Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

[Bill of Rights]

...Bill I usually agree with you, on this I have a problem. If a business owner wishes to only provide unisex bathrooms that is their choice. If you don't like it go elsewhere, literally and figuratively . Now if you are saying that Gov shouldn't mandate unisex bathrooms or not, and that the option exists for businesses to provide for privacy or not, than I have no issue with what you posted.

Good point. I wasn't thinking of it from that angle. I guess it would depend on whether there is a law specifying that a business must segregate toilet and changing facilities or if they do so only because people expect them to do so, but considering that there are quite a few places with the signage, "No public restroom", I suppose there's not, only the requirement (building code) that requires a restroom be present. (that is, the owner has no obligation to ensure that the bathroom be available to anyone (other than employees? ))

I don't want to see a governmental requirement of either segregated or desegregated toilet or changing facilities, I don't want to go somewhere either where everyone else is letting it all hang out or where I have to do so (because you know the people whose parts you want to see will all be in segregated facilities ) but for those who don't mind either way, I don't know why they can't have that.

I believe this country's people as a group are entirely too hung up on nudity and/or what parts someone has in their pants (or tops).

My other consideration is... Consider what someone's going to see in the local changing room: People in their underclothes like the Dove ad from a couple of years ago:

[noparse]http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/blog%20dove%20group.png[/noparse].

Is someone on a beach wearing this
[noparse]http://fashionrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/287155_sen-403.jpg[/noparse]
so much more covered up and so much more "decent"?

(note that the above images show people in various stages of undress. Both are ads used to sell something, but rather than approach those hangups I mentioned, I left them as unlinked addresses.)

And then there are cheerleaders with their "spankies", designed to be seen (or perhaps the ones without them?)

You have to wonder if the girl on our left would be charged under Indiana law...probably best thatwe only see her from this angle.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

I also think that we're silly about exposing sexual organs. It's one thing to display yourself in an aroused state engaging in sexual behavior in public, and quite another to momentarily become exposed for a good reason.
snip.

Why? If one is going to argue in favor of topless children showing pert breasts in public because it's a "victimless" crime, why would you then argue against showing erect penises or engaging in masturbation or sexual acts in public? There is no "victim" in those instances, either, other than to our sense of decency. If one is to argue a Libertarian viewpoint in favor of teenage girls being allowed to show their breasts, I cannot see how you can then argue against consensual conduct that causes no harm to others and still be consistent in your viewpoint.

 

[malern28us]

Why? If one is going to argue in favor of topless children showing pert breasts in public because it's a "victimless" crime, why would you then argue against showing erect penises or engaging in masturbation or sexual acts in public? There is no "victim" in those instances, either, other than to our sense of decency. If one is to argue a Libertarian viewpoint in favor of teenage girls being allowed to show their breasts, I cannot see how you can then argue against consensual conduct that causes no harm to others and still be consistent in your viewpoint.

I disagree there is a HUGE difference between showing your body and engaging in sexual acts or masturbation in public.

 

[Joe Williams]

I disagree there is a HUGE difference between showing your body and engaging in sexual acts or masturbation in public.

How so?

 

[ATOMonkey]

There is a difference between nudity and sexuality.

Do you get an erection looking at statues of nude women? Don't answer that...

Is the statue of David sexual?

Obviously, masturbating or engaging in sex is sexual in content.

There's the line in the sand.

 

[Joe Williams]

There is a difference between nudity and sexuality.

Do you get an erection looking at statues of nude women? Don't answer that...

Is the statue of David sexual?

Obviously, masturbating or engaging in sex is sexual in content.

There's the line in the sand.

Again, what is the difference. The libertarian argument being advanced in this thread is that public nudity should be permissible because it causes no harm to others. Sex in public causes no harm to others, so what is the difference? Both are illegal only because of community standards, so why would people supporting one not support the other? On what basis are you doing so? Can you make an argument for one and against the other, and still be consistent?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I agree, it should not be illegal to have sex in public, from the view that there is no victim. However, I do believe there is a difference between sex and nudity.

Having said that, I would not be visting any places that condoned orgies, and if I saw a guy whacking it on the street, I'd turn around and leave.

Any places that lost business because of my views on sex in public could either absorb the loss or take it upon themselves to chase off the fornicators.

Even if something is legal it can still have consequences.

 

[zibby43]

Sure is. Right up until it's declared Constitutionally unenforceable.

I was going to add to my original post, "unless the legislation is deemed unconstitutional."

Touche.

 

[Fargo]

I was going to add to my original post, "unless the legislation is deemed unconstitutional."

Touche.

Yeah, but the legislation in question here was found to be constitutional. I am still yet to hear any cogent argument that the court is wrong about that.

All I've heard is:

"...but, but ,but its unfair/stupid/etc"

If the ct. of appeals is wrong that this statute doesn't somehow violate the 14th Am, then why can't anyone show me how they are wrong?

All you folks who don't like the public nudity law have lost your legal argument both to the legislature and the courts. I guess all that is left is crying on here.

I would think that rather than that, you might be trying to get the legislation repealed or the constitution amended to share your view point, but apparently I would be wrong.



Joe

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yeah, but the legislation in question here was found to be constitutional. I am still yet to hear any cogent argument that the court is wrong about that.

