Tag22

From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
Thanks:tag22.

John Bermont

tag22 wrote:
    > From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    > I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    > Thanks:tag22.
    >
    >
Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?
--
------------------------------------------------------
* * * Mastering Independent Budget Travel * * *
http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
------------------------------------------------------

Gerrit 't Hart

"John Bermont" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > tag22 wrote:
    > > From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    > > I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    > > Thanks:tag22.
    > >
    > >
    > Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?
    > --

What has the first amendment to do with Europe??

Gerrit - Oz

Runge

Welcome to Europe
Could you pleeeeease be a little less self centered
No first amendment here, second neither

"John Bermont" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message
de news: [email protected]...
    > tag22 wrote:
    >> From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    >> I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    >> Thanks:tag22.
    > Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?
    > --
    > ------------------------------------------------------
    > * * * Mastering Independent Budget Travel * * *
    > http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
    > ------------------------------------------------------
    >

nitram

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:36:48 GMT, John Bermont
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >tag22 wrote:
    >> From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    >> I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    >> Thanks:tag22.
    >>
    >>
    >Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?

The classic solution is with a fig leaf.
--
Martin

Szozu

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:36:48 GMT, John Bermont
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >tag22 wrote:
    > >> From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    > >> I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    > >> Thanks:tag22.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?
    > The classic solution is with a fig leaf.

Isn't public nudism a bit like smoking? Those doing it consider it as
expressing their freedom of expression and those on the strictly receiving
end possibly finding it offensive.

Lana

Mark

"Runge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Welcome to Europe
    > Could you pleeeeease be a little less self centered
    > No first amendment here, second neither

We probably could be a little "less self-centered" if you'd stop
crossposting to multiple newsgroups.

Devil

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:35:30 +0100, szozu wrote:


    > Isn't public nudism a bit like smoking? Those doing it consider it as
    > expressing their freedom of expression and those on the strictly receiving
    > end possibly finding it offensive.


Well, second hand smoke actually is harmful. Second hand nudity merely is
an esthetic thing. Or an emotional one for some. But no real harm except
in some folks' mind.

Szozu

"devil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:35:30 +0100, szozu wrote:
    > > Isn't public nudism a bit like smoking? Those doing it consider it as
    > > expressing their freedom of expression and those on the strictly
receiving
    > > end possibly finding it offensive.
    > Well, second hand smoke actually is harmful. Second hand nudity merely is
    > an esthetic thing. Or an emotional one for some. But no real harm except
    > in some folks' mind.
Actually, it was the aesthetic offensives I was referring to! I've been to a
few nude beaches and some of what I saw there was highly unappealing.

Lana

Ellie C

szozu wrote:
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:36:48 GMT, John Bermont
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>tag22 wrote:
    >>>>From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    >>>> I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    >>>>Thanks:tag22.
    >>>Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?
    >>The classic solution is with a fig leaf.
    >
    >
    > Isn't public nudism a bit like smoking? Those doing it consider it as
    > expressing their freedom of expression and those on the strictly receiving
    > end possibly finding it offensive.
    >
    > Lana
    >
    >
Last I heard, nudism had no effect on the health of bystanders.

Szozu

"Ellie C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > szozu wrote:
    > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:36:48 GMT, John Bermont
    > >><[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>tag22 wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>>From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    > >>>> I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    > >>>>Thanks:tag22.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?
    > >>
    > >>The classic solution is with a fig leaf.
    > >
    > >
    > > Isn't public nudism a bit like smoking? Those doing it consider it as
    > > expressing their freedom of expression and those on the strictly
receiving
    > > end possibly finding it offensive.
    > >
    > > Lana
    > >
    > >
    > Last I heard, nudism had no effect on the health of bystanders.

I don't know about that. I've been on a few beaches where I've decidedly
felt a touch of nausea coming on!

