Canadian Freehiker Beats Indecency Charge

The law did everything in its power to prevent a man from hiking nude in Orillia, Ontario, Canada, but this week indecency charges were dropped, thus potentially making this a landmark case for nudists and naturists in the Great White North.

Gleb Bazov, a Toronto-based lawyer who represents the man, believes the decision sets an important precedent.

"It is a landmark case in the sense that the law has been applied to nudists and naturists. Now there is a clear pronouncement that a naturist is not engaging in an indecent act." 

The reason for the dismissal was due to the fact that the man's naturist activity was determined to be of no harm to the public.

Reactions from residents are typical, ranging from expressions of personal offense to allegations of harm to children for seeing a nude man, but these are fears and misconceptions based upon centuries of societal restrictions and religious dogma, and have nothing to do with reality.

Congratulations to this unnamed man who has been freehiking in Canada for years, and who can now practice his naturist activities without fear of further harassment from the police. It might take time for the general public to become accepting of freehikers, and hopefully many others will exercise their freedom and experience nature without the unnecessary restrictions of clothing.

UPDATE: Another story on the dismissal is here.

Stephane Deschenes, director of the Federation of Canadian Naturists, says naturists are just embracing their “natural self” and shouldn't "have to fear being out in the public.

"We, as a society, have a real phobia about our own body. We are so incredibly uncomfortable that we find our own image embarrassing, shameful and offensive."

This story was covered by us previously here.

Virginia Man Not Guilty of Indecent Exposure

It took less than 20 minutes for a Fairfax County jury to find Erick Williamson not guilty of indecent exposure for an incident last fall where a passer-by claimed that the man willfully appeared nude in a doorway and a window of his home.

The concept of obscenity is at the heart of the case, which went to the seven-person jury shortly before 3 p.m. Did Williamson intentionally display himself, both to Dean and to another woman who drove past the house and saw Williamson at 6:40 a.m. that same morning? Or was he simply moving about the house, admittedly unclothed, packing, eating breakfast and getting ready to move, as he testified.

A couple of the more disturbing aspects of the case, such as the witness being a spouse of a police officer, and the cops who entered the man's home without a warrant, remained unresolved.

Whether or not this man considers himself to be a nudist or naturist is irrelevant, but the issue strikes at the heart of every body freedom advocate who enjoys nudity at home. The police witch hunt against this man, which included sending letters to schools looking for witnesses who might have seen the man nude at other times, is an abuse of power which goes beyond protecting the community, and is designed merely to cover their own asses. The police exceeded their authority in the initial reaction to the incident and then tried to turn it into some sort of danger to women and children in the community merely to justify their heavy-handed actions.

Perhaps most shameful is AANR's stance on this incident, which basically condemned the man before a trial.

Carlyn Hawkins, a spokeswoman for the American Association for Nude Recreation, declined to comment on the specifics of the case. However, she said, "I'm nude when I'm in my home, but I also keep my drapes closed."

Hawkins said the association advocated naked responsibility.

"We don't want to offend anybody," she said. "We want to be accepted and we don't want any nudist to create any problems."

Even Executive Director Erich Schuttauf chimed in:

Did Mr. Coffee simply stumble around the kitchen preparing brew, or did he stand spread eagle in open doorways and a large plate glass picture window at 8:40 in the morning-and were mother and son taking only a small shortcut between two very public sidewalks from which one could have just as easily seen a purposeful display as has also been alleged?

AANR's continued policies of nudity being best when "not offending" condemns all nudists and naturists to practicing their clothes-free lifestyle behind drawn curtains, locked gates and tall fences.

There was no evidence that the Virginia "Naked Coffee Guy" did anything lewd or indecent, but there is evidence of overreaction and hysteria over simple nudity, and authorities treating a man's penis the same as a terrorist bomb on an airplane.

Thankfully a jury made the wise and sensible decision to find this man not guilty. The question today is will AANR apologize to all of its members for failing to support the most basic right of being nude in one's own home?

An appeal for help re: Steve Gough (The Naked Rambler)

Steve Gough has been sentenced to another 21 months in prison, which will make it 8 years by the time he comes up for release again. And for what? Something which is legal (i.e. inoffensive nudity in a public place), and refusing to take the Scottish Police & Judiciary's bullying on the matter. Whatever your views on Steve's strategy, you have to ask how proportionate The Establishment's reaction to this is, and question this vast waste of public money.

