Nudity is Protected Free Speech — General Discussion on True Nudists

kenoHickOriginal Poster

Nov 18, 2010

The World Naked Bike Ride has done more to promote public nudity than everything else combined in the last 100 years.

If the WNBR is protected as Free Speech under the First Amendment in order to protest Big Oil and pollution, then public nudity at other times, besides WNBR, also should be protected under Free Speech, in order to protest every anti-nudity law itself. The government cannot "rate" one political movement as being more important than another, because that would be censorship. The government under the First Amendment cannot permit the WNBR, but then arrest you for being nude, when your nudity is a different political protest from the WNBR. Separate but Unequal is unconstitutional on its face.

If the WNBR bike ride ends at 5:00 pm, why should it be illegal to be nude in public at 5:01 pm?

ReactReplySubscribe

Replies

CD
Cheri Donna Dawson
Nov 19, 2010
[quote]The World Naked Bike Ride has done more to promote public nudity than everything else combined in the last 100 years. If the WNBR is protected as Free Speech under the First Amendment in order to protest Big Oil and pollution, then public nudity at other times, besides WNBR, also should be protected under Free Speech, in order to protest every anti-nudity law itself. The government cannot "rate" one political movement as being more important than another, because that would be censorship. The government under the First Amendment cannot permit the WNBR, but then arrest you for being nude, when your nudity is a different political protest from the WNBR. Separate but Unequal is unconstitutional on its face. If the WNBR bike ride ends at 5:00 pm, why should it be illegal to be nude in public at 5:01 pm? [/quote] Have you read the First Amendment? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Lots of annotations to it can be found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
ReactReply
AM
AmosLamb
Jun 10, 2011
I couldn't of said it better, you are right on target.
ReactReply
NI
NightOwl
Jun 10, 2011
I've been thinking about this myself. Maybe a lawyer can shed some light on this.
Why are other possibly "offensive" actions or people protected by the governemt and even mandated to be accomodated for. I, and many others, could be highly offended by say an amputee (I'm not of course, arguments sake) and not only would an amputee have a right to be on, say a beach; mandatory compliance with ADA guidelines requires the beach be accessable to that person. Even further, an American hating Muslim could set up in a crowded park, with visible signage stating thier disdain for Americans, an action that would be highly offensive to a LARGE majority of the population, yet that action is protected by our Constitution under freedom of speach. Those offended would have but two options, tolerate the action or move. This protection extends to many other "percieved offenses", i.e. race and color, etc. These "percieved offenses" are protected as each person has a right to be at any given place no matter who else may feel like they are offended. However, simple nudity is most often classified as "offensive" and deemed illegal, even though nearly every man and woman on the planet annatomically looks the same, yet, somehow nudity is deemed "offensive" and laws are created to disallow it. It makes no sense to me how this universal appearence of the human body is said to be "offensive" and because it may offend someone, is disallowed.
Given the inequities and the application of "offensive" and the protection of nearly all other "offensive" actions, I say laws that prohibit simple nudity are therefore unconstitutional. I like the option stated before, if caught naked, I'm simply peacefully protesting anti-nudity laws. I wonder if a group of people could schedule a "protest" on a beach to "protest" antinudity laws, stake out a section of the beach stating such "area of protest" and that area be available to anyone wishing to participate in said "protest". Lets say this "peaceful staged protest" just happens to run from mid May to late October!
ReactReply
CD
Cheri Donna Dawson
Jun 11, 2011
[quote]The World Naked Bike Ride has done more to promote public nudity than everything else combined in the last 100 years. If the WNBR is protected as Free Speech under the First Amendment in order to protest Big Oil and pollution, then public nudity at other times, besides WNBR, also should be protected under Free Speech, in order to protest every anti-nudity law itself. The government cannot "rate" one political movement as being more important than another, because that would be censorship. The government under the First Amendment cannot permit the WNBR, but then arrest you for being nude, when your nudity is a different political protest from the WNBR. Separate but Unequal is unconstitutional on its face. If the WNBR bike ride ends at 5:00 pm, why should it be illegal to be nude in public at 5:01 pm? [/quote] Have you read the 1st Amendment: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ReactReply
CA
Canoodler
Jun 11, 2011
Marc82, wow, you seem to be pretty unclear as to where you stand...Parents have a RIGHT to keep their children from seeing genitalia? No they don't. Ain't no such law or anything. There are LOTS of kids on streets where the WNBR happens. I've been there and they gathered in a park with lots of kids. BTW, none of the kids could have cared less! Also,
ReactReply
GA
gabare
Jun 11, 2011
first of all in the usa we have to many laws and that because we have to much government, federal, state, county, city heck some people also have a homeowners association telling them what to do. than we have a ton of courts federal, state, county and city that can make a decision about what you can and cannot do. if you look at the world bike ride most occur in liberal jurisdiction those green cities who see this as a positive statement against more pollution but ask most of them if you can just be nude because you want to be in the middle of the street or for that matter on the sidewalk and i bet the answer will be NO. the solution, less government and more rights for citizens isn't that what people came here for in the first place.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Jun 12, 2011
