Conference moira::naturism

    State of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated:
    
        645:1  INDECENT EXPOSURE AND LEWDNESS.  A person is guilty
        of a misdemeanour if he fornicates, exposes his genitals
        or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances
        which he should know will likely cause affront or alarm.

    
    I guess its ok for a woman to go topless in NH and not be guilty
    of indecent exposure. 
    
    I would imagine that buttocks are ok to be exposed by this law.
    
    ed

    RE: .1
    
         Based on that, only men can be guilty of indecent exposure.
    (Note the use of the pronoun "he".)  
    
         There are a lot of twisted old minds (men's, in this situation)
    that are responsible for a lot of twisted old laws, just so that
    their twisted old egos can dominate the rest of us and can put 
    financial remuneration back into their twisted pockets all at the
    twisted same time.
    
    Frederick
    

    A few comments on the NH Indecent Exposure Law:
    
    This is certainly not universal, but I expect you will find that a
    great many states have laws that look a lot like this one. 
    
    I am almost certain that "he"/"him"/"his" are used as generic,
    gender-free pronouns in standard legal writing.  Note that the law
    begins, "A *person* is guilty ...". 
    
    Clearly, toplessness is not indecent exposure, either for men or for
    women.  That doesn't mean that there aren't other laws that it could
    be suppressed under, though.  (Compare note 67, where the town of
    Kittery, Maine was surprised to learn that it had no authority to
    prevent toplessness under Maine's indecent exposure law.) 
    
    It is not nudity per se that is illegal, but nudity ("exposure of
    the genitals") "under circumstances which he should likely cause
    affront or alarm."  Now, that's the sort of legal language that
    probably has some interpretation with no intuitive relation to the
    English words; but it would seem plausible that nudity in a place
    with a tradition of nude use, with adequate safeguards to prevent
    people from stumbling on it unawares, ought to be defensible.  (This
    is the origin of The Naturists' "Warning: Beyond This Point You May
    Encounter Nude Bathers" sign.  It isn't just courtesy -- it's
    intended to undermine the legal case for "affront or alarm" that is
    necessary to proving indecent exposure in many or most states.) 
    
    I would *never* count on this as a defense; but apparently in one
    case (not in New Hampshire), a judge threw an indecent exposure case
    against a woman out of court on the ground that female anatomy is
    such that exposure of a woman's genitals is virtually impossible
    under normal circumstances.  I'll post the item if I happen across
    it. 
    
    	-Neil

    I remember the incident.  The women was sunbathing in her back yard
    and her next door neighbers childern were able to see her through
    some cracks in the privicy fence.  A complaint was filed and when
    she was brought to court the judge throughout the case because
    the law states.  That it is the exposure of the genitals that is
    obscene.  And since a womens genitals are not normally visible,
    a women can not be found guility of indecent exposure.
    
                                      Paul
    

	In retrospect to reviewing of Naturist videos, I came across
an article in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, Tuesday September 20, 1988.
The article has been duplicated here without permission. (I don't know
why I have to say that, but anyway...).  First of all, Ottawa is in
Ontario, Canada, for those of you who are unfamiliar with Canada.

	I was really unsure of where to enter this note, whether to 
put it in here in the "laws" note, or under the Naturist Videos note.  After
re-reading it, I have decided that it really has more to do with Canadian
laws regarding pornograhpic material than it does with videos.  Some of the 
article deals with pornographic videos, which cannot be mis-interpreted as 
Naturist Videos by any means, (however, after reading the article, I wonder 
what they'd do about Naturist Videos?).  This should give you an insight 
into Canada's awareness of pornographic material, and our country's seemingly 
undecisiveness of what is pornographic, and what is not....Soooooo, why 
don't you decide be the judge !

The article follows:

			PORN-HUNT Danger

	In Niagra Falls, Canadians who pop across the border to sample
the more lurid varieties of pornography available in the U.S. - and who
attempt to return with their purchases - are being met with a steely embrace 
by Canada Customs.

	In a crackdown reminiscent of the American Zero Tolerance response
to drug possession, cars containing pornographic videos are being confiscated
until their owners cough up fines for "smuggling".