Lana

Ellie C

szozu wrote:
    > "Ellie C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>szozu wrote:
    >>><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected] ...
    >>>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:36:48 GMT, John Bermont
    >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>tag22 wrote:
    >>>>>>From tag22 Brisbane,Queensland,\. [email protected]
    >>>>>>I agree " Lisa ". keep up the comments.
    >>>>>>Thanks:tag22.
    >>>>>Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?
    >>>>The classic solution is with a fig leaf.
    >>>Isn't public nudism a bit like smoking? Those doing it consider it as
    >>>expressing their freedom of expression and those on the strictly
    >
    > receiving
    >
    >>>end possibly finding it offensive.
    >>>Lana
    >>Last I heard, nudism had no effect on the health of bystanders.
    >
    >
    > I don't know about that. I've been on a few beaches where I've decidedly
    > felt a touch of nausea coming on!
    >
    > Lana
    >
    >
I find that a silly attitude. Maybe you were making a joke? BUt still,
the human body is what it is, and some of these bodies don't meet the
current fashion trend. So what? As and artist I spend a lot of time
drawing pictrures of naked people. The group of us who get together to
hire a model are always looking for models that are not fashion-trend
beautiful. I started life drawing many years ago and I soon came to see
every human body as immensely beautiful.

Taliesin

John Bermont wrote:

> Is nudism covered ;-) by the first amendment?

Nudity is. Under certain circumstances.

Nudism, as an established lifestyle or practice, was left alone by the
Meese Commission in the United Sates in the mid 1980s when the
Commission targeted other types of public displays of the nude or
semi-clothed human body. The Commission didn't endorse nudism but
reasoned that as nudism was an established practice it would be
difficult to get convictions in court, and, thus, left nudism and
nudists alone.

With regard to nudity itself, one major distinction is whether or not
the nudity is for commercial or non-commercial purposes. That's an
important factor.

A woman standing on a street corner breast feeding her child may be
awarded more leniency by the law than a woman stripping for money on the
opposite corner.

Many states and commonwealths within the United States don't have laws
specifically prohibiting public nudity. If an arrest is made of an
individual or individuals who are nude in public it's usually under
misdemeanor nuisance laws such as disturbing the peace, impeding a
public right-of-way, things like that.

But is nudity freedom of speech and thus protected by the First Amendment?

If the nudity is the only way to express a certain concept or idea or
viewpoint, yes, most likely it would be considered protected speech
under the First Amendment. Or if the person "speaking" by nudity had no
other means of expression, yes, most likely it would be considered
protected speech under the First Amendment.

Factors such as the location where the nudity took place, who witnessed
the nudity (those who expected to see such a display or those who would
have likely not expected such a display in the given setting) would come
into play as well in a court decision, but likely a case could be made
for the viewpoint expressed or the necessity of the method used, that
is, being nude to make one's point.

An example of this goes back, again, to the 1980s when a group of women
in Rochester, New York went topless to protest that having to cover
their upper bodies was sexist and thus against the law as men in public
did not have to cover their upper bodies. I wrote about this protest for
a magazine. It might be a good time for me to point out that I am a
writer not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. But I do have some
experience with the First Amendment. As a writer, I've supported freedom
of speech and expression in my works, both fiction and non fiction. As
an example; Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), wrote the introduction to a book I co-edited on the
subject of pornography and the First Amendment issues surrounding that
hot button topic.

I'm also an activist for free speech. As a member of the Free Speech
Coalition, serving on the organization's Legal and Legislative
Committees (one of the few non-lawyers on those committees), I have been
involved in demonstrations, lobbying and other efforts to protect
people's rights. Just recently a bill for which I and other FSC members
were lobbying was signed into law by California Governor Schwarzenegger.
A few years ago, we also took a case all the way ot the US Supreme
Court. And won! I'm very proud of the work done by the Free Speech
Coalition. And proud to be a member of that organization.

The Rochester women continued to do an annual topless protest against
the law for a number of years. This has helped change attitudes in the
United States if not necessarily changing actual laws.

In other countries, nudism and public nudity are dealt with by the legal
systems of those countries in various ways.

Earlier this year, in June I believe, a church group in the Netherlands
was upset over a nude bike riding tour that was scheduled for the same
day as one of their own youth biking adventures.

In Berlin earlier this month, a couple who were having sex on a public
street were arrested and fined one hundred euros (about one hundred
twenty five US dollars) for disturbing the peace.

In Oslo, a couple who had sex on stage during a rock concert claimed
that their sex act was protected under freedom of speech and expression.
The couple are members of an environmental group and say they did what
they did to promote a campaign to save the rain forest. They were arrested.

