Danaher: Common sense on nudity

2-28-2010 Colorado:

How about if we bring some common sense to the streaking and sex offender registration issue? On one hand we have some who claim that running around without any clothes on is a form of protected "speech," and on the other, current law requires that we brand those incarcerated for participating in the World Naked Bike Ride or the Naked Pumpkin Run with the same label that a rapist earns. I think both extremes are extreme.

In addition to thinking running around nude is a form of free speech, according to Judd Golden of the Boulder Chapter of the ACLU, "There is a long history of nudity in political and social protests." I agree that getting naked has been associated with protests. But I would argue that it's a form of civil disobedience. And like other forms of civil disobedience -- sitting in the road of the entrance to Rocky Flats nuke plant, chaining oneself to the door of an abortion clinic, or tree sitting -- it likely results in an arrest, often for a public nuisance violation.

I just don't buy the argument that prohibiting public nudity "threatens individual rights and freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights" as stated by Golden. And I agree with Boulder city officials who state: "Public displays of nudity at events and in crowds have the tendency to create a crowd mentality that can lead to other law-enforcement problems. If left unchecked, these issues will often lead to other disorder-type crimes, as the crowd believes that disorder is the norm, especially in circumstances where alcohol is consumed."

At the other extreme, in our zeal to prevent another child from being molested, we are throwing the sex offender label at anyone who is convicted of any sex crime, no matter how minor. In Colorado, as in many other states, conviction of an indecent exposure crime was added to the list of those having mandatory sex offender registration. The list also includes things like child molestation, abduction and rape. And registration is for life. Giving streakers and rapists the same label is absolutely irrational.

The idea of a sex offender registry is that those identified can't be rehabilitated and therefore pose a danger to the public. And, logically, alerting an ex-con's neighbors and potential employers is a reasonable thing to do. Imagine that you had a toddler in a neighborhood with a repeat child molester living a few doors down. Or that you owned a day care, or ran a youth camp and were hiring help. You would like to know if you were making the children in your care accessible to a predator.

Adding streakers' names to the registry is ridiculous for two reasons. First, it isn't fair to the offender to have to live with such a shameful -- not to mention, inaccurate -- tag, forever. Second, because so many convicted of minor crimes are being added to the registry, the label is rapidly losing its significance. Nationwide, the sex offender registry is approaching 1 million people. But only a fraction of those are dangerous.

But a reasonable resolution may be within sight. If either of two different legislative measures -- one now in the Colorado General Assembly and one being considered by Boulder City Council -- becomes law, Boulder Police will finally have a reasonable way to deal with naked pranksters.

Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett is currently working with the state legislature to change the Public Indecency law to include Naked Pumpkin Run-type activities. As a result, such behaviors would be prosecuted under the Public Indecency statute -- a petty offense, most likely resulting in just a fine -- instead of the Indecent Exposure one, a class 1 misdemeanor, which requires registration. Garnett foresees little opposition to the passage of the measure.

On the city level, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner has helped write an ordinance that would allow the streakers to be prosecuted under the to-be-revised nudity ordinance. According to Chief Beckner, this change will reduce inequities in current law enforcement and bring some much needed common sense.

The ACLU thinks this is a step back to the Victorian era, where women had to cover their legs. Not to worry.

Thankfully there is a middle ground, between condoning public nudity and labeling pranksters as incurable. Let's encourage our elected officials to do the right thing. I bet it's even possible for us to do that without stripping down. ..Source.. Charlie Danaher