Steve has asked me to see if anyone will come forward to help with some advice or guidance on two issues:

Firstly he writes "What is the next step if I have exhausted all the complaints procedure within the prison service, including writing to the prisons Minister? This is to do with me not getting full medical treatment, including getting to see [a] dentist. Remember , I'm representing myself. It could be as simple as asking for forms from the local Courts, as I presume it must start there (Perth Courts). I can't seem to get a simple answer from anyone. I have written to local universities, asked solicitors, yet I still haven't got a clue what the answer is." If anyone can help, either contact me or direct to Steve (see later).

Secondly, after writing about his plans to appeal as far as he can in the UK, he adds "If no joy there, then it will have to be a petition to the Human Rights Courts at Strasbourg." If there is anyone who can advise him on that, please get in touch either with me, or Steve direct, by writing to:

Stephen Gough,
Prisoner No. 81590
Segregation Unit
HMP Perth
3 Edinburgh Road
PERTH, Scotland.
PH2 8AT
--
Duncan Heenan
duncanheenan@tiscali.co.uk

Stephen Gough Sentenced to 21 Months in Prison for Nudity

Story here.

Stephen Gough, 50, was jailed for 21 months after being found guilty of breaching the peace and being in contempt of court.
Gough turned down an offer of freedom if he got dressed - and was warned he could spend many more years in prison.

Gough Plays the Insanity Card

No, Naked Rambler Stephen Gough is not claiming to be insane, he's declaring the Scottish justice system to be insane.

The ex-Royal Marine, 50, says: "To live by beliefs that are irrational, that are not based in reality, means that I suffer.

"How do I know what is rational or true? By questioning my beliefs and being honest with myself."

He adds: "Why am I naked? Because I believe the human body is not indecent, harmful or bad.

"If it were true, it would mean I am also indecent and it would mean I'd be divided against myself.

"If I lived in a truly free and sane society, I wouldn't be arrested and imprisoned for simply being naked.

"By refusing to comply with an irrational request to get dressed, I'm bringing attention to a contradiction that exists in our society.

"A society, so we are told, that founds its justice system on truth and reason. So surely, if there is some error in the system we will want it pointed out urgently. That is exactly what I'm doing."

He adds that he understands going out naked goes against what is "normal and customary" but says "what is normal isn't always healthy".

It is also reported that people will be gathering to protest at Gough's sentencing next week, and that a naked run through London is planned in support of his cause.

Is Canada's Nudity Ban Unconstitutional?

That's precisely what attorney Clayton Ruby intends to prove in defending Bracebridge resident Brian Coldin against two nudity charges. Due to weakness in evidence, two charges have already been dropped.

“We’re pleased to have them withdrawn, because that means the Crown’s acknowledged they can’t prove them,” said Ruby. “(And that’s) after getting the consent of the Attorney General (to have the charges laid), I might add. I wonder what he was told?”...In defending Coldin, Ruby said he will be raising the constitutionality of Section 174 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that it is an offence if one is nude in a public place, or is nude in a private place, but is exposed to public view.

Earlier stories here, here, here and here.
Brian Coldin's Facebook page is here.

Landmark Sexting Case Set for Friday

Story here.

The controversy began in October 2008 when Tunkhannock school officials confiscated five cell phones and discovered the boys who owned them had been trading digital images of scantily clad females, including Miller, Kelly and Doe.

The image of Miller and Kelly shows the girls standing together in their bras. The image of Doe shows her just getting out of the shower, topless, with a towel wrapped around her waist.

Skumanick’s attorney, Michael Donohue of Scranton, said the case before the Third Circuit Court pertains only to Doe. That’s because Skumanick determined after the court challenge was filed that he would not seek to file charges against Miller or Kelly. He based the decision on testimony at the hearing on the restraining order.

Donohue said Skumanick has pressed on with the case because he believes strongly that “sexting” is dangerous.

“He was motivated by his desire to protect children. The transmission of photos of naked children draws predators,” Donohue said. “The entire basis of the juvenile code is to save children from their own bad judgment.”

Wrong. The juvenile code was developed so that prosecutors could have the option of treating those under 18 differently than adults when crimes are committed. If a 16 year-old kid is involved in a bank robbery, the law provides some basis for mercy, allowing for the consideration of mitigating circumstances, such as parental abuse, poverty, etc. The code also allows for the teen to be tried as an adult if the crime and circumstances are serious enough.

