<![CDATA[
<body bgcolor="#FFFF99" background="b2bwallpaper.gif" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000">
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=3>
<center><font size=1> </font></center>
<p><center><img src="B2Bnamesmall.gif" width=317 height=45></center>
<center><font size=1> </font></center>
<center><img SRC="B2BLogoPlainBk.gif" height=95 width=216></center></p>
<p>
<center><font size=5><b><font color="#CC0033"><u>Legal Rights of Demonstrating Nude</u></font></b></font></center>
<center><font size=3> </font></center>
<center><font size=2><font color="#0303D9">Adopted from research by Steven Hatfield <small><sup>(1)</sup></small></font></font></center>
<center><font size=1><font color="#AA0033">This Web page is under construction and does not contain<br>
any of the legal references of the successful 1993 demurrer.</font></font></center></p>
<font size=1><center> </center></font>
<font size=2>
<p>
<center><table width=621 border=1><tr><td align="center">
<font size=1><center> </center></font>
<center><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><font color="#CC0033"><b>Index</b></font></font></center>
<center><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
<nobar><a href="#1">Introduction</nobar></a>
<nobar><a href="#2">About Ordinances</nobar></a>
<nobar><a href="#3">State Case Law</nobar></a>
<nobar><a href="#4">Civil Rights in Penal Code</nobar></a><br>
<nobar><a href="#5">Federal Law</nobar></a>
<nobar><a href="#6">Code of Federal Regulations</nobar></a>
<nobar><a href="#7">Federal Case Law</nobar></a></center></p>
<font size=1><center> </center></font>
</td></tr></table></center></p>
</font>
<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="center"><font size=2><u>Disclaimer</u></font></div>
<div align="justify"><font size=2><font color="#0303D9"><small><sup>(1)</sup></small></font> Steven Hatfield
is <u>not</u> an attorney and the views in which are provided herein are that of his own
and that of the <font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font>
which is also <u>not</u> a professional legal service; but a bunch of naked yahoos.
The views, opinions and layman references which are provided herein are for the stimulation
of discussion, thought and entertainment; and are only presented by legal layman entities and
are not meant to supplement or substitute for the advice of a licensed attorney (competent or
otherwise). Steven Hatfield has participated in over a half dozen
<font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font> runs.</font></div></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<center><font size=2><font color="#D2B48C">Volume: </font><embed SRC="take5.mid" volume="30" width="200"
height="18" loop=false autostart=true></center>
<br>
<br>
<a name="1"></a>
<p>
<center><img SRC="usstarsandbars.jpg" height=15 width=501></center></p>
<font size=2>
<br>
<p>
<center><font size=3><font color="#CC0033"><b><u>INTRODUCTION</u></b></font></font></center>
<br>
<p>
<center></center>
<p>As defined in <u>Birkenshaw v Haley</u>, public nudity
can not be banned by a governmental entity:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
A governmental entity does not have the power to impose an
outright ban on nude or seminude public conduct
regardless of the context in which it is presented. <u>Birkenshaw
v Haley, D.C. Mich.</u> (1974) 409 F. Supp 13.
</div></p></blockquote>
<p>The "regardless of the context" phrase goes beyond the
<font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font>
standards of nudity because the
<font color="#AA0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font>
standards are of a family wholesome context.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Another recognized aspect of <u>Birkenshaw</u> <i>Id.</i> is that:
Indecent exposure is not protected simply because it occurs in a theatre,
nightclub or on stage.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>In 1975, wording as in California <i>Penal Code</i> Section
(hereinafter Section = "§") 314 was ruled unconstitutionally vague:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify"><u>Attwood v Purcell</u> (1975 District Court, Arizona) 402 F. Supp.
231; A.R.S. section 13- 531 which provides that a person is
guilty of a misdemeanor when he "willfully and lewdly exposes
his person or the private parts thereof in any public place or
in a place where there are present other persons to be offended
or annoyed thereby" is unconstitutionally vague because of the
use of "person or the private parts thereof in any public
place" and because of it's use of the phrase "offended or
annoyed thereby".</div></p></blockquote>
<p>In 1983, opponents brought forth that nudity is constitutionally
protected activity <u>only</u> upon a showing that it contains an
<u>expressive</u> <u>element</u>. Even they, directly acknowledged,
that nude expression is protected constitutionally:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">Nudity becomes a constitutionally protected activity only upon
a showing that it contains an expressive element. <u>King County
Ex Rel. Sowers v Chisman</u> (1983) 658 P.2d 1256, 33 Wash. App.
