Is nudity a right? What kind?

[Agde]

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...I absolutely reject the notion of "tyranny of the majority"...

Yes, we know. Your embrace of a unbridled "majority rule" in its rawest form is however a couple centuries out of date. Actually, even Plato and Aristotle had more nuanced views. The American founding fathers, while acknowledging that majority vote was the only practical antidote to rule by kings and oligarchies, spent most of their energy designing "balancing" protections for individuals and minorities.

As a professor, you will also be aware that there are many kinds of "majorities". We generally elect politicians by simple majority, although we group them in competing assemblies. Condo apartment owners and shareholders however vote on the basis of the extent of their property. Super-majorities of two-thirds or more are required on many issues. Some majority votes may be blocked by various veto mechanisms. Some issues, like "rights" and various mutual guarantees, may not be overturned by any sort of vote. There are also hierarchical and geographical limitations on "majority tyranny", eg. some issues may only be voted at a state or national level, or, in the case of civil law countries, no local majority can make something a crime at a local level that is not recognized as a crime in the national penal code.

If you wish to veto another individual's right, eg. whether and how to be clothed, you must tell us what kind of right you believe it is or is not. Only then can it be determined whether and how "majority" opinion applies, which kind of "majority" is in play, and what related veto or guarantee provisions may counter your demand to enforce a majority viewpoint.

[Skinview]

Originally Posted by Stu2630

I absolutely reject the notion of "tyranny of the majority" where that majority comprises educated and informed people.

I suppose a tyrant would. I'm not surprised.

The nations of this planet which have the combination of an educated and informed populace and true democracy are invariably the most liberal and tolerant of minority rights.

Hardly. Millions of blacks in America were held in abject slavery for many, many decades. And their rights were squashed for many decades after slavery ended, and this state of affairs persisted into living memery.

The ONLY alternative to being ruled by the will of the majority is being ruled by an elite minority, and that is repugnant, whether that minority are some kind of politbureau, or a bunch of lawyers elevated by the execuitive to the judiciary.

Hardly repugnant. You call it Parliment where you are, and we have a Congress, which shares power with a couple of other branches of government elites. Our Supreme Court exists in part to protect minority rights from the majority, and most of us are thankful that this is so. (Of course the majority gripes and complains every time the court excercises that power.) It caused quite a stir when the Supreme Court ended segregation. Lots of people were "offended".

Several years ago, a tastless men's magazine published a rude satire of a famous moralizing religious leader in the US. The individulal sued the magazine for libel, having been "offended" and "upset". He won, but the ruling of the lower court was overturned by the Supreme Court, which stated, I think unanimously, that we would have no free speach at all if figures being "upset" or "offended" trumped our right to publish our thoughts. Your being "offended", or any number of people being "offended", counts for nothing in the face of my rights. As it should be, and as it is in much of the western world.

The people who are required to live by the law and the decisions of the executive have a fundamental right to a say in what that law says, and to hire and fire the executive at will.

Not at will, only at specified intervals. And then we have an appointed judiciary in the US, which can strike down any law which violates the rights of the individual, or violates our Constitution, and the appointment is for life, and they cannot be removed except in extreem circumstances which I have never seen happen, and never for how they rule. It protects them from being pressured by the majority, so they need only be concerned with our rights and the Constitution. As it should be.

[Agde]

I suspect that acceptance of a bit more clothes-free time in our daily lives may not actually be an epic question of majority rule versus minority rights. One of the reasons I started this thread was the conviction that, especially in the US, we need to challenge old social assumptions in context each time they come up -- systematically and consistently on the basis of broader principles.

We tend to defend the "right" to public nudity narrowly, kind of as a minority right against all others. Instead we could be building a broader coalition with others who think, as a general principle, that people should be free to clothe themselves as they wish without government intervention. The recent news story about "making morning coffee in the buff" in Virginia is a case in point. We need to engage in the debate and turn it on its head -- not whether there was "exposure" while making coffee, but whether, and if so what, clothing is legally required to make coffee. This appends nudity at the casual end of the clothing-choice spectrum, gives it broader social and legal context (along with other kinds of clothing choice), and makes it a state-of-being issue rather than a regulated behavior.

My admitted goal is to build a case for the general principle that the courts shouldn't be involved in litigation concerning individual dress code disputes. The corollary legislative remedy, in a very US 9th Amendment friendly way, is, not to authorize public nudity, but instead to de-authorize government intervention in fashion preference -- to establish that a citizen's basic right to clothe themselves as they see fit means that civil protection and regulation must be clothing blind, not showing preference or prejudice according to any citizen's state of dress.