Juvenile codes are not written to make criminals out of kids who do not commit crimes and merely exercise bad judgment. Teens make bad decisions all the time, it's called "growing up".

Hopefully the judge will throw out this frivolous and destructive case.

The Same Old Tired Arguments

Nudists and naturists are not stupid, we all know that nudity is illegal in most areas of the United States, and is being threatened in the very few jurisdictions which still have no laws on the books specifically requiring the wearing of clothes.

One such place is Oregon, which does not prohibit nudity, but due to a couple of people pushing the envelope, the city of Ashland has recently voted to ban nudity within the city limits.

Ashland resident Ralph Temple, a member of the ACLU, said Ashland hasn't experienced a rash of public nudity, and therefore shouldn't sacrifice people's personal freedoms.

"Civil liberties are fragile," he said, adding that they are the first things to be discarded when difficulties arise.

Such laws are passed out of irrational fear. No substantive argument is ever made as to why nudity is dangerous, harmful, of even offensive to people of all ages, because it simply is not. We all have human bodies, we all see them when we change clothes or bathe. If the sight of genitals or other body parts was harmful, we would all be dead.

But somehow over the centuries, due to religious and cultural influences, we have, as a society, deemed the human body to be something that is unacceptable to be seen in public. The idea that we even put on clothing to swim is so contrary to natural instinct as to be utterly ridiculous.

What is it that we hate so much about the human body? After all, our museums are full of what we consider to be masterpieces depicting nudity in painting and sculpture. Michelangelo's nudes are considered to be the epitome of human creativity. Books, magazines, advertising, movies and all other mass media use the human figure in virtually everything. We spend billions of dollars adorning our bodies with clothing, jewelry, and makeup. Anyone studying out culture would come to the conclusion that we absolutely worship the human body.

And in many ways we do, just not when it comes to nudity. Being nude in public and social situations is still very much a taboo.

Trying to come up for a reason for this is very difficult. Laurie Baden, writing in the Ashland Daily Tidings, manages to make all the old familiar arguments against public nudity, without once coming up with one solid reason for what she refers to as "indecent exposure".

Let's talk about rights. What gives an adult, a complete stranger to a child, the right to scare or upset him or her and disrupt a child's environment by exposing their naked body? Isn't this an infringement on a child's right to know that he or she can expect people to appear appropriately — i.e., clothed — in public? Isn't this a violation of my right to not see someone naked if I don't choose to?

And what is to say that, if we have this "right to be nude in public" law, that it won't be a cover for pedophiles to have more access to the most vulnerable members of our community, our children? Where could the line be drawn by police when an adult is being inappropriate with a child in public?

It's stunning to me how people can talk about free expression and "rights", and then deny similar rights to others. There's no such things as "my rights" or "your rights", there can only be "our rights". This is the essence of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Laurie also writes that she is "all for free expression", but adds nudity as something she simply cannot tolerate. It's like saying she's all for equal rights for minorities, but those African-Americans can stay out of her neighborhood.

Fine, there are plenty of anti-nudity laws, but they have nothing to do with free expression or equal rights - they are the products of societal and cultural traditions. There is no "right" to not see nude people, only the laws created by public consensus. All this talk about pedophiles and potential harm to children is all hysterical nonsense with no basis in reality. Some of the worst abuse of children recently happened under the "eyes of God" by men wearing long robes and white collars.

Yes, civil liberties are very fragile these days, and people like Laurie Baden are making the situation worse by advocating the denial of liberties to people she simply does not agree with. Unfortunately, many laws in this country are passed out of irrational fears and not from intelligent decisions based on facts.

We need numbers, people, to stop this rapid erosion of our natural human rights.

WARNING! Viewing This Blog Could Land You in Prison

That's what happened to a Buffalo man, who was sentenced to one to three years in state prison for "viewing the Web sites of nudist colonies."

Yes, the man is a convicted sex offender, and I am certainly not defending his admitted criminal behavior, but one of the downsides to living in a so-called free society is that people are generally going to say and do things that are offensive to other people.

There is nothing illegal about being a nudist, engaging in social nudism, possessing nudist and naturist materials, and viewing nudist web sites.

I don't know the terms of this man's probation. Was he also barred from bookstores, museums, watching television, going to the movies, reading magazines, or going to the Sports Illustrated web site to view the swimsuit models? It's rather difficult to avoid sexually-charged material in today's culture.

