If indecent exposure in CA requires “act[ing] lewdly by intending to direct attention to the naked genitals” then this law is a nonissue for nudists — it only applies to acts that, as you point out, represent harassment/assault.
The actual problems, then, are that (a) the police can and do arrest people without cause by citing this law; that (b) public nudity can be considered a “public nuisance”; and that (c) many (most?) municipalities have their own, stricter, laws that take precedence.
The first is the same problem encountered by topfree activists in areas where women have the legal right to be topless, like NYC. Photographers were being similarly harassed in the years after 9/11 for ‘suspiciously’ photographing public buildings. In both cases the response of calmly explaining the relevant laws (sometimes with handy wallet cards) has helped.
“Public nuisance” seems an awfully vague term, though I don’t know the specific definition. I imagine it ends up as the officer's word vs the defendants, and of course the process of arresting an unwilling person who speaks up for their rights can often _create_ a “nuisance.” I don’t know what do do about this.
Fixing municipal laws would seem to involve a lot of work in local politics all over the state. I’m not sure how much of CA is covered by such laws; many areas are outside cities but still under county jurisdiction; are there places outside that too?
There is state park and federal park land. Since there is no federal ordinance against mere nudity, it is legal to be nude in national forests on hiking trails, although again, there is still some risk of arrest by municipal officers who are not familiar with the nuances of the law.
Evan, just FYI for you and your readers---I was trying to look up the California Public Nuisance statute to find the definition, but it's not at section 270 like your source said. I think he meant to refer to section 372 which prohibits, "Maintaining or Committing Public Nuisance." That is extremely vague. It's all the more confusing because California defines lots of things a Public Nuisance, from machine guns to pine beetles.
You've raised important points, Evan. My state recently lowered the penalty for the crime of Public Indecency, which is defined as "A knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person." This was part of an overhaul of misdemeanor statutes generally, so they weren't specifically targeting nudity. The penalty used to be a fine of up to $500 and/or six months in jail, and subsequent convictions were enhanced to misdemeanors that could eventually require a person to register as a sex offender. Last year they lowered the penalty to a fine of up to $300 and/or ten days in jail, and subsequent arrests are not enhanced so there's no risk of being put on the sex offender registry.
This was a big improvement, but ideally they would take simple public nudity out of the Public Indecency statute altogether, where it is lumped together with other lewd acts, and put it in with other civil infractions, which are penalized by a simple fine of not more than $100.
The legal issues are very tangled up, because of vagueness and the number of separate jurisdictions - in California and all other states. (Even in countries like France, England, Germany, and Spain as well)
But the actual underlying problem in the U.S. (and most other countries) is: THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH NATURISTS AND NUDISTS to lobby for change. Public officials (both elected and appointed) ultimately react to public pressure - and the strongest pressure prevails. Naturist organizations, in principle, could do more lobbying. But most are too weak to do so, and that's because they DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS.
Promoting naturism by individuals themselves, especially to people they know personally, is ultimately the way to deal with this problem. Those of us, like yourself, Evan, who write about naturism can reach a broader audience, but that's just not enough. I mean, why would people who don't even know personally a naturist, even think about reading an online naturist publication? But what we should be doing is persuading the closet/home/secretive naturists/nudists to get out and talk it up with others.
Terrific points - thanks, Evan!
Great work! These are important considerations that never get brought to light when discussing the impact of anti-nudity laws.
Thank you! Yes, sadly there’s not much available data on these types of arrests and who is most affected by them.
If indecent exposure in CA requires “act[ing] lewdly by intending to direct attention to the naked genitals” then this law is a nonissue for nudists — it only applies to acts that, as you point out, represent harassment/assault.
The actual problems, then, are that (a) the police can and do arrest people without cause by citing this law; that (b) public nudity can be considered a “public nuisance”; and that (c) many (most?) municipalities have their own, stricter, laws that take precedence.
The first is the same problem encountered by topfree activists in areas where women have the legal right to be topless, like NYC. Photographers were being similarly harassed in the years after 9/11 for ‘suspiciously’ photographing public buildings. In both cases the response of calmly explaining the relevant laws (sometimes with handy wallet cards) has helped.
“Public nuisance” seems an awfully vague term, though I don’t know the specific definition. I imagine it ends up as the officer's word vs the defendants, and of course the process of arresting an unwilling person who speaks up for their rights can often _create_ a “nuisance.” I don’t know what do do about this.
Fixing municipal laws would seem to involve a lot of work in local politics all over the state. I’m not sure how much of CA is covered by such laws; many areas are outside cities but still under county jurisdiction; are there places outside that too?
There is state park and federal park land. Since there is no federal ordinance against mere nudity, it is legal to be nude in national forests on hiking trails, although again, there is still some risk of arrest by municipal officers who are not familiar with the nuances of the law.
Evan, just FYI for you and your readers---I was trying to look up the California Public Nuisance statute to find the definition, but it's not at section 270 like your source said. I think he meant to refer to section 372 which prohibits, "Maintaining or Committing Public Nuisance." That is extremely vague. It's all the more confusing because California defines lots of things a Public Nuisance, from machine guns to pine beetles.
Here's a criminal blog that describes it---
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/372/
Thank you for this correction! I will look into this and update the article accordingly!
You've raised important points, Evan. My state recently lowered the penalty for the crime of Public Indecency, which is defined as "A knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person." This was part of an overhaul of misdemeanor statutes generally, so they weren't specifically targeting nudity. The penalty used to be a fine of up to $500 and/or six months in jail, and subsequent convictions were enhanced to misdemeanors that could eventually require a person to register as a sex offender. Last year they lowered the penalty to a fine of up to $300 and/or ten days in jail, and subsequent arrests are not enhanced so there's no risk of being put on the sex offender registry.
This was a big improvement, but ideally they would take simple public nudity out of the Public Indecency statute altogether, where it is lumped together with other lewd acts, and put it in with other civil infractions, which are penalized by a simple fine of not more than $100.
Nice article. Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing
The legal issues are very tangled up, because of vagueness and the number of separate jurisdictions - in California and all other states. (Even in countries like France, England, Germany, and Spain as well)
But the actual underlying problem in the U.S. (and most other countries) is: THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH NATURISTS AND NUDISTS to lobby for change. Public officials (both elected and appointed) ultimately react to public pressure - and the strongest pressure prevails. Naturist organizations, in principle, could do more lobbying. But most are too weak to do so, and that's because they DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS.
Promoting naturism by individuals themselves, especially to people they know personally, is ultimately the way to deal with this problem. Those of us, like yourself, Evan, who write about naturism can reach a broader audience, but that's just not enough. I mean, why would people who don't even know personally a naturist, even think about reading an online naturist publication? But what we should be doing is persuading the closet/home/secretive naturists/nudists to get out and talk it up with others.