Let's start a new ACLU -- or rather ACLUglitch -- the American Coalition to Limit Unnecessary Government Legal Intervention in Trivial Conflicts over Haberdashery. This would have a constitutional basis, a civil rights angle and a civil liberties appeal, first by identifying a commonsense inalienable right enjoyed by all citizens, second by barring clothing bigotry, and third by defending all citizens, including naturists, from government micro-management of their wardrobe.

[Stu2630]

Skinview

Millions of blacks in America were held in abject slavery for many, many decades. And their rights were squashed for many decades after slavery ended, and this state of affairs persisted into living memery.

Strange. Slavery was abolished in Britain, which had the "tyranny of the majority", in 1833. It was more than three decades later (1865) before it was abolished in the US. It was abolished here in Sweden in 1847, although that law simply superceded a previous law which prohibited slavery that went right back to the 14th century! That is, however, not the main point. The fact is that slaves were not enfranchised people - they had no say in their slavery, and so any country which has slavery is not a true democracy.

Our Supreme Court exists in part to protect minority rights from the majority, and most of us are thankful that this is so.

The trouble is that where you have such elites, they tend not to look after just ordinary minorities - they especially look after privileged minorities, like the rich.

(Of course the majority gripes and complains every time the court excercises that power.) It caused quite a stir when the Supreme Court ended segregation. Lots of people were "offended".

we would have no free speach at all if figures being "upset" or "offended" trumped our right to publish our thoughts. Your being "offended", or any number of people being "offended", counts for nothing in the face of my rights. As it should be, and as it is in much of the western world.

I don't think many people would argue about the very high status we should afford to free speech (although there are limits even to that). Nobody is advocating denying nudists free speech. The amount of freedom to behave as you like is, however, not afforded such status, and is subject to balancing the rights and interests of others.

And then we have an appointed judiciary in the US, which can strike down any law which violates the rights of the individual, or violates our Constitution, and the appointment is for life, and they cannot be removed except in extreem circumstances which I have never seen happen, and never for how they rule.

So the people who pay their salaries, and who they are employed to serve, have no say either in who is appointed as a judge, or whether they should be dismissed. As for the Constitution - that is simply a form of law, too. It can be amended by elected representatives just as ordinary law can be.

Agde

This would have a constitutional basis, a civil rights angle and a civil liberties appeal, first by identifying a commonsense inalienable right enjoyed by all citizens, second by barring clothing bigotry, and third by defending all citizens, including naturists, from government micro-management of their wardrobe.

Keep pushing for that - publicly - and you'll provoke a level of hostility by ordinary people that will result in nudists being just slightly more popular than Jihadists.

Nudists should be engaging in dialogue with the rest of the population, demanding recognition, respect and a fair allocation of public spaces. Trying to force people to tolerate nakedness by standing on a platform of "minority rights" is not considerate or respectful has zero chance of working, and will convey the impression that nudists are really a bunch of exhibitionists pretending to be respectable. I think most nudists deserve better.

Stu

[Agde]

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...The fact is that slaves were not enfranchised people - they had no say in their slavery, and so any country which has slavery is not a true democracy.

So you are arguing that "enfranchised people" by definition cannot suffer civil rights restrictions? Women, gays, disabled people, naturists, etc should just shut up because they are "enfranchised"? Civil rights is about eliminating ALL barriers to FULL enfranchisement. Your definition of "true democracy" -- "give 'em a vote cuz we know we can out-vote 'em" -- is precisely why the American Federalists felt they had to write down a few examples of inalienable rights. You are, in fact, defending "partial enfranchisement" via marginalisation, segmentation, and segregation.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...The amount of freedom to behave as you like is, however, not afforded such status, and is subject to balancing the rights and interests of others.

Nudity of course is a "state-of-being", not a "behaviour" -- people can behave well or badly whether masked or not.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...Keep pushing for that - publicly - and you'll provoke a level of hostility by ordinary people that will result in nudists being just slightly more popular than Jihadists.

Nudists should be engaging in dialogue with the rest of the population, demanding recognition, respect and a fair allocation of public spaces. Trying to force people to tolerate nakedness by standing on a platform of "minority rights" is not considerate or respectful has zero chance of working, and will convey the impression that nudists are really a bunch of exhibitionists pretending to be respectable. I think most nudists deserve better."