This is a major red flag for nudists and naturists everywhere, that at least one judge considers the lifestyle to be sexual, a magnet for pedophiles, and a possible catalyst for illegal and criminal behavior.

When faced with sexual crimes, society seems to be more than willing to sacrifice freedoms in return for some sort of false reassurance that the government is providing protection. The fact is that the government cannot protect the population against everything - already 1 out of every 100 citizens is incarcerated in America, the highest in the world. 25% of the world's incarcerated people are in the United States, which contains only 5% of the total population on the planet.

It seems that we are more than willing to criminalize just about everything that scares us just a wee bit. 500,000 people are in American jails for drug-related crimes alone. A male living in the United States has an 11.3% chance of going to prison during his lifetime.

It's clear that this process of throwing people in jail for all of society's ills is not working. The recent case of Anthony Sowell who is accused of the serial murders of several women in Cleveland, Ohio, clearly illustrates the failure of the system on all levels.

With education, job training, mentoring and substance abuse programs in short supply behind bars, it is a challenge for inmates to clean up their acts and improve their situations. When they are released, ex-felons face an uphill battle to land even the most menial, low-paying jobs. This nation continues to punish the formerly incarcerated after they have paid their debt to society. Many professions and employers bar applicants with a criminal record, and many public housing and college loan opportunities are beyond reach.

Not surprisingly, many ex-cons cannot care for their families or become productive members of society. But they do manage to hone their skills and become better criminals.

And now we're locking up people for their sexual urges, which only further serves to frustrate and bottle up a sex drive which will eventually find a means of expression, often in a violent manner.

Taking someone who is getting sexual gratification from web sites and throwing him into the realm of prison sex, with rape, slavery, violence, and homosexuality, is not going to solve the problem. Once he's back out, he's likely to be in much worse sexual health than when he went in.

I certainly don't have the answers, but it seems to me that the punitive actions society is inflicting on people for real and perceived sex crimes is actually making the problem worse. In the case of sexting teens, who exchange nude photos of themselves with cell phones, charging them with felonies and putting them on sex offender registries is absolutely going to ruin their lives and encourage real criminal behavior in order to survive in a hostile society.

So this poor schmuck in Buffalo who exposed himself to some boys in 2002 at a YMCA camp, and fondled another, doesn't have a chance at rehabilitation. Many will argue that he should be locked up for good. But since his original violation, if the worst thing he did was look at some nudist web sites, then this illustrates our society's deep-seated fear of sexuality and the human body, and its cavalier willingness to discard human beings onto this virtual trash heap we call the justice system.

It's no longer about what is fair, or best for society, it's about money and politics. The recent case of the cash-for-kids scandal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, shows how incredibly cold and cruel we can be to our own children when there's a buck to be made.

Prison is big business, and big business needs customers. Don't think for a second that YOU are not on their radar.

California Supreme Court Refuses to Hear San Onofre Case

The Naturist Action Committee is evaluating its remaining options, whatever they are, in the wake of the California Supreme Court's decision not to hear NAC's appeal of the appellate court ruling in the San Onofre lawsuit. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is now free to issue citations for nudity at any location in the state park system.

Even though it was a loss, I congratulate the NAC for doing the right thing and standing up for nudist and naturist interests, unlike AANR which refused to back the NAC lawsuit, opting instead for pursuing a course of appeasement with the DPR, which so far has led to nothing but empty promises. I have no doubt that AANR will now continue to take the cowardly route and blame NAC for pissing off parks authorities, when the truth is that the state of California started this whole ugly mess when they arbitrarily decided to ban nudity at San Onofre.

Yes, perhaps it was a lost cause in the first place, but had AANR stepped up and supported the NAC lawsuit, at least it would have been a unified effort, with a unified course of action forward from this point.

It's not too late, AANR. Stuff your ego in a fanny pack and get together with the NAC so nudists and naturists can work together for a common cause.

Please donate to the NAC here to help them continue fighting for your nude rights.

NOW It Makes Sense...

Fox News in DC is reporting that the woman who complained about Eric "Naked Coffee Guy" Williamson "just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer."

Man Arrested for Being Nude at Home

Eric Williamson of Springfield, Virginia, was making coffee in his kitchen at 5:30 in the morning, when a woman walking by with her 7 year-old son looked in his window, and called the police. Why? Eric was nude.