	Customs officials keep three Niagra Falls, N.Y., porn shops under
surveillance - presumably noting Ontario licence plates in the parking lots -
and have impounded 180 cars since Jan. 1.  The seized videos, according to the
officer in charge, have included "the degradation of women, bondage, simulated
violence, kiddie porn, anal sex.  Everything except bestiality."

	In principle, one can only applaud efforts to keep Canada free of 
material that exploits flatly evil activities for sexual thrills: torture,
rape, child molestation.  In practice, however, there are aspects of the
crackdown that are worrying.

	The Conservatives haven't yet succeeded in passing their anti-
pornography legislation, so there is no clear definition of what customs
officials might find objectionable.

	Graphic depictions of sexual violence, for example, would and should be
confiscated.  But for some months now, in compliance with dictates of Canada 
Customs, American magazines such as Penthouse have been publishing expurgated
versions for the Canadian market, excising any reference to practices the
border police judge odious.

	Picture an amorously-inclined couple (this is Niagra Falls, after all)
entering Canada with an American copy of Penthouse stashed innocently in their
luggage - one that happens to detail the fondness of a Mr. (name and address
withheld) for a kink involving a stern and unforgiving schoolmistress.

	How culpable are our hypothetical couple?  Are they about to watch
dumb-struck as the keys to the Nissan disappear?  Zero Tolerance, after all,
means what it says.  Are even the most burlesque renderings of "simulated
violence" subject to seizure ?

	The question is whether customs officials are being guided by the 
existing Criminal Code, or whether they are enforcing a law that as yet does
not exist.  If the latter is the case, Canada Customs has quietly reserved
for itself both the right to pronounce on community standards and to exercise
punitive powers.

	This is a long way from the homegrown credo that the state has no 
place in the bedrooms of the nation. 

	The situation demands to be clarified.  Behind the well-meaning
drive to keep Canada clean of the type of pornography that fouls the U.S.
may lie an attempt to police the sexual desires of consenting adults.  Down
that road lie some very ugly consequences.


****************

And ...end of story.  Quite well written I would say.

Darrell

    From CwS 8.2:

    ======================================================================

    [CwS introduction:]

        Dan R. Sholly, based in Washington, is the national Chief of Ranger
        Activities of the National Park Service.  Sholly formulated the NPS
        policy on nudity, in this comprehensive statement, in response to a
        request from a naturist that was directed to William P. Mott in
        October 1985. 

        When Turner Stokes drew the attention of Director Mott's second in
        command, Denis Galvin, to this statement in mid-1988, Galvin took
        the step of ordering it sent to all NPS regional offices,
        confirming its authoritative character. 

        Unfortunately, not all jurisdictions of the NPS seem aware of the
        policy or are willing to abide by it.  Know your rights. 

    ======================================================================

    [The text of Sholly's letter:]

    Thank you for your recent letter regarding the National Park Service's
    (NPS) policy pertaining to nude bathing activities at national
    seashores.  I hope the following information will help clarify NPS
    policy and alleviate some of your concerns in this matter. 

    The NPS administers ten national seashores that were established by
    Congress for the general purpose of protecting their significant
    natural values and resources and providing opportunities for a variety
    of recreational activities.  Swimming and sunbathing are obviously two
    of the most appropriate and popular recreational activities enjoyed by
    visitors to these and other park areas with beaches.  Many of these
    park areas contain significant stretches of isolated beach, with
    limited access, that receive relatively low levels of public use.  Some
    individuals take advantage of the solitude afforded by such isolated
    areas to engage in a number of activities, including beachcombing,
    birdwatching, hiking, camping, and surf fishing.  Others prefer to swim
    and sunbathe in relative isolation.  Nude sunbathing does occur from
    time to time on some beaches as a result.

    NPS policy regarding nude or "clothing optional" swimming and
    sunbathing has been consistent over the years.  We do not encourage
    persons to engage in such activities because of the potential for their
    conflicting with the enjoyment of visitors participating in other
    recreational uses.  When such conflict occurs, the NPS takes
    appropriate action to eliminate the conflict.  The NPS does not
    designate or set aside areas for the use of individuals or groups
    wishing top sunbathe in the nude, nor will we consider doing so.  This
    policy was recently interpreted in the news media as indicating that
    the NPS treats all bathers alike, whether clothed or nude.