[quote][quote]Have you read the 1st Amendment: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote] nudity could be a form of expression[/quote] And is frequently interpreted that way, HOWEVER nowhere in the above quoted amendment is the word "expression" used !! In the USA ( and some other jurisdictions, but not all ) we do have the right to what's often mistakenly called the "freedom of speech" but we do NOT have an all encompasing freedom of expression !
ReactReply
BU
Bud
Jun 12, 2011
It is illegal to require a permit to do a constitutionally guaranteed thing...
ReactReply
RE
renebbare
Jun 13, 2011
Since when has nudity been protected free speech? In fact what has nudity got to do with free speech?
ReactReply
AM
AmosLamb
Jun 13, 2011
As the saying gos our action speak louder than words. We speak with every part our body when we wear clothes because we are ashamed of that part of our body that we have covered up, we are making a statement. The same when we go without clothes we are saying that the body is not shameful. Every thing we do is a form a speech. If we believe that we are a creation of a loving God he saw that our body was very good. How can we say less? Also naked and unashamed!!!
ReactReply
BU
Bud
Jun 13, 2011
bump
ReactReply
KE
kenoHickOriginal Poster
Jun 23, 2011
Well, I started this topic, so I'm disappointed in some of the defeatist attitudes posted since then.
The First Amendment, like every other part of the Constitution, encompasses not only the words themselves, but also every Supreme Court decision since 1789 that has discussed the First Amendment. No law is self-executing, and every law is subject to interpretation by the courts. Only the ignorant and bigoted want a utopian, impractical system where everybody has the same opinion, automatically, about what the law means. Who interprets the First Amendment? Barney Fife? After all, the internet, radio and television, movies, photographs, the New York Times and X-rated tee shirts aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, are they? Would you ban them like nudity itself?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Free Speech protects not only thoughts and comments, but also "physical action." So, you can pass out pamphlets, use a loud-speaker, march, sign petitions, hold signs, and generally do anything non-violent to protest any law. Here, non-sexual nudity to protest an anti-nudity law itself is non-violent. This is so, notwithstanding disorderly conduct and indecent conduct laws to the contrary.
ReactReply
DE
DesertRat
Jun 23, 2011
The Constitution of the United States, in many ways, is a misunderstood document. It is not necessarily a list of "rights". It is a list of prohibitions that a government is not allowed to do to it's citizens. The various States, which actually wrote and ratified the Constitution, may make laws that apply to the citizens of the individual States. If the people feel that a certain State law was written contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, the people have a right to go to a Federal Court to challenge the law. If a certain issue is deemed to have violated the provisions of the Constitution, then it may finally end up in the US Supreme Court for a final decision. The problem with anti nudity laws is that they are usually a mish-mash of City, County or Township regulations. A person might be cited in one of these local courts and the final decision is made there. The problem here is the concept of "community standards". This means that the leaders of the community can create and enforce any laws that they feel are necessary to enforce the so called "community standards". There's an old saying that applies very well here. That is; You can't fight City Hall.
ReactReply
MI
Michael
Jun 23, 2011
PETA often does legal nude protesting, but they probably also check local laws first to find out how far they can go with that.
ReactReply
JA
jason
Jun 24, 2011
right the constitution is not neccessarily the people's "rights" the bill of rights is the people's rights. they are amendments to the constitution meaning they were added to the constitution to address issues not addressed in the constitution.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Jun 24, 2011
[quote][quote]PETA often does legal nude protesting, but they probably also check local laws first to find out how far they can go with that.[/quote] True but it's also very bad publicity to go against peta because you may look like you're against animal rights.[/quote] (P)eople (E)ating (T)asty (A)nimals ? Didn't know they did nude protests. Huh !
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Jun 24, 2011
[quote]right the constitution is not neccessarily the people's "rights" the bill of rights is the people's rights. they are amendments to the constitution meaning they were added to the constitution to address issues not addressed in the constitution.[/quote] Actually, they were added to restrict an over-zealous government from usurping God-given rights not explicitly enumerated in the constitution already as clearly as some would like, but already implied. Recent ( 50 years or so ) government actions would suggest that even the Bill of Rights wasn't strong enough.
ReactReply
JA
jason
Jun 25, 2011
what about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Jun 25, 2011
[quote]what about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?[/quote] Yep. We have the right to life ( to not be murdered without due process ) liberty ( freedom from an oppressive government. Not sure when that one went away. Liberal courts since the 60's I expect ) and the *pursuit* ( but not the achievment ) of happiness, which is really just a simple choice.
ReactReply