Police have charged him with indecent exposure, because police believe he wanted to be seen by the public. "I am a loving dad. Any of my friends and anyone knows that and there is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever, ever do anything like that to a kid," he said.

The Naturist Action Committee has Virginia's indecent exposure law details here. It would appear that in order to make a case against Mr. Williamson, prosecutors would need to prove that his exposure was "obscene" within the legal definition, and merely standing nude in one's own kitchen making coffee would not appear to meet the criteria.

This is clearly a case of poor police judgement. Instead of arresting the man, they should have told him to simply close his blinds, and politely ask the complaining woman to stop looking into other people's windows.

Unless it's revealed that the man was masturbating or shaking his genitals in the window, my guess is that the charges will be dropped. If this case proceeds it shows a new aggressiveness by authorities to clamp down on all forms of nudity, even in the privacy of one's own home, and that is simply not acceptable in a free society.

Nudists Told to Cover Up

Although residents of Glen Echo Family Nudist Park in Ontario have been given a full year to vacate by a Landlord and Tenant Board ruling, they are being forced to put on clothing by the spiteful owners, and if they don't, the police will be called.

The owner's latest gambit in his dispute with tenants over the sale was based on his lawyer's argument at the hearing that leasehold regulations do not permit discrimination.

That would mean limiting membership to nudists violates human rights codes, (lawyer Jack) Rosati said.

Excuse me, but wouldn't limiting membership to textiles also violate "human rights codes"? Seems to me that the nudists have a clear discrimination case here. Interesting story which could have long-term ramifications.

Generous America, Scary America

Nobody is defending what Roman Polanski did with a 13 year-old girl in Los Angeles over 30 years ago. Nobody.

But this "sinister arrest" of the 76 year-old film director says more about the American obsession with sex than with the rule of law.

The arrest outraged the government of France, which has declined to extradite Polanski since he fled the United States in 1978, after a Los Angeles judge signaled he would scotch a plea agreement in the sex case. In France, Polanski is revered both as a filmmaker and as a martyr to American injustice and puritanism.

Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand issued a statement saying he "profoundly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already known so many during his life."

Mitterrand also charged that Polanski was "thrown to the lions," the Associated Press reported. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face," he said.

The victim of Polanski's sexual advances, Samantha Geimer, is now 45 years old with a family, and has been trying to put this ordeal behind her for years.

"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said at the time. "I got over it a long time ago." Geimer said Polanski had paid, and she wanted to move on and stop reliving the details of the assault every time he made headlines.

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.

In 1997 Geimer is quoted as saying, "He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life." Now the US judicial system wants to ruin her life all over again.

The details of this case are well known to most, from Polanski's escape from Nazi Germany as a child, his mother's death in a concentration camp, the brutal murder of his wife Sharon Tate at the hands of the Manson family, to the publicity hungry judge who wanted to send Polanski a "stern message", forcing him to skip bail and leave the United States behind. This is a tragedy that keeps on compounding itself behind the blind and relentless search for justice at any cost to all involved.

The only real justice will be if Polanski appears in an American court, and the charges are dismissed as per the request of Samantha Geimer. Enough is enough.

14 Year-Olds Are the Most Sexually Dangerous Group in America

America is turning its children into sex offenders. The chart above, from the US Department of Justice, illustrates how we are criminalizing what was once a normal part of adolescence - experimenting with sex. Via Andrew Sullivan's blog comes this essay.

In our new bizarre world of sexual offender legislation each child is a victim and a perpetrator. As the victim, they get no help, of course. The victim status is the excuse needed so that the sledgehammer may be used on the other child. So each becomes a perpetrator. They will be arrested; they will be forced into court. They are likely to be convicted and sentenced. They may be placed into the various prisons for children that have been established—places where they will learn what unwilling, sexual attacks are really like. They will be tortured by therapists and eventually released—maybe. Even that is no longer guaranteed under our sex panic. Today, someone who has served their sentence can then be held in preventative detention for the rest of their natural life because the mob demands it. And the politicians give the mob what it wants.

As any reader of this blog knows, I've been railing against the criminalization of "sexting" and other youthful sexual indiscretions for some time now. Teens have been having sex since long before recorded history, but it is only now in the age of technology and information that there is hard evidence that such activity exists. Where once a heavy petting session in the back seat of an automobile yielded merely some boastful claims and the hushed passing of secrets, now there are cell-phone photos, text messages, and Internet postings, all flowing in the trough for overzealous prosecutors, Christianist lawmakers and panicked parents to feed off.