809</div></p></blockquote>
<p><u>People v Rehmeyer</u> (1993, 4th Dist.) 19 Cal App 4th 1758, 24
Cal Rptr 2d 321, no longer requires "only an expressive
element." Nudity is proved legal when lacking specifically
stated conduct. Constitutionality is not the issue here.</p>
<p>A <i>Penal Code</i> § 314 indecent exposure conviction requires
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant
to expose himself or herself, but intended by his or her
conduct to direct public attention to the actor's genitals for
purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.</p>
<p>Naked legality was expanded in 1997 to include "indecent," but
not obscene, in words very clear:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is
protected by the First Amendment. <u>Reno v American Civil
Liberties Union, (ACLU)</u> U.S. Pa. (1997) 117 S.Ct 2329, 138
L.Ed.2d 874</div></p></blockquote>
<p><u>Reno v ACLU</u> goes beyond
<font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font>
standards in that it provides for "indecent but not obscene" to be legal.
Nudity is <u>not</u> sex, but the unknowing do call nudity "sexual expression."
<font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-B'ers</font> police ourselves better. We keep to
our ideals that "nude is not lewd" nor indecent and we maintain wholesome standards
in our nudity, even though indecent sexual expression is protected as of 1997 by
case law and the First Amendment.
<font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font> position:
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify"><font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font>
strongly supports lewd perverts being prosecuted under the wording of California <i>Penal Code</i>
§ 314. We don't like them leaving a bad public impression of nudity.
Due of them, we do need more opportunities to prove that public nudity is decent and
legitimate; and that it does have good public acceptance; such as that which has been
successfully shown by our expressive demonstrations.
</div></p></blockquote>
<br>
<a name="2"></a>
<br>
<center><img SRC="usstarsandbars.jpg" height=15 width=501></center>
<br>
<p>
<center><font size=3><font color="#CC0033"><b><u>ABOUT ORDINANCES</u></b></font></font></center>
<br>
<p>Local ordinances by our opponents unconstitutionally try to ban
legitimate nudity. Fortunately, they can not do it legally because of the
"expressive element" which is clearly protected by the First Amendment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">Township ordinance prohibiting public nudity was
unconstitutional on its face because ordinance, in addition to
proscribing activities which might be constitutionally
forbidden, also proscribed conduct protected by the First
Amendment; thus the ordinance was overbroad and could not be
enforced. <a href="http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:b4HSixGJeKEJ:www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/olrChapters/chapter11000.pdf+Nadeau+v+Charter&hl=en" TARGET="_BLANK">Nadeau v Charter Township of Clinton</a>
E.D.Mich (1992) 827 F.Supp. 435</div></p></blockquote>
<p>Other statutes came about to combat nudity; but were reined in,
clarified and constitutionally adjusted by
<a href="http://www.naturisteducation.org/Toni_Egbert_Library/State_Appellate_Courts/Tily_B__Inc_v_Newport_Beach/tily_b__inc_v_newport_beach.html" TARGET="_BLANK">Tily B. Inc., v City of Newport Beach</a>
in 1998. Even <i>Penal Code</i> § 311.6
regarding Live Obscene Conduct; <i>Penal Code</i> 318.5, Nude Dancing;
and <i>Penal Code</i> § 318.6, Topless and
Bottomless Exhibitions in public places has protections by case
law to the extent that with a "content neutral" ordinance that
"does not contradict" the Penal Code; cities can seek to combat the
<u>secondary</u> <u>effects</u> of adult businesses, <u>not</u> <u>expression</u>.