    When conflicts occur as a result of nude bathing, usually reported to
    the NPS in the form of complaints, NPS personnel attempt to resolve the
    situation informally with the persons who are the subject of the
    complaint.  There is no federal regulation prohibiting nudity that
    applies to all units of the National Park System; only Cape Cod
    National Seashore has a special regulation in effect that addresses
    such activity.  If informal means fail to resolve the conflict and
    enforcement action is found to be necessary, park rangers have the
    option of applying NPS regulations addressing disorderly conduct, if
    appropriate, or in most cases, state or local laws that prohibit public
    nudity.  The latter course of enforcement action is preferred because
    it provides for application of the same state and local laws on beaches
    administered by the NPS and adjacent or nearby beaches administered by
    state or local agencies.  Enforcement actions then are relatively
    consistent, whether taken by park rangers or local authorities, and are
    based on local and regional restrictions and customs as reflected by
    the laws that are in force in the particular vicinity.  Such an
    approach also helps foster the close cooperation that park managers
    seek to maintain between the NPS and state and local agencies.

    We appreciate this opportunity to provide you assistance in this
    manner.  Your interest in the National Park System is also very much
    appreciated.

    					Sincerely,
					Dan R. Sholly
					Chief, Ranger Activities


    ======================================================================

    [CwS summary and comments:]

	1.  *Rangers may not initiate* a citation or request to get dressed
	    if nudity occurs in "relative isolation".  Complaint must be
	    filed by another visitor.

	2.  Rangers will act to eliminate the nudity rather than to advise
	    a complainer to go elsewhere.

	3.  Ranger's first action will be to *seek an "informal"
	    compliance* by making a request to dress or move on.

	4.  Only if a nude person *refuses to cooperate* will a citation be
	    issued (and then for mere nudity or for disorderly conduct, but
	    not for indecency or lewdness).

                          State of New Hampshire
                        Revised Statutes Annotated
                              Chapter 649-A
                            Child Pornography


    649-A:1  Declaration of Findings and Purposes.

	I.  The legislature finds that there has been a proliferation of
    exploitation of children through their use as subjects in sexual
    performances.  The care of children is a sacred trust and should not be
    abused by those who seek to profit through a commercial network based
    upon the exploitation of children.  The public policy of the state
    demands the protection of children from exploitation through sexual
    performances.

        II.  It is the purpose of this chapter to facilitate the
    prosecution of those who exploit children in the manner specified in
    paragraph I.  In accordance with the United State Supreme Court's
    decision in New York v. Ferber, this chapter makes the dissemination of
    visual representations of children under the age of 16 engaged in
    sexual activity illegal irrespective of whether the visual
    representations are legally obscene; and the legislature urges law
    enforcement officers to aggressively seek out and prosecute those who
    violate the provisions of this chapter.


    649-A:2  Definitions.  In this chapter:

	I.  "Child" means any person under the age of 16 years.

	II.  "Disseminate" means to import, publish, produce, print,
    manufacture, distribute, sell, lease, exhibit or display.

	III.  "Sexual activity" means human masturbation, the touching of
    the actor's or other person's sexual organs in the context of a sexual
    relationship, sexual intercourse actual or simulated, normal or
    perverted, whether alone or between between members of the same or
    opposite sex or between humans and animals, any lewd exhibition of the
    genitals, flagellation or torture.  Sexual intercourse is simulated
    when it depicts explicit sexual intercourse which gives the appearance
    of the consummation of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted.

	IV.  "Visual representation" means any pose, play, dance or other
    performance, exhibited before an audience or reproduced in or designed
    to be reproduced in any book, magazine, pamphlet, motion picture film,
    photograph or picture.


    649-A:3  Offenses.

