A Compromise?

In seeking acceptance for nude recreation on public lands, nudists are not necessarily seeking a compromise, they are seeking just a sliver of the vast real estate of America on which to be naked and free. One can only compromise when both parties come at an issue from a position of strength, and common sense dictates that meeting somewhere in the middle is a sensible outcome for all.

Nudists have the negotiating power of a gnat.

In Ashland, Oregon, public nudity has not been illegal, but recent events including a man who walked naked near a school created community alarm, and a new law was passed to ban the exposure of body parts within the city limits.

In a situation like this, there is no room for compromise. It's basically one man versus an entire city.

But Joe Hudgins, a retired instructor and resident of Ashland, believes that the nudity ban could not only be unconstitutional, but expensive as well.

A political/social/artistic event is scheduled for Ashland later this year. It is to be called "Buns Not Bombs" and will include public nudity. It is expected to violate Ashland's public nudity law. The police have said they will have no choice other than to enforce the law and arrest anyone who violates it.That's when it starts costing money. Hundreds of personnel hours will be diverted from normal duties and expended arresting, booking, incarcerating, trying and convicting or acquitting everyone who is arrested. Fines collected from those who are convicted will not cover all the costs incurred. The shortfall will be made up by the taxpayers, Ashland residents, and that's not all.

The ACLU has been watching this situation very carefully and is preparing to file a lawsuit against Ashland if it determines that anyone's First Amendment rights were violated. Such a lawsuit could take years to resolve and will cost Ashland residents hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.

Hudgins goes on to suggest that all that is needed is come "courage, some patience and a lot of tolerance" instead of this unnecessary and costly law. He logically outlines a scenario for keeping nudity under control, such as public notices when nude protests are scheduled to take place, and to prohibit people from being naked near busy roads and public buildings so that traffic accidents and other dangerous distractions can be avoided.

All well and good, and it makes a lot of sense, but the problem with nudity in American society is that people who oppose any and all forms of unclothed humanity are not rational. They are filled with religious beliefs, deep-seated fears, and a sense of righteousness which trumps all common sense and willingness to compromise.

To these people, the sight of female breasts, or a male penis, is a sign that we are on the road to Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's wrath will surely smite us all.

I applaud Mr. Hudgins and his fair-mindedness. Surely we need more people like him. But the idea of the government actually working to aid and abet people who wish to be nude in public is radical.

In cases like the World Naked Bike Ride and the Spencer Tunick installations, the sheer numbers of participants makes it difficult for local authorities to do anything except watch and keep the peace. In some communities, like Boulder, Colorado, bans are being enacted to specifically prohibit nudity at public events, so the WNBR and Tunick would likely create an ugly confrontation with police if they were to go there.

If anything, local governments are getting tougher in the wake of the proliferation of nudity at public events.

The only way I can see for public nudity to become "legal" is if the ACLU manages to prove that banning clothes-free protests is unconstitutional. I believe they have a fair shot at making that case, as long as groups get a permit, and the public is warned in advance that nudity will be part of the event, so anyone potentially offended could simply avoid the area or look away.

It will be much harder for the ACLU to prove that nudity is a civil liberty, although many nudists and naturists believe that it most certainly is. But that's really not what nudists want from society - what we are seeking, as I stated before, is just a tiny piece of public land here and there in order to be nude and free.

Unfortunately, the very, very few who wish to wander about nude near schools are just creating hysteria and forcing the hands of government officials who always err on the side of caution in enacting new legislation. It's better politics to side with the churches and schools than with the naked people.

US Judge Sides With Teens in Sexting Case

A U. S. judge issued a temporary restraining order against a Pennsylvania prosecutor who threatened to bring child pornography charges against three teen girls caught with nude or semi-nude photos of themselves on their cell phones. It was ruled that such action would violate freedom of speech and parental rights. Make no mistake, this is a landmark case and likely to stand as precedent for any other such cases in the future.

Witold Walczack, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, welcomed the legal decision. "This country needs to have a discussion about whether prosecuting minors as child pornographers for merely being impulsive and naive is the appropriate way to address the serious consequences that can result from sexting," he said.

The report also goes on to say that as many as 39 percent of teens have sent or posted sexually suggestive messages, and 20 percent have posted nude or semi-nude photos of themselves.

UPDATE: A CBS news story clarifies the judge's action as being a temporary restraining order, and that his isn't ruling yet on the merits of the lawsuit. In addition, prosecutor George Skumanick said he would consider an appeal. There is also some concern about setting a precedent where people who commit crimes seek refuge in federal court to prevent state arrest.

The girls "make a reasonable argument that the images presented to the court do not appear to qualify in any way as depictions of prohibited sexual acts. Even if they were such depictions, the plaintiffs' argument that (they) were not involved in disseminating the images is also a reasonable one," (Judge) Munley wrote...The judge said he "offers no final conclusion on the merits of plaintiffs' position" and scheduled a hearing on the case for June 2.

The Daily Newds 10/7/08

• Cheryl Tan ponders whether nudity is nature or sin.

  Barcan argued that nudists are able to experience this Paradise not only in a somnambulant state – shedding clothes is liberation from self-consciousness, the ultimate psychological freedom. Nudists do not view being without clothes as being exposed; to them, it is a return to their original state, connoting a child-like innocence as all humans are born naked. In the words of Berger, “To be naked is to be oneself...without disguise."

• Is sex outdoors illegal? People who oppose clothing-optional beaches often cite public displays of sex as reasons to shut them down, so it's surprising that a columnist would actually encourage alfresco lovemaking.

  Sex in the open air can be lovely...So where can you go? Well, go off the beaten track. A quiet beach can be great, but don't cavort on a designated naturist spot. People who go there may be unruffled about nude bodies but could be seriously upset about any sexual display.

• Two good articles today on nude modelling, one a cover story from Oklahoma State University, and another from Pacific Lutheran University.
• More stories on the continuing controversy in Australia over Bill Henson and his photography. An article in The Australian notes that Henson's work is studied in art classes by children as young as 12. The Brisbane Times reports that the principal who allowed the photographer into her school to scout for subjects can remain on her job while an investigation is conducted, and an editorial in The Herald Sun calls it a "rotted culture" that would allow any exploitation of children in the form of nude art because it exposes them "to the predatory eye of men".
• The ACLU is trying to keep artist Ed Stross out of jail for painting the word "love" on the bare breast of his Detroit area mural.

  "The issue is not Ed Stross," said Roseville city attorney Timothy Tomlinson. "The issue is really a municipality's right to govern their signages. ... Sometimes there's bigger fish to fry, but sometimes the issues are pretty significant, and this could affect municipalities all over the state."

• Hundreds of Nigerian women are threatening to protest naked if their demands are not met on an election issue.
• The Cape May Beach Bums are baring all for a cookbook in order to raise money for a local resident parlalyzed in a swimming pool accident.

Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked

Saggy Saga Simmers

Flint police chief David Dicks is not backing down from his saggy-pants crusade, even in the face of an ACLU lawsuit.

"Your new practice of stopping and threatening young men with disorderly conduct for wearing 'saggy pants' is a blatant violation of the United States Constitution," the ACLU wrote to Dicks in a letter last week."

Although you were recently appointed chief of the Flint Police Department, you cannot appoint yourself chief of the 'fashion police.'

You have no power to criminalize a style of dress because you find it distasteful. We ask that you halt this practice immediately."

Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked