How can this bill reflect a deliberate effort to differentiate malicious exposure while considering the implications for the nudist community, when it's a strict liability offense? It sounds like you're giving it too much credit.
Wisconsin was the first domino to fall, and I feel we'll be seeing more of this sort of thing. A tidal wave of conservatism is about to wash over us. Does anybody have any good news to share for a change?
I'm surprised a Democrat is pushing this, but your analysis of the political situation makes sense. It wouldn't be the first time a Democrat has pushed Republican policies. Besides, the Republican party likes to engage in morality warfare. Once their missile is launched, you can't fight it without looking like the bad guy.
What do we do? I'm sick of hearing "call your representative". Clearly, that's not working. We're a minority, and one with absolutely no political leverage. Are we supposed to just lie down and take it? I don't know how many more of these news reports I can endure before my fuse runs out. I quit social media after the last one, and I still can't get away from it...
And it's not as though I'm not fighting. I just started a non-landed naturist club to gauge local interest and it was met with absolute silence. Not even a, "that sounds cool, but it's not for me, good luck." Nope, just a wall of silence undercut by the crushing implication of shame and disappointment.
Please, somebody, give me a reason to feel hopeful about the state of the world.
What the indecency standard (as opposed to the “intentional” standard being pursued in Wisconsin) does is provides nudists a legal basis on which to fight charges. Historically, nudists have fought such charges and established precedent for nude beaches in doing so. Two examples are Goodmakers v. State in Florida (1984) and the case of Chad Merrill Smith in California 1972. These established that nudity lacking lewd intent was not in violation of these indecency statutes. That defense will be eliminated should the Wisconsin laws pass, but may still be feasible in Hawaii. Will it prevent wrongful arrest? Probably not. Does it make me hopeful for the future, no. Not really. I am with you all the way, this is a very worrying trend, and we don’t have much of a coalition to help fight this kind of legislation to begin with.
Thanks for the additional perspective - that makes sense. LIke you said, it's precious little, and not really enough to get excited for. Is it our destiny, each one of us, to decide, on a day not far off, whether to sit by and watch our freedoms whittled away, or end up fighting futilely in court with a system we can't win against? It's not enough that we're outcasts, they have to threaten to criminalize our very way of life in private, too? And nobody's there to stand with us for the principles of truth and liberty.
100%. I believe this is where nudists and nudist orgs can really stand to look at nudism as a movement, not just a recreational hobby, and to work harder at coalition building. One issue that I think is occurring in Wisconsin is that the media has framed this legislation as an attack on the World Naked Bike Ride, not an attack on personal freedoms and liberties. If it got due attention from the local and national press for its broad overreach, I believe the ACLU and many other groups would be all over it. This should be the basis of the press release that all the nudist organizations send out to try and affect the larger narrative, but for better or worse the orgs seem to concede the narrative and focus their efforts on affecting the legislation directly. Granted, that's not necessarily the wrong approach for them. Many of the organizations are under-resourced and and all-volunteer, and must focus their energy where they're most likely to have success. But unfortunately the result is that the nudists have no control over the narrative... not to suggest they ever had it to begin with.
WNBR was obviously just a trigger; the media is short-sighted to assume that's what this issue is about. It's about religious conservatives swinging their shriveled dicks around in service to an unsustainable fantasy of social control masquerading as "moral purity". I'm sick of armchair activism. Why aren't these orgs recruiting people like me? I can't afford to buy a membership, but I have skills and passion to make up for it. If the only thing that has any power in this world is money, then we might as well crawl into our graves right now.
You could recruit yourself? And be a catalyzing agent for change! If you’re feeling that passion, I imagine there’s someone who is more money rich who would pay for your membership if you’re coming in with a political organizing skill set. 😉
I swear every time I read "Think of the children!", I picture Rep. Cindi Duchow clutching her pearls. In all seriousness, thank you for this update, as always! I am curious how this will, or will not, affect Little Beach or Native Hawaiians since they have such a strong presence there. I wish the orgs could deploy a team of naturist-friendly child psychologists to fight for us. That'd be a plus
I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly believe these changes are not a huge threat to nudists, and nudists in Hawaii should maintain the position that these laws don't apply to them. Any nudist arrested for indecent exposure when they are simply practicing mere nudity without lewd intent, should be able to fight those charges fairly easily based on the language used in these bills.