Clearly you did not read what I wrote. Firstly, we ARE "ordinary people" and, I think, this discussion is really about a retained right, not a right to be acquired. Secondly, a right to decide whether and how to be clothed without government oversight applies to ALL citizens, not just a minority, so we are not talking about "nudists rights." Thirdly, due cause ordinarily must be shown for restricting rights, eg. what clothing is required to make morning coffee and why. Is nudity an exception? Why? Finally, if you refuse to answer the question about "what kind of right" nudity is, perhaps you can tell us what kind of right you think "the right not to be offended by others' nudity" is?

[Yogi Bare]

Originally Posted by Agde

Finally, if you refuse to answer the question about "what kind of right" nudity is, perhaps you can tell us what kind of right you think "the right not to be offended by others' nudity" is?

Way to go, Agde! It will be interesting to see what Stu's reply is if, in fact, he chooses to stand up and answer it.

[Stu2630]

Agde

So you are arguing that "enfranchised people" by definition cannot suffer civil rights restrictions?

No - that wasn't my point. I didn't raise the analogy of nudism with slavery - someone else did. My response was that the analogy was spurious and one of the main reasons for that was that they were not enfranchised. It is a basic tenet of democracy that those who are required to live by the law have a voice in deciding what that law says. There are additional reasons it was a spurious analogy, too. My requirement for determining that majority rule should be a sacrosanct principle is that the majority are educated, and have access to information, so they can make their determination from a position of knowledge and not blind ignorance. In the time of slavery, the majority were not so educated and informed.

Nudity of course is a "state-of-being", not a "behaviour" -- people can behave well or badly whether masked or not.

In every legal system in the world, there is a reluctance to draw a distinction between a "voluntary" state of being and a behaviour. Nudity, like drunkenness, is a self-caused state of being - your behaviour has made you drunk in public and your behaviour made you naked in public. To my mind, this principle extends beyond the purely legal and into the domain of the rational.

I think, this discussion is really about a retained right, not a right to be acquired.

I don't believe you have any de facto right to be naked in view of the general public when you live in a society in which a sizable proportion of that public consider it to be offensive and indecent. The law in most places seems to support that view.

Secondly, a right to decide whether and how to be clothed without government oversight applies to ALL citizens, not just a minority, so we are not talking about "nudists rights."

That's true, but you are arguing it from the position of nudists, and it will be perceived as "nudist rights" merely by virtue of the fact that nudists are making them. And it's the public's perception about which I am cautioning you.

Thirdly, due cause ordinarily must be shown for restricting rights, eg. what clothing is required to make morning coffee and why. Is nudity an exception? Why?

Because nudity is virtually the only state of dress which extends beyond the level of being considered sartorially inappropriate, and into the realm of the offensive and indecent by many. You may not agree with people who feel that way about nudity - you may view them as irrational or prudish - but the public domain should be regulated in such a way that it is benign to as many of those who are likely to want to use it as possible.

Finally, if you refuse to answer the question about "what kind of right" nudity is, perhaps you can tell us what kind of right you think "the right not to be offended by others' nudity" is?

I'm not refusing to answer any question. Nudity in one's own property and out of the view of people not on that property is a fundamental human right. That right ceases once you step outside of that closed environment and become visible from public places or adjacent private premises. Nudists have another right, though, namely the right to a fair allocation of public spaces. That is because nudists are citizens and taxpayers and they are due to consideration of their desires and needs.

The right not to be offended is the right to enjoy the environment we share with others without encountering behaviour that is, by the most generally accepted standards, objectionable. In European countries, if you behave in a raucous way in public, or shout obscenities or racist language, or display an obscene image, or you are falling-down drunk, or you are openly having sex etc, you will be deemed by the law to be making the public environment less comfortable for everyone and less conducive to the presence of children, religious people and so on, and you are doing so willfully and avoidably. So you will be at risk of arrest and prosecution, and rightly so. In most countries, nudity in public would fall into a similar category of behaviour for the same reasons.

Yogi Bare

Do you really think I'm the kind of person who would run away from a debate?

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu: "My requirement for determining that majority rule should be a sacrosanct principle is that the majority are educated, and have access to information, so they can make their determination from a position of knowledge and not blind ignorance."

Oh good. Then you are in support of all public nudity laws in the US should be repealed. I can almost guarantee the majority, or at least a majority of them, are ignorant in this aspect. They use their own prejudices rather than any kind of knowledge.