This cite is listed in all categories: <i>Penal Code</i> §§
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03539114862+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">311.6</a>,
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03567416531+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">318.5, and 318.6</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
<a href="http://www.naturisteducation.org/Toni_Egbert_Library/State_Appellate_Courts/Tily_B__Inc_v_Newport_Beach/tily_b__inc_v_newport_beach.html" TARGET="_BLANK">Tily B. Inc. v City of Newport Beach</a>
(1998 4th Dist.) 69 Cal
App 4th 1, 81 Cal Rptr 2d 6, 19: City ordinance was content
neutral, since the city sought to combat secondary effects of
adult businesses, not expression... state law specifically
allows cities to prohibit entertainers and employees from
appearing nude in clubs that serve food and beverages (<i>Penal Code</i> § 318.5)
and to prohibit nude acts, demonstrations, or exhibitions,
in public places so long as the ordinance does not contradict
the Penal Code. <i>Penal Code</i> § 318.6</div></p></blockquote>
<p>These statutes,
<i>Penal Code</i> §§
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03539114862+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">311.6</a>,
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03567416531+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">318.5, and 318.6</a>
and this clarifying case are included to prove that nudity of an extent even beyond
our standards is found legal in case law. Local, to Federal
law makers can prohibit <u>constitutionally</u> <u>forbidden</u> activities;
but <u>not</u> those activities <u>constitutionally</u> <u>protected</u> by the First
Amendment, like [ sexual ] expression. This effectively renews what was decided, without
obscenity, back in 1974's <u>Birkenshaw v Haley</u>... Cool!</p>
<br>
<a name="3"></a>
<br>
<center><img SRC="usstarsandbars.jpg" height=15 width=501></center>
<br>
<p>
<center><font size=3><font color="#CC0033"><b><u>STATE CASE LAW</u></b></font></font></center>
<br>
<p>Local ordinances by nudity opponents unconstitutionally try to ban
legitimate nudity; but they can not legally do so because the
"expressive element" which is sometimes associated with nudity
is protected by the First Amendment.</p>
<p>Case law proves the meanings of words and phrases in code
statutes. For example, Section
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03492512658+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">314</a>
of the California Penal Code
calls for in part: 'Willful and lewdly.. 1. Exposing
the private parts in public places.' At first, a reader might
think that to be naked in public is lewd; therefore simply being
naked in public is erroneously thought of as being illegal. Case law
provides a clear meaning to the issue and provides that simple nudity in
public is not lewd. A clear requirement for indecent exposure.</p>
<p>The following are actual case citations from Deerings Annotated
California Penal Code:</p>
<p><a href="http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/71CA3d935.htm" TARGET="_BLANK">People v Swearington</a>
(1977) 71 Ca3d 935, 140 Cal Rptr 5 —
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
<i>Penal Code</i> § 314 requires specific intent to divert public attention
to genitals for purposes of sexual gratification or to affront
others. For conduct to constitute indecent exposure, <i>Penal Code</i> § 314 just
as for conduct to constitute lewd or dissolute conduct,
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0382082351+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">Penal Code 647(a)</a>,
sexual motivation is a prime requisite.</div></p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA4/19CA4t1758.htm" TARGET="_BLANK">People v Rehmeyer</a>
(1993, 4th Dist.) 19 Cal App 4th 1758, 24 Cal Rptr2d 321, review denied:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">A <i>Penal Code</i> § 314
indecent exposure conviction requires proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to
expose himself or herself, but intended by his or her conduct
to direct public attention to the actor's genitals for purposes
of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.</div></p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.bayareanaturists.org/smith.html" TARGET="_BLANK">In Re Smith</a> (1972) 7 C3d 362, 102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
A person does not expose private parts "lewdly" within the
meaning of <i>Penal Code</i> § 314 .. Unless conduct is sexually motivated.
Conviction of that offense requires proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but
intended by his conduct to direct public attention to genitals
for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification or affront.
Absent additional conduct intentionally directing attention to
his genitals for sexual purposes, a person who simply sunbathes
in the nude on an isolated beach does not "lewdly" expose his
private parts within <i>Penal Code</i> § 314, condemning indecent
exposure.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>There must be a cautioning instruction made by an Officer or
Ranger before an arrest may occur:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
<a href="http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/66C2d390.htm" TARGET="_BLANK">People v Merriam</a>
(1967) 66 Ca2d 390, 58 Cal Rptr 1, 426 P2d
161 .. One charged with <i>Penal Code</i> 314 violation should be afforded
protection of cautioning instruction as to the ease which
accusations are made and the difficulty of disproof; failure to
do so instruct constitutes error, regardless of whether or not
instruction was requested.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>(Note: What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Can
accusations be thrown about like party favors? NO! There are
statutes criminalizing false reporting.