All I've heard is:

"...but, but ,but its unfair/stupid/etc"

If the ct. of appeals is wrong that this statute doesn't somehow violate the 14th Am, then why can't anyone show me how they are wrong?

All you folks who don't like the public nudity law have lost your legal argument both to the legislature and the courts. I guess all that is left is crying on here.

I would think that rather than that, you might be trying to get the legislation repealed or the constitution amended to share your view point, but apparently I would be wrong.



Joe

This is the same argument people will use to restrict other rights. What you people fail to understand is that constitutions exist to limit government, not to grant it all authority unless otherwise specified.

Just because a constitution doesn't explicity say "You have the right to be naked" doesn't mean that right doesn't exist.

This thought process has lead to the gradual erosion of many of our rights.

Also, it is unrealistic to expect that every idea should be brought before the legislature without building a grass roots movement first. Internet forums are the meeting place of modern society where people come to speak their mind and debate the ideas of the day.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I agree, it should not be illegal to have sex in public, from the view that there is no victim. However, I do believe there is a difference between sex and nudity.

...
Even if something is legal it can still have consequences.

This. People who claim that if there wasn't a law then all sorts of perversion would be happening everywhere all of the time are either being deliberately ignorant or unbelievably obtuse.

There's a difference between something being legal and something having enough social pressure to make such behavior not typically done in inappropriate settings.

 

[Fargo]

This is the same argument people will use to restrict other rights. What you people fail to understand is that constitutions exist to limit government, not to grant it all authority unless otherwise specified.

.

Who the hell is "you people"? The Ct. of Appeals?

Just because a constitution doesn't explicity say "You have the right to be naked" doesn't mean that right doesn't exist.

This thought process has lead to the gradual erosion of many of our rights.

Also, it is unrealistic to expect that every idea should be brought before the legislature without building a grass roots movement first. Internet forums are the meeting place of modern society where people come to speak their mind and debate the ideas of the day

You are correct that the federal constitution was an instrument to grant certain powers to the federal government.

However, keep in mind that the general police power was retained by the states. The states are not reliant on the federal constitution for any grant of power, the only way the federal constitution impacts the states is insofar as it limits the general police power.

State constitutions are another story, but they aren't implicated in a 14th Amendment case.

As to grassroots movements, I'll believe it when I see you guys out collecting signatures, contacting your reps, and making this an election issue. For some reason, I'm not holding my breath.


Joe

 

[ATOMonkey]

Exactly, we have a state constitution which limits state power in the same way the Federal constitution limits federal and state power. The state constitution doesn't grant unlimited power unless specifically denoted.

WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the People; and that all free governments are, and of right out to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the People have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

This goes beyond the simple issue of public nudity. It is about personal freedom and the role of government and their power to imprison people for violating social norms.

It's as much to educate people who read this forum on what freedom really means, as anything else.

Substitute public nudity for open carry or drugs or property rights and you'll get the same discussion.

 

[Fargo]

Exactly, we have a state constitution which limits state power in the same way the Federal constitution limits federal and state power. The state constitution doesn't grant unlimited power unless specifically denoted.

Citation please? I want to see where you are getting this idea.

The state constitutions do not "grant" power in a fashion at all like the federal government.

The federal government is a government of enumerated powers, reserving the general police power to the states.

While state constitutions do limit what the state government can do, they do so in a completely different way. They list things the state cannot do, not simply what they can do. They do not, as a general rule, work on a principle of enumerated powers.

Rather, state constitutions distribute the general police power and place limitations on it. It is not at all the same thing.

The notion that state constitutions automatically function in the same fashion as the federal constitution is nothing more than a libertarian fantasy which runs counter to every principle this country was founded on.




Joe

 

[Joe Williams]

This. People who claim that if there wasn't a law then all sorts of perversion would be happening everywhere all of the time are either being deliberately ignorant or unbelievably obtuse.

There's a difference between something being legal and something having enough social pressure to make such behavior not typically done in inappropriate settings.

Those people who are pretending that those sorts of perversion wouldn't be happening are either being deliberately ignorant or unbelievably obtuse. There are plenty of people out there who thrive on going against social pressure, and would absolutely delight in shocking and offending others. Happens I know people who delight in boinking in public places already, make it legal, and they'll have even more fun.

Like public nudity, laws against such activities in public are based on community standards, and the morals of the majority. Again, if one feels it's somehow an affront to our rights to not allow pubic nudity, how can one consistently argue against not allowing public fornication? Frankly, neither causes any actual harm to anything other than the sensibilities of other people, so I cannot see how one can be for legalizing one, but not the other.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Huhuhhuhuhuhuh you said pubic nudity. huhhuhh

 

[shibumiseeker]

Those people who are pretending that those sorts of perversion wouldn't be happening are either being deliberately ignorant or unbelievably obtuse.

Never said it wouldn't happen. Just that you wouldn't see substantially more of it than you see now. Fear of the law isn't the biggest compelling reason here. The people who are out to shock or disgust aren't deterred much by the fact something is not legal.

It's perfectly legal for a person to walk around wearing nothing but swimwear, but you don't tend to see much of it downtown either.

 

[Jack Ryan]