| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cheri
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 09/15/2008 : 11:49:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VLM34
[quote]Originally posted by Cheri
VLM, You might enjoy reading this thread: http://www.nudist-resorts.org/talk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=28&whichpage=2&SearchTerms=public%2Claws
Not enjoyable at all. As far as I could tell in one pass through, every post misinforms. Even the attorney guy got some things wrong. There's no way I'd try to straighten out that mess. I just hope that no one depends on anything that was said.
Are you an attorney? What James stated was verified with another attorney. What is it that James posted that is not accurate in your opinion?!
Cheri
Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
http://pages.prodigy/cheridonna
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3519 |
 |
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 06:14:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheri
quote:
Originally posted by VLM34
[quote]Originally posted by Cheri
VLM, You might enjoy reading this thread: http://www.nudist-resorts.org/talk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=28&whichpage=2&SearchTerms=public%2Claws
Not enjoyable at all. As far as I could tell in one pass through, every post misinforms. Even the attorney guy got some things wrong. There's no way I'd try to straighten out that mess. I just hope that no one depends on anything that was said.
Are you an attorney? What James stated was verified with another attorney. What is it that James posted that is not accurate in your opinion?!
Cheri
Cheri
Dear Cheri Cheri,
I’m not an attorney, although I do have the power of one. However, your question is irrelevant because law schools don’t teach the law, certainly not all of the law, and especially not nudity law, although they do teach how to read law. Knowing how to read law doesn’t mean an attorney has read any particular law or any particular area of law. And, in case you’re unaware, in many cases a reading of a particular law doesn’t tell you what the law is, but I digress. On top of that, as I’m sure you know, nudity law is state and local law. We have 50 states, as I’m also sure you know. Most attorneys are licensed to practice in only one or two states, and don’t know diddly about other states’ laws. For that matter, most attorneys don’t know a whole lot more than diddly about the laws of their own state outside their specialty area. They write wills or defend DUIs or sue physicians or whatever.
You see, we’re talking about knowledge here, not what one took in school.
We’re about to go way off topic – what follows belongs in that other thread - but since it’s YOU demanding answers in THIS thread, I’ll proceed. I do hope you aren’t engaging in entrapment, which is a legal term you might ask your husband about.
James says the following:
8/25/2002: “I believe you are half right (that being that there are no OFFICIAL nude beaches, as none have been officially designated as such by the government).”
James doesn’t say which of the many levels of “the government” he means. We’re thus justified in assuming he means _any_ of them. He’s wrong. Collins Beach on Sauvie Island has been “officially designated” as clothing-optional since September 23, 1993, by the State of Oregon – specifically by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, an agency of the State of Oregon, whose policy-setting Commissioners are appointed by the Governor. Refer to the “Sauvie Island Beach Use Plan” of that date. There are other counterexamples, but one is enough so I’ll stop.
8/25/2002: “However, there are MANY places where one can legally be nude in public. There are LEGAL nude beaches (as opposed to OFFICIAL nude beaches) ...”
James is correct there, until he once again claims there are no OFFICIAL nude beaches. See above.
8/25/2002, the above sentence continues: “... & why can't one legally be nude even at a nudist resort? At least in my jurisdiction that simply isn't the case -if a nudist resort or club is licensed to operate within the jurisdiction, one certainly can legally be nude there.”
James is claiming that nudist resorts are public places. Although I’m not familiar with the definition of “public place” in all 50 states, and I doubt that James is either, most resorts are incorporated as private clubs and, as such, are not public places as that term is used in the public indecency laws of most states.
10/27/2002: “Also, as has been discussed in this forum previously, the fact that it might be legal in a given location doesn't mean that you won't be arrested by a renegade official (only that the case against you won't be successful if you have adequate representation).”
James is correct until his parenthetical, which is woefully incomplete and falsely reassuring. Even the most expert representation won’t overcome perjured testimony as to what you were doing. (You were merely nude, sitting on a beach. An official doesn’t like public nudity, so he arrests you. He doesn’t want his baseless arrest tossed out in court, so he says your person was tumid or some such archaic crap.) And, even if court testimony is accurate, the most expert representation won’t stop a judge (or judge and jury) outraged by the merest of mere nudity in their precious community from finding you guilty. Examples are legion. Think Bend.
(If you think perjury and/or community outrage rarely cause unjust convictions, read about all the old, long-settled murder convictions that have been overturned in the last few years by DNA evidence. If innocent people are convicted in murder cases, where the stakes are high and the scrutiny is supposed to be extremely high, you can be sure it happens more frequently in “minor” cases, especially when a perfectly legal action is strongly despised.)