	I.  A person is guilty of an offense if he:

	(a) Sells, delivers or provides, or offers or agrees to sell,
    deliver or provide, any visual representation of a child engaging in
    sexual activity; or 

	(b) Presents or directs a visual representation of a child engaging
    in sexual activity, or participates in that portion of such visual
    representation which consists of a child engaging in sexual activity;
    or

	(c) Publishes, exhibits or otherwise makes available any visual
    representation of a child engaging in sexual activity; or

	(d) Posseses any visual representation of a child engaging in
    sexual activity for purposes of sale or other commercial dissemination.

	II.  [classification as a Class A or Class B felony depending on
    prior convictions]

    649-A:4 and 649-A:5 [Certain exemptions]

    If you have read some of the horror stories of parents being
    prosecuted for "child pornography" for taking nude pictures of their
    children, you should be relieved by reading this law (if you live in
    New Hampshire, anyway).
    
    Note that child pornography in New Hampshire has to do purely with
    the "visual representation" of a child engaging in "sexual
    activity".  This clearly does not apply to simple nudity (depending
    on the precise interpretation of "lewd exhibitions of the
    genitals").
    
    Note also that the law is directed explicitly towards child
    pornography as a commercial activity.
    
    	-Neil

                          State of New Hampshire
                        Revised Statutes Annotated
                              Chapter 173-A
                        Dangerous Sexual Offenders


	173-A:1  FINDING OF NECESSITY, AND PURPOSE.  It is hereby declared
    that the frequency of sex crimes within this state necessitates that
    appropriate measures be adopted to protect society more adequately from
    dangerous sexual offenders; that the laws of this state do not provide
    for the proper disposition of those who commit or have a tendency to
    commit such crimes and whose actions result from an abnormal psycho-
    sexual condition; that society as well as the individual will benefit
    by a legal process which would provide for indeterminate confinement,
    under conditions permitting segregation and psychiatric treatment as
    may be deemed necessary for such persons. 


	173-A:2  DEFINITIONS.  The term "dangerous sexual offender" as used
    in this chapter means any person suffering from such conditions of
    emotional instability or impulsiveness of behaviour, or lack of
    customary standards of good judgment, or failure to appreciate the
    consequences of his acts, or a combination of any such conditions, as
    to render such person irresponsible with respect to sexual matters and
    thereby dangerous to himself, or to other persons.


	173-A:3  INQUIRY.

        I.  When required.  [...] Whenever a person is convicted of one or
    more of the following sex offenses:  [...], or is convicted more than
    once for lewdness or indecent exposure, or any attempt to commit such
    offenses, the convicting court may in its discretion, prior to
    sentencing order a psychiatric examination and evaluation of such
    person pursuant [...]  Prior to the end of 90 days, the examining
    physician shall file a report with the committing court to include one
    of the following conclusions: 

	(a) That said person is not considered to be a dangerous sexual
    offender but that he is in need of and amenable to psychiatric
    treatment and that hospital confinement be continued or that such
    person be confined in a mental health facility until further order of
    the court, or until expiration of the maximum time for which said
    person is sentenced.

	(b) That said person is not considered to be a dangerous sexual
    offender and does not require psychiatric treatment.

	(c) That there is psychiatric and/or psychological evidence
    suggesting that person might be a dangerous sexual offender.  A
    certified copy of this report shall be served upon the person examined
    within 3 days after the filing thereof with the court.

	II.  Petition for Hearing.

	(a) In the event that the examining physician concludes that there
    is psychiatric and/or psychological evidence suggesting that the person
    examined might be a dangerous sexual offender, the committing court may
    at its discretion act on the report and may direct the county attorney
    to file a petition on the basis of said report including such facts as
    he may available requesting the court to conduct an inquiry into the
    condition of such person.

    [Eight more sections on "Hearing", "Commitment", "Director of Mental
    Health", "Facilities Provided", "Records of the Director of Mental Health",
    "Discharge", and "Procedure Where Person is Adjudged Not a Dangerous
    Sexual Offender"]

This summary of North and South Carolina laws about nudity is taken from
an article in the _Charlotte (N.C.) Observer_.  See note 187 for more 
about the article.

