Thought crimes

[Bob S.]

In the child porn topic, stu made the comment about "thought crimes." That gets me thinking now about the indecent exposure laws. Virtually all laws on the books relating to that have the "victim's" reaction as reason for citing that law. If I go outside naked and someone finds my body shocking, disturbing, alarming, etc. they can cal the police and report that.

So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble. Because of their bias, I am in trouble. The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator." This is like the opposite of thought crimes, where instead of being arrested for something you thought of, you are being arrested for something someone else thought of.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

In the child porn topic, stu made the comment about "thought crimes." That gets me thinking now about the indecent exposure laws. Virtually all laws on the books relating to that have the "victim's" reaction as reason for citing that law. If I go outside naked and someone finds my body shocking, disturbing, alarming, etc. they can cal the police and report that.

So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble. Because of their bias, I am in trouble. The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator." This is like the opposite of thought crimes, where instead of being arrested for something you thought of, you are being arrested for something someone else thought of.

Bob S.

Bob,

"So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble."

It's the ACT itself that's got you into trouble, Bob, not the thoughts of the victims.

"Because of their bias, I am in trouble."

I wouldn't call it a "bias", it's a conditioned response that (I would contend) most people have - namely being , upset, disturbed etc by the sight of nudity in public.

"The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator.""

That's certainly not the case here. If you look at public order law it talks about "intending to cause, or in a way he knows is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress". The new indecent exposure law will be similarly worded. Consequently the offence is committed if, and only if, the perpetrator had the requisite "mens rea" or guilty intent.

If I were to re-draft the law on indecent exposure, I'd have two levels of offence. The most serious would be a sexual offence and it would be necessary to prove a lewd or sexual intent. The lesser offence would be a public order offence and it would be worded something like:

"1. It shall be an offence for any person in, or from, or directed towards, any public place, to expose their genitals or pubic area, their buttocks, or, in the case of an adult female, her naked breasts, in the knowledge that another person may see them who may be , alarmed, disturbed, offended, upset or annoyed.

2. The offence at subsection 1 is not committed if the place concerned is a place in which a person may reasonably expect to see nudity or the body parts mentioned in subsection 1.

3. Any person convicted of the offence at subsection 1 above shall be liable upon conviction to a fine as at level 4 on the standard scale, or three months imprisonment, or both"

I think this sort of wording would protect naturists at their normal places, ensure that someone skinny-dipping at an EXTREMELY remote place would not fall foul of the law, and would allow for some common sense and discretion, whilst at the same time making the law crystal clear for the public, the police and the courts. I think I might suggest this wording to the government department concerned. What do you think?

Stu

[Nude in the North]

"1. It shall be an offence for any person in, or from, or directed towards, any public place, to expose their genitals or pubic area, their buttocks, or, in the case of an adult female, her naked breasts, in the knowledge that another person may see them who may be , alarmed, disturbed, offended, upset or annoyed."

So what your saying is if someone has some pubic hair extruding from the sides of their bikini or above the waist band of such a swimsuit, that they are guilty of indecent exposure if a person viewing them should be annoyed by seeing it.

There are alot of people that have pubic hair that extends beyond what a normal bikini swimsuit covers. Especially Women.
I hope you don't intend to Jail every woman that doesn't take the time to get a bikini wax before going to the beach.

Steve

[Frank R]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob S.:
[qb]... Virtually all laws on the books relating to that have the "victim's" reaction as reason for citing that law. If I go outside naked and someone finds my body shocking, disturbing, alarming, etc. they can cal the police and report that. So because of their thoughts, I am in trouble. Because of their bias, I am in trouble. The law is worded so that the thoughts of the "victims" are more important than the intent of the "perpetrator." Bob S. [/qb]

---

Very good point Bob except you appear to believe these laws were written to prevent some crime. With laws like these, they are often written in a very vague way so as to discourage anyone from doing anything that "might" be against the law.

I think the main purpose of these laws is to intimate people into not doing anything since they are not sure exactly what the law says. Most of us do not the time and resources (i.e.-money) to fight these laws all the way through the court system and these "dam you to hell naked perverts" politicians think they can score points with the general population attacking nudist to "save the children".

Having served as an election judge for many years, I can tell you from first hand knowledge that a lot of people who vote have no clue what or who they are voting for. I was always that in primary elections, many people do not even know what party a person is running in.

