there are none) are being exposed!

The Cops or the Law do not think like you "Kouak"

Technically your not nude if you have any thing on including socks, shoes, gloves, or anything.

[Kouak]

The Cops or the Law do not think like you "Kouak"

Technically your not nude if you have any thing on including socks, shoes, gloves, or anything.

Not many people think like me! The bain of my existance!

[Naturist Mark]

The Miller Test has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. It only has to do with the quality of content of speech or expression.

Quite so.

The relevance of the Miller Test is in the spurious claim that the First Amendment doesn't invalidate the AR anti-nudism law because obscenity is excluded from First Amendment protection and AR defines nudism as obscene.

But that exclusion is only for obscenity that passes the Miller test. What the Arkansas legislature considers obscene is irrelevant.

[Stu2630]

The Arkansas law is illiberal and intolerant. To have an entire state which not only bans all nudism, but also bans its promotion, is crazy and smacks of fundamentalism. I would be surprised if your Constitution doesn't provide a remedy to force the state legislature to review their laws and moderate them.

Having said that, let's be clear that the expression "private parts" is not intended to be literally: it is a euphemism for those parts of the anatomy which we regard as the primary sexual organs, excretory organs and the areas around them, and certain parts of female breasts.

Stu

[Steve]

The Arkansas law is illiberal and intolerant. To have an entire state which not only bans all nudism, but also bans its promotion, is crazy and smacks of fundamentalism. I would be surprised if your Constitution doesn't provide a remedy to force the state legislature to review their laws and moderate them.

Having said that, let's be clear that the expression "private parts" is not intended to be literally: it is a euphemism for those parts of the anatomy which we regard as the primary sexual organs, excretory organs and the areas around them, and certain parts of female breasts.

Stu

I really dont know why, but nudists per se are not well received by the general public. the are looked at as "odd" "wierd" things like that.

it's an outrageous stereotype that has held back nudism and the c/o recreation. it is this type of intolerance that I feel has fueled the AR law.

[Bob S.]

Mark: "The relevance of the Miller Test is in the spurious claim that the First Amendment doesn't invalidate the AR anti-nudism law because obscenity is excluded from First Amendment protection and AR defines nudism as obscene."

Another thing is that nudist publications are considered to pass the Miller test since they are legal to distribute in stores and through the mail.

Stu: "I would be surprised if your Constitution doesn't provide a remedy to force the state legislature to review their laws and moderate them."

Unconstitutional laws can stay on the books only until they are tested in a court of law. In order to be tested, someone must be charged with them. Apart from that, there is no legal force for a state to change their laws. There are so many idiotic laws on the books in many states that could be unconstitutional but the laws are never used. Just look up stupid laws in the US.

Stu: "let's be clear that the expression "private parts" is not intended to be literally: it is a euphemism for those parts of the anatomy which we regard as the primary sexual organs, excretory organs and the areas around them, and certain parts of female breasts."

Laws should be clear. The term "private parts" should never be in a law.

Bob S.