<font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font> will
file criminal reports against any known individual or public entity violating our rights. (<i>Penal Code</i> §§
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0385914757+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">118.1</a>
& <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0387855988+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">148.5</a>))</p>
<p>City ordinances banning nudity must be <i>appropriately motivated</i>
according to <a href="http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/51CA3d831.htm" TARGET="_BLANK">Eckl v Davis</a>
(1975) 51 Ca3d 831, 124 Cal Rptr 685:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">A city ordinance prohibiting nudity on public beaches
and other public areas was not invalid as attempt to regulate in an area
pre-empted by <i>Penal Code</i> § 314 ... the statute proscribes only sexually
motivated conduct and reflects no legislative intent to
prohibit local legislation with respect to public nudity not so
motivated when otherwise appropriate.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>Now look up
<a href="http://www.naturisteducation.org/Toni_Egbert_Library/State_Appellate_Courts/Tily_B__Inc_v_Newport_Beach/tily_b__inc_v_newport_beach.html" TARGET="_BLANK">Tily B. Inc. v City of Newport Beach</a>
<i>Id.</i> It's even better, and a much later case. It proves
out <i>Penal Code</i> §§
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03539114862+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">311.6</a>,
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03567416531+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">318.5, and 318.6</a>
to actually be in favor of naturism and public non-lewd nudity.</p>
<p>Even nude dancing is protected <u>expression</u>, and an ordinance
barring this is quieted as early as 1982. In <u>Morris v Municipal
Court</u> (1982) Cal3rd 553, 186 Cal Rptr 494, 652P2d 51:
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Prosecution of a nude dancer for exposing her buttocks during a
performance at a bar that employed her, in violation of a
community ordinance, the dancer was entitled to the issuance of
a Writ of Prohibition <u>Barring</u> <u>Prosecution</u>. (Emphasis underline added)
The ordinance which prohibits nude entertainment in any place
other than a concert hall, theater, or similar establishment
"primarily devoted to theatrical performances" affected freedom
of expression, a constitutionally protected value, and is
presumptively overbroad, since its prohibitions extend beyond
establishments serving alcoholic beverages. Moreover, the
county's interest in the promotion of public morals did not
further a sufficiently substantial government interest,
considering that the belief of a majority of the community that
nude dancing is immoral is not in itself sufficient to justify a
total prohibition of that form of entertainment in
establishments which do not serve alcohol, additionally, if the
ordinance was intended to protect the health of the county's
citizens, it was vastly overbroad.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>After reviewing <u>Tily B. Inc.</u> and <u>Morris v Muni.</u>, sexual is
proved the intended activity prohibited in <i>Penal Code</i> §§ 311.6, 318.5 and
318.6 pertaining to Penal Codes regulation of topless and bottomless
exhibitions in public places. Now <u>Morris v Muni.</u> and <u>Tily B., Inc.</u>
clearly find that ordinances:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">1. Can prohibit nude acts in clubs that serve food and beverages<br>
2. Must not contradict the Penal Code<br>
3. Can not adversely affect freedom of expression<br>
4. And can not be overbroad</div></p></blockquote>
<p>These statutes, <i>Penal Code</i> §§ 311.6, 318.5, and 318.6 and their clarifying
cases, are included in this report to prove that nudity of an
extent perhaps even beyond our standards, is found legal in case
law. Non-obscene nude dancing exists and is differentiated from
obscene dancing here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
<a href="http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/9C3d405.htm" TARGET="_BLANK">Crownover v Musick</a>
(1973) 9 Cal3rd 405, 107 Cal Rptr 681, 509
P2d 4971 — A ban on nude dancing cannot be sustained on the
theory that it regulates only conduct and does not impinge upon
protected speech. Non-obscene nude dancing cannot be barred
without, in some cases, infringing upon constitutionally
protected expression. An enactment prohibiting non-obscene
nude dancing which extends beyond establishments serving
alcohol is presumptively overbroad.</div></p></blockquote>
<br>
<a name="4"></a>
<br>
<center><img SRC="usstarsandbars.jpg" height=15 width=501></center>
<br>
<p>
<center><font size=3><font color="#CC0033"><b><u>CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE<br>
Re: Religious Persecution</u></b></font></font></center>
<br>
<p>We can start with the intent of the Civil Rights statutes in the
California <i>Penal Code</i> § 422.95(b):</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">"It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage counties,
cities, and school districts to establish education and
training programs to prevent violations of civil rights and hate
crimes."</div></p></blockquote>
<p>(Note: Interesting! Counties, cities, and school districts
are to establish education and training programs to <u>prevent</u>
violations of civil rights and hate crimes. County and city
officials should take notice. They are to learn how to <u>prevent</u>
certain violations, <u>not</u> be the perpetrators thereof. Authors
of religious persecution and suppression of expression
legislation; i.e. anti-nudity ordinances and statutes, are
<u>violating</u> the intent of the law they, and their collegues
created.)</p>
<p><b>TITLE 11.6 — CIVIL RIGHTS</b></p>
<p>Penal Code § <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0511946563+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">422.6(a)</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">"No person, whether or not acting under
color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully
injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any
other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him or her by the constitution or laws of
this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States
because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation."
