Excerpts from Newgroups
On Nudity And Civil Disobedience
[The
discussion pertains to a woman who appeared in court nude at her appearance
for charges of being nude]
The
author is "gus", a poster on the newsgroup.
...Not
in a Court of Law, IMHO.
Perhaps
not anywhere.
IMHO,
it's a different statement than "I think the laws are wrong".
The act of civil disobedience is to break a "bad" law, often
in a way that virutally guarantees arrest, then argue *within the
system* the merits of the law in an effort to prove the law is wrong.
Such a tactic would be for a group to go nude on a beach, get arrested,
then appear in court and argue that the law either doesn't apply or
is otherwise invalid.
Getting
arrested for mere nudity, then flipping off the court (which might
otherwise be inclined towards a sympathetic view of the situation,
who knows?) and stating by your actions that you're above or beyond
the law, will not get the laws changed. On the contrary, it says that
she is the sort of person who might not believe in traffic signals,
or in dog-leash laws, or in parking fines -- and if so, she'll just
do what she wants.
Very
different statements, but again, only IMHO. One could conclude that
she's an Anarchist and hell-bent on destroying society, rather than
that she's a citizen who is asserting rights unfairly denied her.
However,
from a point of view that the laws are so unjust and so unlikely to
change, then I suppose futile resistance looks good and perhaps even
brave. I don't share that point of view, but it really is a subjective
call. I'd think that antagonizing the court, and possibly causing
the judge to conclude that "people who go around nekkid advocate
lawlessness and are a threat to society" would be a Bad Thing.
But one must do what one believes in.
I
wish her the best of luck in her endeavors, whatever her ultimate
aim in behaving the way she has chosen.
[...]
Showing
up nude in court, whether lawful or not, is WITHOUT QUESTION flipping
off the judge. You may not get that, she may not get that, there may
be no objective manner in which to prove that to your satisfaction,
but the fact that the judge had "a hissy fit" is, IMNSHO,
a situation that any reasonable observer could have predicted. In
a game of Judge versus Defendant, I know where the smart money's bet.
That doesn't make it right or wrong, just "so". You're free
to dispute that, it's merely my opinion.
Such
behavior in a situation where no law exists to the contrary may indeed
further her aims. In that case, she's chosen a wise strategy to flush
out those who would enforce their own version of the law.
Granted
the prosecutor is reaching in this case. Granted I was not aware of
the laws in effect (or rather not in effect). Granted, even, that
appearing nude in that court may be perfectly legal. I doubt it happens
much more than showing up in a bikini. It was still a stunt intended
to inflame, and the results were, in that environment, predictable.
I
hope the continuing overreaction by the State's agents turns to her
advantage soon. The simple fact is that many have been incarcerated
for things that are arguably not illegal. The trick is generally to
lock 'em up for some other minor infraction. And gee, isn't that what
happened here to begin with? So if being nude in court is defendably
legal, I'm sure there's another charge that can be trumped up that
sticks.
There
is at best a fine line between heroism and recklessness. Whether one
is remembered a hero or a fool is often based more on how things happened
to work out, rather than on one's actions.
You
say I'm on the wrong side. No, I'm not. My observation is that showing
contempt of court, even when it's well-deserved, is a dangerous game.
Whether there is or is not a law banning simple nudity, the fact is
she's in court for simply being nude. This is, to my thinking, simply
wrong. But to ridicule the court in her manner of dress is simply
stupid. Unless she's stupid like a fox, and has a plan to upset all
their applecarts by drawing them into overreacting far beyond excusable
limits.
My
observation is that, for prosecutors and judges and other State's
agents, the excusable limits are typically quite broad. And for defendants,
quite narrow.
One
can be Right and still lose. She's playing a serious game of hardball,
and I wish her well.
You
can read into this whatever you wish. The fact is that in most of
the USA, one can be arrested at any time for just about any reason.
Much has been said in recent decades about such behavior, yet it persists.
If you're on the outside, you are at a disadvantage. Argue this all
you want, declare it Wrong and Evil, mount a demonstration and protest
till you drop. It's all been done before. There have been some changes,
but I wouldn't stake my freedom on it had I other choices.
But
rooting for the underdog, especially when they are in the right, is
a great American pastime. So is defiance of authority.
The
cat-and-mouse game is likely to continue until one side or the other
is worn down and gives in. Please let us know how things turn out.
I wish her the best in her proceedings, and hope even that's good
enough.
-gus