That’s four, which ought to do it.
Oh, while I’m at it, here’s a quote from you from that same thread:
8/25/2002: “There are legal nude beaches: Haulover in North Miami, FL is recognized as is Rooster Rock and Sauvie Island in OR and in New Jersey there is Sandy Hook.”
Cheri Cheri, I do wish you’d stop referring to Collins Beach as “Sauvie Island” which makes people think it’s OK to be nude on the beaches of Sauvie Island, which most definitely isn’t so. Only Collins Beach on Sauvie Island is officially designated for nude use. The other Sauvie Island beaches are not.
People like you, saying things like you said, foster many of the problems there.
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
Diger
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 09:39:43 AM
|
Cheri,
I'm not an Attorney either, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. LOL
Diger
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1385 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 11:58:16 AM
|
A state, federal or local park is very definately a "public place!"
But what worries me on this point is the great body of rulings and laws on what is/is not "public accomodations". Much of this is left over from the Civil Rights revolution of the '50s and '60s. The basic rule is that any facility tht is open to participation or entry for a fee could be covered as a "public place." This definitely includes the nudist resorts I have attended, as opposed to someone's private land or house that is open by invitation and without any fee.
At the time, while I basically supported Civil Rights, I disagreed on giving the government the power to regulate so much private property on technicalities. I did not patronize segregated facilities, but felt that it was not the government's proper function to forbid it on private property. This is the position known today as libertarian.
|
Edited by - balataf on 09/16/2008 12:00:36 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 04:46:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by balataf
A state, federal or local park is very definately a "public place!"
Yes, definitely.
quote:
But what worries me on this point is the great body of rulings and laws on what is/is not "public accomodations". Much of this is left over from the Civil Rights revolution of the '50s and '60s. The basic rule is that any facility tht is open to participation or entry for a fee could be covered as a "public place."
If you meant the words I bolded to say "public accomodation" I agree with you.
As I understand it, a hotel lobby, a restaurant, and (say) Disneyland would be both public places and public accommodations. They aren't incorporated and licensed as private clubs, but instead are open to the general public.
Now, lets look at a resort incorporated as a private club. Assume that the grounds are adequately shielded from view of those outside, and that the club chooses to permit a limited number of selected non-members to enter for a fee.
It's definitely a public accomodation (because it allows selected non-members for a fee) but it's not a public place because it's not open to the general public.
As a private club, it's governed by its Articles of Incorporation and its Bylaws and/or by its conditions of license. If those governing documents require or permit nudity, and if the shielding adequately prevents view of nudity from public places, all is well.
All who enter do so voluntarily and agree to accept and abide by the bylaws, thus waiving the right to invoke public indecency laws - at least as regards mere nudity.
I'm not sure I've got that 100% right, but that's the idea. Both federal and state law are involved, plus a lot of murky case law, so I don't think any synopsis would apply everywhere.
I'd happily defer to anyone who has detailed knowledge in all 50 states, although I doubt that such a person exists.
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
Admin
Forum Admin
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 11:14:02 AM
|
I strongly disagree that this thread had ever stopped being directly "on-topic!"
This sub-point is to determine what types of property should be legitimately covered by anti-nudity provisions, and what areas and types of establishment should not. For instance, Phi Nu had a group dinner at a restaurant, in which a room was dedicated. In fact, there was another, textiled, group in a room next door on that same floor, and one had to be clothed to use the rest room. By many statutes, that would be regulated, "public" space within a commercial establishment. This event could have run afoul of some ordinance designed to prevent "stripping" while dancing on top the bar, if it merely proscribed nudity within a commercial restaurant or in places where liquor is served.
|
Edited by - balataf on 09/17/2008 11:17:09 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
inudist
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 9:49:58 PM
|
Wasn't JockerCPoC's original intent an activist agenda to try to change(or reform)the current law concerning non-sexual nudity? A lot of great discussion on the merits and pitfalls of trying to do this have been brought out on this post. I would like to hear more!!
But it did seem to change into a debate on what current law is and even who is more lawyerly than who. Yes, a little sarcasm there. I agree with admin on a separate thread for discussion of current law. As a non lawyer myself I would also welcome more clarification of current nudist law. It might help me stay out of trouble down the road!
inudist
|
Edited by - inudist on 09/17/2008 9:54:11 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 28 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Reform of the Indecency Statutes is needed