</div></p></blockquote>
<p>(Note: Expression is a right protected by the First Amendment, and
that expression is a protected "right" enumerated in <i>Penal Code</i>
§ 422.6(a). It also says not to <u>interfere</u> <u>with</u>, or <u>oppress</u>
anyone <i>in the free exercise or enjoyment</i> of that right because
of one's <u>religion</u>! An unlawful prosecution against another's religion is
defined in Penal Code § <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=05288218528+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">422.55</a>
as a hate crime.)</p>
<p>California <i>Penal Code</i> § 422.75 (punishment) fits any
offense against religious persecution as a result of public nudity upheld
by Biblical Scripture to our non-lewd standards, protected too, by state
statute.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify"><i>Penal Code</i> §§ 314 and
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0511946563+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">422.75(a)</a>:
"(a) Except in the case of a person punished under Section
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=05439429458+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">422.7</a>,
a person who commits a felony or attempts to commit a
felony because of the victim's race, color, religion,
nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability, or sexual
orientation shall receive an additional term of one, two, or
three years in the state prison, at the court's discretion."
</div></p></blockquote>
<p>This subsection covers a person acting alone as perpetrator of a
<u>felony</u>, and even if he just attempts the crime. Subsection (b)
is the conspiracy, or acting voluntarily in concert with
another, either personally, or in aiding and abetting another
person. Section
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=05439429458+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" TARGET="_BLANK">422.75(b)</a>
adds a year to the sentences for acting in concert, or aiding and abetting thecrime.</p>
<p>Subsection (e) of Section 422.75 states that the additional term must be
charged in the accusatory pleading and must be admitted by the defendant
or found true by the trier of fact. Wouldn't the proof needed,
be the citation or arrest? Wouldn't anyone involved with the
said citation or arrest be acting in concert, or aiding and
abetting the original felon?</p>
<a name="5"></a>
<br>
<center><img SRC="usstarsandbars.jpg" height=15 width=501></center>
<br>
<p>
<center><font size=3><font color="#CC0033"><b><u>FEDERAL LAW</u></b></font></font></center>
<br>
<p>In Federal Law, the United States Code (USC) has no mention of
nudity at all. An exhaustive search of the index found nothing
using numerous keywords. "Indecent" has a large
section, yet it has no ban on public nakedness or application to
<font color="#BB0033">BARE-2-BREAKERS<small><sup>™</sup></small></font>.</p>
<p>A Ranger with the U.S. Forest Service once referenced to look in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the appropriate
regulations. In the past several years, only one complaint has
surfaced within his jurisdiction, and he could not recall the regulation
number to reference. His U.S. Forest Service area is not posted
against nudity. No action was ever taken against the cited naturist.
<p>In federal jurisdiction, being "publicly nude" is <u>not</u> a criminal offense
<u>unless an order has been specifically posted</u>. Nudity appears so
non-criminal to the extent that children under age ten may be naked, without
restriction, even if a prohibition order is properly posted
against nudity. Further studies show this same exemption for
children under age ten in state and local statutes.