The Hawaii Supreme Court in the case of Hawaii vs Kalama (2000) clearly defined the interpretation of HRS §707-734 Indecent Exposure. As a result, the law can only apply to nude bathing and sunbathing under very specific circumstances:
1. The word "intentionally" applies to all elements of the statute, and if all elements cannot be proven intentional, there is no offense.
2. Since the "intention" is to "expose" to "a person," the "affront" must be experienced by that same person. The law provides no protection for a person that could "happen on" such conduct because the person was not the subject of "intention." [This also applies to police officers.]
3. The state of mind of "knowing" that a person could happen on such conduct, by definition is not "intention" and fails to meet the standard of the statute. The 4 legal states of mind are defined in HRS §702-206.
4. Other persons who are present and naked do not qualify because they are not “likely to be affronted,” and therefore there can be no intention to affront.
5. The court makes reference to the relevance of "observable vicinity" without further definition. The state of being "present" means in the "observable vicinity" which means that the person exposing genitals must be aware of the other person and have sufficient visual clarity in order for the act to be "likely to cause affront."
Rad thanks for this information! You're like my naked search engine. Glad to see it's not really affecting the naturist spaces much in that state, then. Just some minor updates (ba dum tss)
Definitely! I still think very timely and important information for nudists, especially in consideration of the larger “think of the children” trend occurring across the country. Still, I do think Hawaii nudists have other threats and causes for concern outside of these bills, and I’m writing about some of those right now for another piece which is forthcoming.
I look forward to reading it as well. I’m considering moving to Hawaii because of some of the nudist freedoms and community there (would like to meet more folks) and am grateful for information and reflections go be aware of in my personal process. Much gratitude!
https://youtube.com/shorts/Cp8jfP3l2Ec?si=n40bBPm5xZQWxXRa
Guarantee that will be in my head all day 😂
😂😂😂
How can this bill reflect a deliberate effort to differentiate malicious exposure while considering the implications for the nudist community, when it's a strict liability offense? It sounds like you're giving it too much credit.
Wisconsin was the first domino to fall, and I feel we'll be seeing more of this sort of thing. A tidal wave of conservatism is about to wash over us. Does anybody have any good news to share for a change?
I'm surprised a Democrat is pushing this, but your analysis of the political situation makes sense. It wouldn't be the first time a Democrat has pushed Republican policies. Besides, the Republican party likes to engage in morality warfare. Once their missile is launched, you can't fight it without looking like the bad guy.
What do we do? I'm sick of hearing "call your representative". Clearly, that's not working. We're a minority, and one with absolutely no political leverage. Are we supposed to just lie down and take it? I don't know how many more of these news reports I can endure before my fuse runs out. I quit social media after the last one, and I still can't get away from it...
And it's not as though I'm not fighting. I just started a non-landed naturist club to gauge local interest and it was met with absolute silence. Not even a, "that sounds cool, but it's not for me, good luck." Nope, just a wall of silence undercut by the crushing implication of shame and disappointment.
Please, somebody, give me a reason to feel hopeful about the state of the world.
What the indecency standard (as opposed to the “intentional” standard being pursued in Wisconsin) does is provides nudists a legal basis on which to fight charges. Historically, nudists have fought such charges and established precedent for nude beaches in doing so. Two examples are Goodmakers v. State in Florida (1984) and the case of Chad Merrill Smith in California 1972. These established that nudity lacking lewd intent was not in violation of these indecency statutes. That defense will be eliminated should the Wisconsin laws pass, but may still be feasible in Hawaii. Will it prevent wrongful arrest? Probably not. Does it make me hopeful for the future, no. Not really. I am with you all the way, this is a very worrying trend, and we don’t have much of a coalition to help fight this kind of legislation to begin with.
Thanks for the additional perspective - that makes sense. LIke you said, it's precious little, and not really enough to get excited for. Is it our destiny, each one of us, to decide, on a day not far off, whether to sit by and watch our freedoms whittled away, or end up fighting futilely in court with a system we can't win against? It's not enough that we're outcasts, they have to threaten to criminalize our very way of life in private, too? And nobody's there to stand with us for the principles of truth and liberty.