It takes so little for this happen to a child. A girl in school has oral sex with a boy in school. She becomes a sex offender for the rest of her life. Streaking a school event, as a practical joke, becomes a sex crime in the new America. Two kids “moon” a passerby and are incarcerated in jail as sex offenders, where they may well learn a lesson or two about rape. A teenager, who takes a sexy of photo of him, or herself, is paraded around the community as a “child pornographer” for the rest of his or her life. Two kids in the back seat of a car have fumbling sex. The law says one is an offender because the other is a “victim.” One week later, a birthday passes, and it is no longer a crime. One week’s difference and a life is ruined. In other cases an act that is legal on Monday is illegal on Tuesday because the older of the two turned one year older. That becomes enough to qualify him, or her, as an offender.

The magnitude of this perversion of natural and man-made laws cannot be underestimated. Recently The Economist ran an editorial on the harsh punishment of sex offenders.

Because so many offences require registration, the number of registered sex offenders in America has exploded. As of December last year, there were 674,000 of them, according to the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. If they were all crammed into a single state, it would be more populous than Wyoming, Vermont or North Dakota. As a share of its population, America registers more than four times as many people as Britain, which is unusually harsh on sex offenders. America’s registers keep swelling, not least because in 17 states, registration is for life.

So the rounding up and persecution of sex offenders is the new red scare, the new witch hunt, the new crucible in which to burn our fears. I recently received a postcard telling me that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood, giving his name and address. I'm sure everyone in the area got one, too, and everyone is now living in a certain amount of fear. I do not know what this man did, but I do know that I have never in my life received a notice when a bank robber, murderer, embezzler or violent criminal ever moved into my neighborhood.

I cannot state enough that true child pornographers, rapists, kidnappers and other violent criminals who would take the innocence, health or property of any other human being deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Human vermin like Phillip Garrido, if found to be guilty of the heinous crimes with which he is accused, deserve no mercy from the courts.

But to take a teenager who is only fumbling around and experimenting with sexuality, and turn that kid into a sex criminal, is doing precisely the opposite of what the law intends. Thankfully people are beginning to wake up to this bastardization of justice, but it's too late to help so many of the kids who ended up behind bars, kicked out of school, found themselves unable to secure meaningful work, or ended up living in the streets.

These kids are criminals, not necessarily because they violated the life, liberty or property of another person. They are criminals because the politicians defined them as criminals. These damned “family values” conservatives, and compassionate feminist Leftists, who banded together to “save the children,” turned America’s kids into sex offenders by fiat. And they feel good about it. They are satisfied by it and only wish more had been rounded up earlier. The Left wants everyone in therapy and under the perpetual care of the state, and the Right wants everyone in prison, or in fear of the law, and under the thumb of the police. And that is what is happening. [Classically Liberal]

Phoenix Family Sues Wal-Mart Over Nude Photo Incident

Beware. Wal-Mart photo technicians are censors, and their photo departments are merely extensions of local police, because any photos taken there for development are screened under their secret "unsuitable print policy".

That's what happened to a Phoenix couple who took their vacation photos to the big box retailer, and since some of the images showed their three daughters in the bathtub, naked, the kiddie porn flag was raised.

In short, the police were called, and the three children were separated, placed in foster care, and had their genitals examined for signs of sexual abuse.

Although parents Lisa and A. J. Demaree were completely cleared, they have filed suit against Wal-Mart, the Arizona Attorney General and the city of Peoria, seeking punitive damages for "defamation and outrage".

According to the complaint against the state, Wal-Mart reported the photos to the Peoria Police Department, then Arizona Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Hunter "published defamatory remarks to more than 35 family members and friends of plaintiffs, falsely stating that plaintiffs Lisa and A.J. Demaree 'sexually abused' their children."

A Peoria police detective named Krause "made false and defamatory statements to agents and employees of the defendants, medical providers, and others, including, but not limited to, accusations that plaintiffs had sexually abused their children, sexually exploited their children, took pornographic photos of their children, and/or that said parents were engaged in illegal actions by taking bath and play time photos of their children," according to the complaint against the state.