Private lands and businesses within the Park or Forest borders can have
overlapping jurisdiction, so use discretion.</p>
<a name="6"></a>
<br>
<br>
<center><img SRC="usstarsandbars.jpg" height=15 width=501></center>
<br>
<p>
<center><font size=3><font color="#CC0033"><b><u>CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC PROPERTY</u><br>
Title 36, section 261, Prohibitions<br>
(Volume 2, Parts 200 to 299)</b></font></font></center>
<br>
<p><b>Subpart A - General Prohibitions</b></p>
<p>261.1 Scope — </p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">(a) says the prohibitions in this part apply,
<u>except as otherwise provided</u>, when (1), an act or omission
occurs in the National Forest system or on a forest development
road or trail. (2) and (3) of this subpart does not apply
unless you are threatening persons or property. (4) references
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, (b) references the
Wilderness Act of 1964 and the U. S. Mining Laws Act of 1872.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>261.2 Definitions — </p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">Publicly Nude, "Publicly nude means nude in
any place where a person may be observed by another person.
Any person is nude if the person has failed to cover the rectal
area, pubic area or genitals. A female person is also nude if
she has failed to cover both breasts below a point immediately
above the top of the areola. Each covering must be fully
opaque. No person under the age of ten years shall be
considered publicly nude.".</div></p></blockquote>
<p>261.4 Disorderly Conduct — </p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">No real application to nudity.</div></p></blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>Subpart B — Prohibitions in areas Designated by Order</b></p>
<p>261.50 — Orders — </p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">(a) tells who can issue orders over an area
which he has jurisdiction. ..(c) Each order shall... (1)
..describe the area to which the order applies, (3) ..specify
time if applicable, (4) State each prohibition ..(5) Be <u>posted</u>
in accordance with section 261.51. (d) The prohibitions
applied <u>by an order</u> are supplemental to the general
prohibitions in Subpart A. (Subpart A has no ban on nudity) (e),
Exemptions for persons exempted.. (1), By permit specifically
authorizing the activity.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>261.51 Posting — </p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">Posting is accomplished by: (a) Placing a copy
of the order imposing each prohibition in certain offices; and,
(b) <u>displaying</u> each prohibition by an order <u>in such locations and
manner as to reasonably</u> bring the prohibition to the attention of the
public.</div></p></blockquote>
<p>
261.58 Occupancy and Use — </p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:
...( j ) Being publicly nude.</div></p></blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>Subpart C — Prohibitions in Regions</b></p>
<p>
261.75 Regulations applicable to region 5, California Region, as
defined in Se have nothing applicable to nudity.</p>
<br>
<p>Note: Federal law is more restrictive than California
law, yet much less so <u>if there is no order posted</u> prohibiting
nudity. An order must be specific, down to the area, road or
trail, and time if limited to certain times. The order must be
<u>posted</u> in accordance with Section 261.51. This means the head
of the jurisdiction must place a copy of the order imposing each
prohibition in certain offices; <i>and,</i> <u>display</u> each prohibition by
an order <u>in such locations as to reasonably bring the prohibition to the
attention of the public</u>. It might be argued that there is arbeitary
age discrimination to consider persons age ten and older "publicly
nude" and not those under age ten.</p>
<br>
<a name="7"></a>
<br>
<center><img SRC="usstarsandbars.jpg" height=15 width=501></center>
<br>
<p>
<center><font size=3><font color="#CC0033"><b><u>FEDERAL CASE LAW</u></b></font></font></center>
<br>
<p>The 1990 Supreme Court Reports/Digest Lawyers Edition; 1999
United States Code Annotated General Index; and USCA Title 43 -
Public Lands Index, has no mention of nudity, lewdness,
indecency, or obscenity. USCA Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure has a large section on Obscenity; but nothing about
nudity or public nude cases or statutes.