[Trailscout]

Nude in the North,
You make a very astute observation.

I am also concerned that Stu's proposal would not allow for the expansion nude bathing into new sections of beach as public acceptance of nude bathing increases. It sounds very much like he wants to keep us in our ghettos.

Also his requirement that we go to remote beaches or riverbanks may impose too much of a burden on nudists to avoid being seen at all costs. This is especially discriminatory on those with mobility handicaps.

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb] 1. It shall be an offence for any person in, or from, or directed towards, any public place, to expose their genitals or pubic area, their buttocks, or, in the case of an adult female, her naked breasts, in the knowledge that another person may see them who may be , alarmed, disturbed, offended, upset or annoyed. [/qb]

---

Upset or annoyed??? Surely you don't support the idea of making laws because people might be upset or annoyed.

To annoy: "To cause slight irritation to (another) by troublesome, often repeated acts."

Rik

steve,

I was very careful not to say "pubic hair" but "pubic area" in the anatomical sense - i.e. the area of skin about the size of a human hand starting at the base of the pubic bone. In other words, even the skimpiest of bikinis would cover it!

trailscout,

"I am also concerned that Stu's proposal would not allow for the expansion nude bathing into new sections of beach as public acceptance of nude bathing increases."

It would certainly put limits on it, yes. IF - and I mean IF, the public acceptance of nude bathing does increase (and I don't think that is either likely nor desireable), then there would be grounds to increase the numbers or clothing optional/naturist beaches.

"It sounds very much like he wants to keep us in our ghettos."

I make no secret of the fact that I am FOR segregation, nor do I apologise for that, and I've made out my case here several times. I don't like the term "ghetto" because it implies slum areas and deprivation - in other words, naturists consigned to poor, remote or inaccessible beaches. You are entitled to a reasonable share of good and easy to reach beaches with good facilities just like the rest of us. When you have them, the case against segregation diminishes.

My suggestion:

"not committed if the place concerned is a place in which a person may reasonably expect to see nudity or the body parts mentioned in subsection 1."

This would protect not only designated naturist beaches, but non-designated ones where it is commonly known that nudity is likely to be encountered.

"Also his requirement that we go to remote beaches or riverbanks may impose too much of a burden on nudists to avoid being seen at all costs. This is especially discriminatory on those with mobility handicaps."

What's the alternative? To allow people with mobility handicaps to go nude whilst others remain clothed? Now that WOULD be discriminatory. The only alternative is to make every beach and other place of public resort clothing optional, and this wouldn't be acceptable to me or most other non-naturists.

Rik,

Whatever law you come up with has to allow for some discretion both by the police and the courts. We have to trust these institutions to some extent to act reasonably - hence the "reasonableness" clauses.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Rik,

Stu's comment also presumes that public attitudes cannot shift toward greater tolerance or even affirmation of social nudity.

Rather than scrupulous efforts to avoid being seen, maybe we need to push the envelope just a bit. I.E. what you saw on continental beaches where nude bathers are not entirely out of sight of textile beaches. The curious could simply wander over to the nude side and try dropping their clothes for an afternoon. We want to make nudity a little more less exotic, a little more attainable.

[Trailscout]

Stu,

I presume that we must now debate how big shall be the hand that covers the pubic area!

I have a non-nudist female relative who makes no effort to shave her triangle and due to her heredity, a rather modest bathing costume reveals considerable pubic hair on either side of her loins. I sincerely hope you will allow her to enjoy a day at the beach without fear of arrest.

Stu, you admit that nude or CO areas should rightfully be allowed to expand with increasing demand, but what hurdles lie ahead for those who wish to occupy additional beach? Must it always be contiguous to existing nude beaches? (Parking capacity may render that action impractical).

Your desire for "segregated" beaches raises more questions: Do you intend to put us a half mile walk from other bathers or from car parks?

At present we have terrible access problems imposed upon us.

How would you determine whether or not a beach is an unofficial but traditional nude beach? This would put an unreasonable burden upon someone to prove traditional use.

As to the issue of the disabled, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act to guarantee access to public facilities. This law is certainly not enforced when it comes to nude beaches. Existing nude beaches should accomodate the handicapped and negotiations for the siting of new nude beaches must be reasonably located to permit access to all citizens.