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
February 28, 2010
Danaher: Common sense on nudity
November 4, 2009
VT- Nude South Burlington runner cited
11-3-2009 Vermont:
SOUTH BURLINGTON -- A man seen running without pants on a South Burlington bike path Saturday afternoon will face a charge of prohibited acts this morning in Vermont District Court in Burlington, police say.
Richard Michaud, 38, of Williston, a convicted sex offender, was spotted Saturday afternoon by several witnesses on a recreation path near Brewer Parkway, said Cpl. Paul Kissell, the investigating officer.
Before learning of Michaud's out-of-state conviction for gross lewdness, police issued him a municipal ticket -- South Burlington has a noncriminal ordinance against public nudity -- and an order against trespass in city parks and paths.
Police turned the case over to the Chittenden County State's Attorney's Office in Burlington after examining Michaud's criminal record.
Two previous sex-related convictions would have required Michaud to register in Vermont as a sex offender, but one does not, Chief Trevor Whipple said.
Among the definitions of Vermont's "prohibited acts" (Title 13; Chapter 59; Section 2632) is something done to "aid or abet prostitution, lewdness or assignation, by any means whatsoever."
A conviction could lead to up to one year's imprisonment and a fine of up to $100.
The state will draw from witness accounts to demonstrate that Michaud was engaged in a criminal act, Vermont District State's Attorney T. J. Donovan said.
Public nudity is not illegal in Vermont, Donovan said.
Whipple elaborated in a post to South Burlington residents on Front Porch Forum.
"If you have seen press releases about the naked bike ride in Burlington or Montpelier or the naked people visiting downtown Brattleboro, this should come as no surprise," he wrote.So, only if one is a -registered sex offender or has such a conviction- does the state try to prove a criminal intent. Interesting...
He added it is illegal "to be lewd or to exhibit open sexual behavior directed toward others."
Regardless of the legal complexity of Michaud's case, police would remain alert to reports of unusual behavior on trails, Whipple wrote.
"Even if a crime had not been committed, this is the type of behavior that we do not want to see in areas frequented by children," he said Tuesday afternoon. "We'll do our best to discourage that kind of behavior and look for legal means to do it." ..Source.. by Joel Banner Baird
May 6, 2009
CO- GET NAKED, THE ACLU IS ON YOUR SIDE
5-6-2009 Colorado:
The ever-vigilant ACLU, notorious for defending indefensible fringe behaviors, has a new cause célèbre--public nudity.
Last time I checked, my common sense said public nudity is not normal or practical.
This latest ACLU lunacy stems from last year’s Halloween high jinks on the part of “Naked Pumpkin Runners,” 12 Boulder, CO pranksters running around nude with nothing but pumpkins on their heads. The pumpkin clad streakers were ticketed for indecent exposure. Due to the Colorado’s strict sex offender laws, these bare-bottom trotters could have landed on the state sex offender registry and been lumped together with bona-fide scumbags guilty of criminally obscene activity.
Eleven of the 12 prancing pumpkins pled guilty to a lesser crime and pumpkin #12 beat the wrap altogether.
Last week the Boulder chapter of the ACLU held a forum, “Naked in Boulder.” They hope to tweak the sex offender law and protect streakers, naked bike riders, protesters, etc. from the more serious criminal sex offender designation.
But according to Boulder’s newspaper, The Daily Camera, the opportunistic Boulder ACLU is maxing out the streaker issue by lobbying to “protect nudity as a constitutionally sheltered freedom of expression.”
Strange, I don’t recall “public nudity” in my eighth-grade civics class during discussion of our Constitutional freedoms of expression.
“Congress shall make no law…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.”
Nope, no nudity mentioned there. Probably because our founding fathers never imagined its citizen elites would rally around public nudity as a civil right.
This newly suggested constitutional right defies logic. Even uninhibited three year-olds recognize propriety; they break into giggles, displaying a healthy embarrassment, when another tot cavorts in the raw.
In contrast, many nudies convince themselves that they are progressively beyond us repressed, uptight prudes who don’t want to display our pimples, dimples and privates. Those of us who prefer apparel in public, are classified as “clothing-compulsive, nudo-phobes” by unclad libertines.
The Naturist Society already considers public nudity a civil liberty asking members to “join in our struggle to preserve public land for nude use.”
“We work for clothing-optionality, body acceptance, self-expression, civil liberties…” says the angry Senior Unlimited Nudes with brain-bending rhetoric. “We struggle against prudery, shame and censorship...”
Even some Christians have been seduced to strip and gambol about sans clothes. They salad-bar the Bible by selecting some scriptures while ignoring others. The Naturist-Christians Organization equates clothing with shame, saying, “We all share… a common desire to live a shame free life--naked and unashamed, as our Creator, who formed us in His own image, intended for us.”
Interesting twist.
If the Almighty intended for us to walk around starkers why did He clothe formerly leafless Adam and Eve, post-Eden, once their innate modesty kicked in? And once Jesus delivered the naked demon-possessed wretch from his torment, clothing represented his return to sanity and society.
Ironically, the same time “Naked In Boulder” promoted liaise faire laws for streakers and fellow birthday-suit aficionados, public nudity was banned in high Alpine hamlet Appenzell Outer Rhodes in Switzerland –that’s Europe, folks, where public nude bathing is practically de rigueur.
The Associated Press reports that Appenzellers were fed up with buck-naked freedom of expression. Voters “passed legislation banning naked hiking after dozens of mostly German nudists started rambling through their picturesque region… citizens objected to encountering walkers wearing nothing but hiking boots and socks.”
The ACLU also has a tough uphill hike if it hopes to secure constitutionally protected status for public nudity. Acknowledged or not, our sensible Creator mercifully hardwired us humans with inhibitions as a protective measure. Most of us prefer a dignified modesty for ourselves, and don’t want to be subjected to others’ bare bodies.
But what can you do? There will always be those rebellious humanoid specimens who override their sophisticated divine circuitry and run around naked with nothing but pumpkins on their heads. ..News Source.. by Ellen Makkai