In fact, that is how it is when the issue is aesthetic. You agree that the behaviour is not sexual, and violates no other law other than being naked. The only difference between a nude person and a clothed person is what they are wearing. So why should the majority decide the dress code? I know you say the right to enjoy the environment we share with others without encountering behaviour that is, by the most generally accepted standards, objectionable but what gives the majority the right to discriminate and decide what behaviour is too offensive?

As has been mentioned, this right to discriminate has led to segregation of blacks. Did they have the right to segregate the blacks from the whites? And the problem is that segregation leads to a vicious circle of discrimination; people will treat the members who are discriminated as lower than them and because of that, they will not want to give them equal rights.

That is why it is very dangerous to treat two groups differently who are behaving equally. Stu, at what point do you believe that a majority should be overruled?

Bob S.

[Agde]

Just for variety, I will respond back-to-front.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...behave in a raucous way in public, or shout obscenities or racist language, or display an obscene image, or you are falling-down drunk, or you are openly having sex etc,...

In each of your examples, something is added to state-of-being. You must raise your voice, flail about, make extra noise/commotion, actively insult someone, or do something explicitly sexual. The equivalent in the realm of clothing is to wear (add to your body) something loud, etc.
Nudity is precisely the opposite -- NOT adding anything to state-of-being.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

The right not to be offended is the right to enjoy the environment we share with others without encountering behaviour that is, by the most generally accepted standards, objectionable.

Thanks for the clarificaation. I understand that this is your core conviction. But "offense" to what others wear is a slippery slope. Based on "offensiveness", you are establishing a general principle that allows a local majority, like Red Sox baseball fans, to create a law in Boston against wearing a Yankee baseball cap (UK translation: against wearing Liverpool colours in Manchester). As obviously "objectionable" as that may be to partisan baseball (football) fans, it contravenes the "right" to free choice of team loyalty. It also contravenes a broader "right" of non-sports-fans to live life happily in the same town as sports fans without knowing/caring about baseball caps or team colours. Similarly, I still think we all retain a "right" live life peacefully and share the same public space, whether we are "fabric fans" or not.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...nudity is virtually the only state of dress which extends beyond the level of being considered sartorially inappropriate, and into the realm of the offensive and indecent by many. You may not agree with people who feel that way about nudity - you may view them as irrational or prudish - but the public domain should be regulated in such a way that it is benign to as many of those who are likely to want to use it as possible.

Your formulation "benign to as many ... as possible" is not the same as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yours narrowly limits the rights of individuals to majority patterns enforced by government. In modern democracies, "benign" means that government is circumscribed in how it may limit the otherwise retained rights of citizens to personal sovereignty.

Meantime, I must remember your phrase -- "sartorially inappropriate" -- it is a much better descriptor than "indecent exposure" since tailors would understandably view nudity as "inappropriate" to their best interests. We do however have sartorial role models for naturist tailors in the two weavers of Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...it's the public's perception about which I am cautioning you.

Noted.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

I don't believe you have any de facto right to be naked in view of the general public when you live in a society in which a sizable proportion of that public consider it to be offensive and indecent....

Again, I am not talking about a "de facto right to be naked" or a "right to wear bow ties" but rather a retained right for all citizens to be free of government intervention in matters of informal individual fashion choice.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

In every legal system in the world, there is a reluctance to draw a distinction between a "voluntary" state of being and a behaviour. Nudity, like drunkenness, is a self-caused state of being...

Drunkenness starts with sobriety and then alcohol is added. The comparison with nudity doesn't work because nudity doesn't start with clothing -- it is the clothing that is added voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Stu2630

...I didn't raise the analogy of nudism with slavery - someone else did... It is a basic tenet of democracy that those who are required to live by the law have a voice in deciding what that law says... My requirement for determining that majority rule should be a sacrosanct principle is that the majority are educated, and have access to information, so they can make their determination from a position of knowledge and not blind ignorance...

Leaving aside disputing whether the majority are actually as educated and informed as you think, we can agree that eliminating slavery was nobler than retaining it. The same is true for discarding nudity laws as people become more sophisticated.

Originally Posted by Bob S.

Oh good, [Stu]. Then you are in support of all public nudity laws in the US should be repealed. .. Stu, at what point do you believe that a majority should be overruled?

Today sounds like a good point to start.

[Sunman]

We all have one right. Stu2630 has taken over this post completly. I will exercise that right and with one click I will be some place else. Goodbye Stu2630