Another stinging example of how fucked-up we are as a society when it comes to matters of the human body. Good luck to these folks, I hope they get a bundle of cash for this completely idiotic mess.

An opinion column on the Demarees is here.

Rally Sunday at San Onofre

A nude rally is being planned for Sunday, September 13, between the hours of 11:30 a.m and 1 p.m., to protest the California Department of Parks and Recreation's nudity ban at San Onofre Beach.

"Really it kind of comes down to that the state has better things to spend their money on than running after naked people on the beach," said Allen Baylis, a Huntington Beach attorney who is a leader of the Naturist Action Committee.

State parks spokesman Roy Stearns questioned Sunday's protest.

"You know forcing a confrontation doesn't solve this problem and just makes the lack of civility in this issue worse," Stearns said. "They're entitled to have a rally but what's the purpose of the rally I would ask."

This ludicrous statement from Stearns shows how clueless, indifferent and callous the DPR is on this issue. It shows the state is not listening, and doesn't want to listen to nudist and naturist groups. And what exactly "solves" this issue? The NAC tried to negotiate, the state rebuffed them. The NAC then took them to court and won, then the state won on appeal, and now the case is in the hands of the state Supreme Court.

By stating that tickets will now be issued for nudity at San Onofre, the state is showing contempt for its own court system by enforcing a policy which is under appeal.

This is the moment where all nudists and naturists who can walk, run, ride or fly to San Onofre should be there to show support for the public lands issue. Without officially sanctioned areas of beaches and parks set aside for nude recreation, people who enjoy the clothes-free lifestyle will continue to be marginalized and restricted to gated clubs and resorts.

Friends of San Onofre Beach

Violet Blue Interviews Photographer Zach Hyman

After a model posing for New York photographer Zach Hyman was arrested for taking off her clothes in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, many questions have been raised about why the nude figure is such an integral part of art history, yet is criminal when exposed in the flesh. Columnist Violet Blue interviewed the photographer:

At first glance it's easy to think that Hyman and company were staging a publicity stunt, but upon closer look, this is what many photographers do, taking the nude into the public arena and usually with little reaction (Merkley??? is a great local example.)

Yet still I asked, so why the Met? Hyman replied, "I chose the Met because it was where I found my inspiration. I thought it might be interesting to see the reaction of people viewing a live nude next to a nude statue. The response was for the most part exactly how I expected it. Especially from the Met employees. Just very offended and not understanding. Which to me is quite humorous considering that they work in AN ART MUSEUM."

Violet goes on to talk about the larger issue of "normalizing nudity in the face of a heavily censorious puritanical culture", and Hyman finds it amazing that society considers the mere exposing of the body "lewd", especially considering that "WE HAVE ALL SEEN SEXUAL ORGANS."

It seems a given that we will be hearing more from Zach Hyman as he explores new ways to push the envelope on how society perceives the human body.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New York arrests nude model (americablog.com)
• Model arrested for posing nude at NY museum (guardian.co.uk)
• Nude Model Arrested at NYC Museum (abcnews.go.com)
• Will Zach Hyman or any of his other models be arrested for indecent exposure before 1 December 2009? (hubdub.com)

When Does Public Nakedness Become a Crime?

After a man stood nude on a Trafalgar Square pedestal, the BBC asks when disrobing in public becomes a crime.

Andrew Welch of British Naturism says the issue all comes down to a person's intention.

"For obvious reasons we've had to look at this issue with our lawyers," he says.

"Causing upset is definitely not what naturism is about, our challenge is a cultural one. The law is fine, we just need to change people's attitude to the naked body."

Nude Model Arrested, Film at 11

More evidence of our stupid society.

A nude model posing for photographer Zach Hyman was arrested for stripping down at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It appears to have been some sort of pre-arranged sting, with police ready to pounce at the moment of disrobing, and an NBC video crew on hand ready to roll.

Today 30 seconds wasn't enough time as police busted up the shoot -- an event, which was captured exclusively by a camera rolling for NBCNewYork.com. The footage will also be shown on News 4 New York at 11, so stay tuned for exclusive footage.

So, arrest the model, and then promote the event on television for mass consumption. Model KC Neill was charged with public lewdness.

Certainly Hyman has been expecting trouble since he carries around bail money and employs a lookout, but a lewdness charge seems extreme unless the model was making some sexually explicit poses.

No word on whether NBC news will be brought up on charges of distributing lewd images.

Hyman's web site is here.