100%. I believe this is where nudists and nudist orgs can really stand to look at nudism as a movement, not just a recreational hobby, and to work harder at coalition building. One issue that I think is occurring in Wisconsin is that the media has framed this legislation as an attack on the World Naked Bike Ride, not an attack on personal freedoms and liberties. If it got due attention from the local and national press for its broad overreach, I believe the ACLU and many other groups would be all over it. This should be the basis of the press release that all the nudist organizations send out to try and affect the larger narrative, but for better or worse the orgs seem to concede the narrative and focus their efforts on affecting the legislation directly. Granted, that's not necessarily the wrong approach for them. Many of the organizations are under-resourced and and all-volunteer, and must focus their energy where they're most likely to have success. But unfortunately the result is that the nudists have no control over the narrative... not to suggest they ever had it to begin with.
WNBR was obviously just a trigger; the media is short-sighted to assume that's what this issue is about. It's about religious conservatives swinging their shriveled dicks around in service to an unsustainable fantasy of social control masquerading as "moral purity". I'm sick of armchair activism. Why aren't these orgs recruiting people like me? I can't afford to buy a membership, but I have skills and passion to make up for it. If the only thing that has any power in this world is money, then we might as well crawl into our graves right now.
You could recruit yourself? And be a catalyzing agent for change! If you’re feeling that passion, I imagine there’s someone who is more money rich who would pay for your membership if you’re coming in with a political organizing skill set. 😉
Thank you for your diligent and steady reporting!
I swear every time I read "Think of the children!", I picture Rep. Cindi Duchow clutching her pearls. In all seriousness, thank you for this update, as always! I am curious how this will, or will not, affect Little Beach or Native Hawaiians since they have such a strong presence there. I wish the orgs could deploy a team of naturist-friendly child psychologists to fight for us. That'd be a plus
I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly believe these changes are not a huge threat to nudists, and nudists in Hawaii should maintain the position that these laws don't apply to them. Any nudist arrested for indecent exposure when they are simply practicing mere nudity without lewd intent, should be able to fight those charges fairly easily based on the language used in these bills.
According to the Friends of Little Beach website (https://www.littlebeachmaui.org/law.html):
The Hawaii Supreme Court in the case of Hawaii vs Kalama (2000) clearly defined the interpretation of HRS §707-734 Indecent Exposure. As a result, the law can only apply to nude bathing and sunbathing under very specific circumstances:
1. The word "intentionally" applies to all elements of the statute, and if all elements cannot be proven intentional, there is no offense.
2. Since the "intention" is to "expose" to "a person," the "affront" must be experienced by that same person. The law provides no protection for a person that could "happen on" such conduct because the person was not the subject of "intention." [This also applies to police officers.]
3. The state of mind of "knowing" that a person could happen on such conduct, by definition is not "intention" and fails to meet the standard of the statute. The 4 legal states of mind are defined in HRS §702-206.
4. Other persons who are present and naked do not qualify because they are not “likely to be affronted,” and therefore there can be no intention to affront.
5. The court makes reference to the relevance of "observable vicinity" without further definition. The state of being "present" means in the "observable vicinity" which means that the person exposing genitals must be aware of the other person and have sufficient visual clarity in order for the act to be "likely to cause affront."
Rad thanks for this information! You're like my naked search engine. Glad to see it's not really affecting the naturist spaces much in that state, then. Just some minor updates (ba dum tss)
Definitely! I still think very timely and important information for nudists, especially in consideration of the larger “think of the children” trend occurring across the country. Still, I do think Hawaii nudists have other threats and causes for concern outside of these bills, and I’m writing about some of those right now for another piece which is forthcoming.
Sweet, I look forward to reading it!
I look forward to reading it as well. I’m considering moving to Hawaii because of some of the nudist freedoms and community there (would like to meet more folks) and am grateful for information and reflections go be aware of in my personal process. Much gratitude!
Naked search engine 😂😂😂
Seems ironic that the legislators want to focus on nudity rather than restrict assault weapons to "protect the children."
You beat me to this point.