What charges can be brought re public nudity?

[Gary Naturist]

What are the possible charges across all jurisdictions that could be brought against someone who is nude in public?

Two examples of public nudity:
* sunbathing nude in a park (no activity involved),
* going for a walk nude in a park.

A. Definitions not referencing any activity by the nude person:
1. Public nudity.
2. Being so clad so as to offend against public decency or order (Criminal Code of Canada).

B. Definitions that may or may not involve activity by the nude person:
1. Causing a disturbance.
2. Indecent exposure
3. Indecent exhibition.
4. Public nuisance.
5. Creating an unsafe situation.

C. Definitions involving some activity by the nude person:
1. Lewd conduct.
2. Offensive behavior.
3. Indecent behavior.

What can you add to the above lists?

Gary

[Gary Naturist]

What are the possible charges across all jurisdictions that could be brought against someone who is nude in public?

Two examples of public nudity:
* sunbathing nude in a park (no activity involved),
* going for a walk nude in a park.

A. Definitions not referencing any activity by the nude person:
1. Public nudity.
2. Being so clad so as to offend against public decency or order (Criminal Code of Canada).

B. Definitions that may or may not involve activity by the nude person:
1. Causing a disturbance.
2. Indecent exposure
3. Indecent exhibition.
4. Public nuisance.
5. Creating an unsafe situation.

C. Definitions involving some activity by the nude person:
1. Lewd conduct.
2. Offensive behavior.
3. Indecent behavior.

What can you add to the above lists?

Gary

[Rex]

Hi Gary,
I can only speak for Western Australia.
I think that most of these supposed "offences" are a stupid throwback to the days when we had no internet, no TV, no magazines, no cinemas etc and no rights to question the decisions made, for the good of the common, uneducated masses, by our "Lords and Masters".
The reality is that the "Lords and Masters" and the self-appointed guardians of public morality are still with us and sometimes we have to put them in their place.
I may have this wrong, because I don't have total recall, but I believe that for "offensive behavior", the prosecution has to prove that you have "an intention to shock".
I think that "intent" has a bearing on all sorts of so-called offences.
Maybe Stu can help us here, because he has legal training and, in his own way, I think he is a fair-minded sort of guy.
On the one occasion that my wife and I were arrested for being nude on a beach, the police did not know what to charge us with, because all the usual "offences" had been thrown out of court in WA, so, in desperation, they charged us with "not wearing a proper costume" under the 1902 Police Act. Within the City of Fremantle, where the alleged offence occured, a "proper costume" is being covered from level with the armpits to at least 3 inches of leg and a front skirt for both men and women [last reviewed 1930 something]. We were represented, free of charge, by an expensive, high profile lawyer and, as you would expect, acquitted.
As I pointed out afterwards, to an eager, delighted media, virtually all the people on the beach, most of the guys working on the building sites, and many people in the street, were not wearing a "proper costume".
Look, I'm not offering legal advice, but if you look into it, you may find that a lot of the so-called legal sanctions against nudity are just bluff and counter-bluff.
As I've said before, I'm a reasonable sort of person who does not go out of my way to give offence and maybe that's why I've managed to get away with a few things.

[Frank R]

There is a big difference between the charges that can get you arrested (police action) and those you may actually appear in court for. Our police here held a big news conference (TV, radio, newspaper)and announced that any female appearing topless on 6th stree (where most of the nightclubs and bars are) would be arrested. The following day the city attorney held a big news conference to say there is not (and never has been in Texas) a law that prohibits females from going topless. Hence, for a short while, we had the police trying to enforce a law "to keep the peace" when there was no crime being committed.

Many times, simply demanding a trial we cause the charges to be dropped. I received a parking ticket once and went to courthouse and said I wanted a trial by jury, since, I stated, the no parking sign could not be seen. Rather than give me a trial, they just dropped the charges.

[Rex]

Congratulations, Frank R.
Too many people think "you can't beat City Hall" and meekly give in.
I've known, for a long time, that the authorities will usually take the easy way out.Give them a hard time and they'll generally leave you alone.

Here in the England you can add:

Insulting or disorderly behaviour intended or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. (Section 5, Public Order Act 1986). That was the offence that Mr Gough stands convicted of in his home town.

In Scotland they can clearly add:

Breach of the peace, and
Behaviour likely to cause distraction to traffic.

In both countries, if the behaviour is persistent and considered to be "antisocial", then application can be made to a magistrates court for an "Antisocial Behaviour Order" (ASBO). That Order will have conditions such as not to enter certain places or expose certain parts of the body. Although this is technically a civil order, if you breach any condition of an ASBO you can be imprisoned for upto 5 years!

Stu

[Rex]

On reading what can happen to a person in primitive, superstitious countries like England and Scotland, it makes me wonder what could have happened in more modern, enlightened countries, such as Afghanistan, under the Taliban.

[MikeJB]

Insulting or disorderly behaviour intended or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. (Section 5, Public Order Act 1986). That was the offence that Mr Gough stands convicted of in his home town.
-----------------------------------------------

I dont think this law would apply to most people who would fall under the simple public nudity crowd because these people never "intend to" and surely are not "likely" to cause alarm or distress. Most places you have to be DOING something other than the nudity itself that brings alarm or distress, so really these "intended" or "likely to disturb" laws are a bunch of crap.

[Gary Naturist]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeJB:
[qb]

I dont think this law would apply to most people who would fall under the simple public nudity crowd because these people never "intend to" and surely are not "likely" to cause alarm or distress. Most places you have to be DOING something other than the nudity itself that brings alarm or distress, so really these "intended" or "likely to disturb" laws are a bunch of crap. [/qb]

---

An important element in laws that relate to public nudity is whether there is any reference to intent. If there is, then the nudist can simply say that he did not intend to (whatever).

If the law focuses on the actual effect on a single individual, then the nudist has a problem.

However, the law may focus on what the effect would be on the average member of the community in the the particular situation. I think that reference to "likely" does this.

The best laws are ones that focus on the action of the person rather than on simple nudity.

Gary

[Frank R]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rex:
[qb] On reading what can happen to a person in primitive, superstitious countries like England and Scotland, it makes me wonder what could have happened in more modern, enlightened countries, such as Afghanistan, under the Taliban. [/qb]

---

Great post Rex. Boy, I am really glad now that we won the American Revolution! When I think of how backward (in my opinion) some of our laws are, I am ever so grateful that we live in a republic and not a democracy.