Back in the USA, in September, prosecutors in San Francisco declined to
prosecute a man who did nude yoga in public. A spokesperson for the
District Attorney's office said that being nude on the street in San
Francisco was not enough to constitute a crime. Lewd behavior or
disturbing the peace would be necessary for legal action to be taken.

On the other hand, in October, a group of women in Carmel, California
who were in their fifties up into their eighties posed partially nude
for a racy calendar to raise money for their local firehouse which was
in need of repairs and upgrading. They raised thirty thousand dollars,
but the town leaders rejected the money. Go figure.

Please, if you would, include replies to this cross posted message to
alt.polyamory. Alt.polyamory is the main newsgroup I hang out in, so I'm
most likely to see replies, if there are any, there. Thanks.

Tal
http://www.firsttribebooks.com

Bogus Address

    > is nudity freedom of speech and thus protected by the First Amendment?
    > If the nudity is the only way to express a certain concept or idea or
    > viewpoint, yes, most likely it would be considered protected speech
    > under the First Amendment. Or if the person "speaking" by nudity had
    > no other means of expression, yes, most likely it would be considered
    > protected speech under the First Amendment.

The people most likely to have put that to the test would have been the
Doukhubors. Did they? (I've only heard of them doing that sort of
thing in Canada).

    > Please, if you would, include replies to this cross posted message
    > to alt.polyamory. Alt.polyamory is the main newsgroup I hang out in,
    > so I'm most likely to see replies, if there are any, there.

I don't think Doukhuborism is gonna be very on-topic there, but if you
say so...

========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.

Taliesin

bogus address wrote:
    >>is nudity freedom of speech and thus protected by the First Amendment?
    >>If the nudity is the only way to express a certain concept or idea or
    >>viewpoint, yes, most likely it would be considered protected speech
    >>under the First Amendment. Or if the person "speaking" by nudity had
    >>no other means of expression, yes, most likely it would be considered
    >>protected speech under the First Amendment.
    >
    >
    > The people most likely to have put that to the test would have been the
    > Doukhubors. Did they? (I've only heard of them doing that sort of
    > thing in Canada).

I don't know much about the Doukhubors; a religious group originating in
Russia who live communally and have a abstraction of Christian behavior
based on select passages of the Bible? Am I close?

Is public nudity required by their religious laws? You'd have to tell me
more about them before I could answer your question.

Though I can't answer about, or for, the Doukhubors, your question
brings up a point that I failed to mention in my earlier post. That of
religion. Separation of Church and State is critical in the United
States, though many many times the line gets blurred, and deliberately
so, most often by those who believe the US should be a Christian nation.

While I don't know specifically about any cases involving religious
nudity, there are religions such as some practiced by Native Americans
in which substances that are illegal are used. Peyote is one example.
Mostly the courts have struck down use of Peyote in Native American
religious ceremonies. However, I believe there have been a few instances
when the courts have upheld, at least in some way, such practices.

Since public nudity itself in the United States is not necessarily
illegal, a religious group for whom nudity was required for a given
ceremony or ritual, might have a case. If the nudity occurs in private,
there's no cause for government intervention. However, if a group whose
religious beliefs required nudity during a ceremony and the laws of the
religion required the ceremony take place outdoors, as long as the
practitioners were not disturbing the peace or creating a public
nuisance the government should, again, stay out of the matter.

    >>Please, if you would, include replies to this cross posted message
    >>to alt.polyamory. Alt.polyamory is the main newsgroup I hang out in,
    >>so I'm most likely to see replies, if there are any, there.
    >
    >
    > I don't think Doukhuborism is gonna be very on-topic there, but if you
    > say so...

Since the post to which I responded was cross posted to alt.polyamory I
wanted to increase the chances of my seeing any responses, if there were
any. It's not quite on topic, but we've discussed a wide range of issues
relating to human sexuality and behavior in alt.polyamory so it's not
completely out of line either. The preference in alt.polyamory is for
polyamory related topics, but there have been occasional exceptions.

Thanks for including alt.polyamory in your reply. What NG are you on, if
I may ask?

Tal
http://www.firsttribebooks.com