	-Neil

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

		What Carolinas Laws Say About Nudity

* N.C. law on nudity, or indecent exposure, does not prohibit the baring of
  breasts, but does prohibit exposure of the pubic area.  People cannot expose
  themselves in front of a person of the opposite sex in a public place.  This 
  is a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a $500 fine.  The 
  state attorney general's office says nudist camps are illegal, though 
  prosecution of violators is unlikely.

* Charlotte law is the same as the state's, with this addition:  The exposure 
  is also illegal in front of someone of the same sex.  Indecent exposure is 
  a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a $500 fine.

* South Carolina's indecent exoposure statute says that a person who willfully
  and maliciously exposes his person in any public place, on property of others
  or in the view of any person on any street or highway, can be fined or 
  imprisoned for up to 10 years.

  Horry County Judge Olin Blanton, whose district covers Myrtle Beach, says
  indecent exposure includes breasts.  If a woman walked down the beach topless, 
  she would be arrested, he says, though at South Carolina's topless clubs, the
  laws are rarely enforced.

  A nudist in the privacy of his own home, who is not exposing himself to 
  passersby, would not be violating the law, according to Blanton.  The same
  applies to nudist resorts.

* In National Parks, nudity is not against the law, except at the Cape Cod 
  National Seashore in Massachusetts.  At other national parks, rangers will
  enforce local and state laws, though usually they will give a verbal warning
  for nude visitors to clothe themselves or leave an area.

    
    
    	While it seems that you could legally bare all but the genitals in
    most states, the situation that you would find yourself in at a beach
    would be:
    
    	1. Trying to convince a public official that you are within your
    rights.
    
    	2. Trying to avoid a separate charge of disturbing the peace. I
    fully realize that the ones that would actually be disturbing the peace
    would be the ones objecting to your manner of attire, it still comes
    down to the fact that the officer/ranger/whatever has to solve the
    conflict and I hardly think that in most cases, he/she will support
    your side. Can you actually imagine the officer saying to some upset
    mother/father with kids in tow that he can't do anything? 
    
    
 ed

I wonder if its the same in America ... 

... In Britain at least the charge technically isn't "disturbing the peace" its
"conduct likely to cause a breech of the peace" - which means that even if you 
are totally peaceable the court might rule that your behaviour might cause
other people to breach the peace...

/. Ian .\

    
    I've looked in my local library but can't find any info. What are the
    laws in MA? 
    
    Would you have to research the laws in each town or county etc...?
    
    ed

To find the relevant state laws, you need to find a library with a big enough
reference section to have the laws of your state.  There should be an index.
You may have to try several topics before you find the right one.  (I'd
start with "indecent exposure", but "public indecency", "public lewdness",
and "lewdness" are some other possbilities.)  The index should point you to
the relevant law.

Depending on the particular state, towns and counties may or may not have
the power to legislate about issues such as nudity.  In New Hampshire, for
example, the general "police power" delegated to the towns includes the
authority to pass ordinances in support of the "public morals", or something
to that effect.  In practice, it is usually state law that is relevant, and
I believe that very few communities have anti-nudity ordinances (although
there are a couple of very important ones, such as the Accomack County 
ordinance that closed down the c/o beach in the Virginia part of the 
Assateague Island National Seashore, and the Los Angeles County anti-nudity
ordinance).  You could probably just phone the local police department to 
find out, and if there is an ordinance, they could give you a reference.

	-Neil

    
    Maybe I can get an answer for specific questions then. 
    
    	Is there someone who knows the specific laws in the areas of
    Hampton Beach and/or the area around Weir's Beach in NH? I don't think
    I'd be able to find this info on my own but will probably be going to
    these areas this year and want to get as much sun as possible.
    
    ed

>    	Is there someone who knows the specific laws in the areas of
>    Hampton Beach and/or the area around Weir's Beach in NH? I don't think
>    I'd be able to find this info on my own but will probably be going to
>    these areas this year and want to get as much sun as possible.

I'd say, since the state law has already been posted here, the easiest thing
to do would be to phone the local police department and ask if the town has
any sort of anti-nudity or "proper bathing attire" ordinance.  (Be sure to
post the answer here.)

	-Neil