<br>
<p>
USCA CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 1 has the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
<u>Attwood v Purcell</u> (1975 Dist. Ct., Arizona) 402 F.Supp. 231;
A.R.S. section 13-531 which provides that a person is guilty of
a misdemeanor when he "willfully and lewdly exposes his person
or the private parts thereof in any public place or in a place
where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed
thereby" is unconstitutionally vague because of the use of
"person or the private parts thereof in any public place" and
because of it's use of the phrase "offended or annoyed thereby."</div></p></blockquote>
<p>This case statute has the same wording as California <i>Penal Code</i>
§ 314. A lot of states have similar wording in their
statutes, just different numbering systems. It's interesting,
the defendant went after the constitution issue and won.</p>
<p>From USCA, CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 1, Note 1554, nudity
generally:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
All nudity cannot be deemed obscene even to minors. <u>Erzonoznik
v City of Jacksonville, Fla.</u> (1975) 85 S.Ct 2268, 422 U.S. 205,
45 L.Ed2d 125</div></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Nudism cannot be legally condemned as a morbid or shameful
representation of sex.
<a href="http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/ChaseVDavelaar.html" TARGET="_BLANK">Chase v Davelaar, C.A. Wash.</a>
(1981) 645 F.2d 735; <u>Luros v US</u> C.A. Iowa (1968) 389 F.2d 200</div></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Not all exhibition of the genitals is "lewd" for purposes of the
<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=413&invol=15" TARGET="_BLANK">Miller</a>
obscenity test. <u>US v Various Articles of Obscene
Merchandise</u> Schedule 1724 D.C.N.Y. (1978) 460 F.Supp. 826</div></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Foul words and nudity do not, of themselves, render an art form
obscene since words and want of attire are of themselves
constitutionally protected forms of expression and cannot be
censored by state action. <u>Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v
City of Atlanta, Ga.</u> D.C.Ga. (1971) 334 F.Supp. 634</div></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Yonkers City Code section 40-1 forbidding all topless exposure
in any public place violated rights under this Amendment and
was invalid. <u>People v Nixon</u> (1976) 382 N.Y.S.2d 909, 86
Misc.2d 564, affirmed 390 N.Y.S.2d 518, 88 Misc.2d 913</div></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Mere depiction of nudity may not be prohibited, because it
impinges on the constitutionally protected right of free
expression. <u>State v Frink</u> (1982) 653 P2d 553, 60
Or App 209</div></p></blockquote>
<u>Morris v Municipal Court for San Jose - Milpitas Judicial
Dist. Of Santa Clara County</u> (1982) 652 P2d 51, 32 C3d 553, 186
Cal Rptr 494 County's interests in promotion of public morals
and health of it's citizens were insufficient to uphold
ordinance prohibiting nude entertainment in any other place
other than a concert hall, theater, or similar establishment
"primarily devoted to theatrical performances" and was
unconstitutional.</p>
<p>*** Township ordinance prohibiting public nudity was
unconstitutional on its face because the ordinance, in addition
to proscribing activities which might be constitutionally
forbidden, also proscribed conduct protected by the First
Amendment; thus ordinance was overbroad and could not be
enforced.; <u>Nadeau v Charter Township Of Clinton</u>, E.D.Mich (1992) 827
F.Supp. 435</p>
<p>Obscenity Test — Standards or Tests of Obscenity — generally:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
Test to be applied in determining obscenity is that of the
"average man", not that of a puritanical prude. <u>State v
Shapiro</u> (1973) 300 A2d 595, 122 N.J. Super 409</div></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">
A state may not enact a more rigid standard of obscenity than
that decreed for the Federal Government. <u>Hunt v Keriakos</u>
C.A.Mass. (1970) 428 F2d 606</div></p></blockquote>
<p>Sex and obscenity compared — First is where nudity stands today, second represents
where we came from:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><div align="justify">Sexual expression which is indecent, but not obscene, is
protected by the First Amendment. <u>Reno v ACLU</u> U.S.Pa (1997)
117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed2d 874</p>
<p>A governmental entity does not have the power to impose an
outright ban on nude or seminude public conduct regardless of
the context in which it is presented. <u>Birkenshaw v Haley</u> D.C.
Mich. (1974) 409 F.Supp. 13</p></div></blockquote>
<br>
<p><center><img SRC="AnnimBlueBar.gif" height=5 width=520></center></p>
<br>
<br>
<center>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1"><font color="#808080">
Copyrighted © Ted. All rights reserved.</font>
<br><font color="#808080">Bare to Breakers name and logo are licensed trademarks and service marks.</font></center>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
]]>