Laws against public nudity

Gary Naturist · #1 10-02-2003, 03:43 AM

Based on what I have read, here are some variations across jurisdictions of laws against public nudity.

1. Simple nudity.
2. Nudity associated with disorderly conduct.
3. Nudity that causes offence to an individual.
4. Nudity that causes offence to the community.
5. Nudity that was intended to cause offence.
6. Nudity accompanied by lewd behavior.

I have ordered them from least appropriate to most appropriate, as I see it.

Re #1, I'm certain that the courts will eventually agree that simple public nudity should not be illegal, because there is nothing inherently wrong with display of the naked human body.

Re #2, the disorderly conduct could relate to the nude person or to the viewers of the nude person.

#4 is a fairer than #3, because #3 gives too much attention to the opinion of one person. Anyone can be offended by anything.

Re #5, it would be better to reword this be "intended to threaten or harass".

Re #6, it would be more appropriate to delete the reference to nudity and focus on the behavior.

I think that the minimum in law should be #4. However, I think that it would be better if the minimum was #6 (redefined to exclude the reference to nudity), with #4 and #5 being handled by social pressure/censure.

What do you think?

Gary

Gary Naturist · #2 10-02-2003, 03:43 AM

Based on what I have read, here are some variations across jurisdictions of laws against public nudity.

1. Simple nudity.
2. Nudity associated with disorderly conduct.
3. Nudity that causes offence to an individual.
4. Nudity that causes offence to the community.
5. Nudity that was intended to cause offence.
6. Nudity accompanied by lewd behavior.

I have ordered them from least appropriate to most appropriate, as I see it.

Re #1, I'm certain that the courts will eventually agree that simple public nudity should not be illegal, because there is nothing inherently wrong with display of the naked human body.

Re #2, the disorderly conduct could relate to the nude person or to the viewers of the nude person.

#4 is a fairer than #3, because #3 gives too much attention to the opinion of one person. Anyone can be offended by anything.

Re #5, it would be better to reword this be "intended to threaten or harass".

Re #6, it would be more appropriate to delete the reference to nudity and focus on the behavior.

I think that the minimum in law should be #4. However, I think that it would be better if the minimum was #6 (redefined to exclude the reference to nudity), with #4 and #5 being handled by social pressure/censure.

What do you think?

Gary

RalphVa · #3 10-02-2003, 04:40 AM

I think that 1, 3 & 4 should not exist. Nos. 3 & 4 are very subject to interpretation, and, as you pointed out, # 1 should not be. No. 1 would outlaw even art figure studies.

Ralph

#4 10-02-2003, 05:58 AM

Gary,

You've missed one out - and for me it's where the law should step in, namely:

Nudity in public view knowing that it is likely that others will see you who may be caused alarm or distress.

Our Parliament would baulk at the idea of stating that simple nudity in public was a lawful act. We are, unfortunately, cursed with one or two rather idiotic judges who are so remote from ordinary working people that they probably think the rest of us all walk around in bear hides when not naked so they might think public nudity was acceptable in modern society. Luckily most wouldn't!

Stu

aunaturelone · #5 10-07-2003, 08:49 PM

While our new governor in CA is not a nudist, he is certainly not anti-nude. This may be a golden opportunity to have someone more friendly to clothing optional recreation in Sacramento.

Some things may require the cooperation of the state legislature to get through but state park regulations are entirely within his control. It may be much easier now to get official recognition of traditionally nude areas on state land.

luvnaturism · #6 10-07-2003, 11:49 PM

That would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath. He's going to be far too busy dealing with California's budget catastrophe.

Beyond that, I think what will really matter is the attitude of whoever ends up in charge of the state parks. Even Gray Davis, a classic micromanger, didn't get involved in the minutia of park regulations. Our new governor elect seems to be more of big picture leader who will leave the details to others.

**Bob S.** · #7 10-08-2003, 07:26 PM

stu, your examople would fall in with #3 and #4.

Bob S.

#8 10-09-2003, 09:09 AM

Bob,

Not exactly. I Gary's example actual offence would have to be proved. In mine a likelihood of offence being caused would be sufficient.

Example: Policeman sees naked person walking down a pathway in a park. No-one else is about. Policeman knows that a party of schoolchildren and a group of elderly women are in the park further along the path. In Gary's examples the policeman would be powerless to act until actual offence was caused. In mine he could prevent such offence.

Stu

NudeAl · #9 10-09-2003, 07:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by NudeAl:
[qb] The city of Chico, California today narrowly defeated a proposed anti-nudity law. By a vote of 3-4 the city council defeated the ordinance which was directed at mere nudity to prevent nude sunbathing in a city park. The park in question has a history of skinny dipping and nude sunbathing. This means that the current style of enforcement will continue. The only way they prosecute now is if there is obvious lewd behavior or a person makes a formal complaint. In the last several years there has only been one of these. The Naturist Action Committee was instrumental in getting this piece of legislation defeated. There is no state law prohibiting nudity in our state nor is there a federal law prohibiting it. Only local ordinances like this one. Hurray for our side!! [/qb]

#10 10-09-2003, 10:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb] Bob,

Not exactly. I Gary's example actual offence would have to be proved. In mine a likelihood of offence being caused would be sufficient.

Example: Policeman sees naked person walking down a pathway in a park. No-one else is about. Policeman knows that a party of schoolchildren and a group of elderly women are in the park further along the path. In Gary's examples the policeman would be powerless to act until actual offence was caused. In mine he could prevent such offence.

Stu [/qb]

But he doesn't know if they would be offended until they actually are. He can't prevent something that might not even happen and he can't assume something he doesn't know.