Local laws are different in every locality, even Florida. While Florida has no law against nudity some counties ban nudity while others make no mention of it, except perhaps to ban it where alcohol is served.
Any rule should be carefully crafted to allow nude hiking, either solo or in groups, breastfeeding, sunbathing, swimming, and group naturist activities.
A quick Google search shows this from a Florida criminal defense attorney.
Under Florida Statute § 800.03, it's unlawful for a person to expose or exhibit their sexual organs in public or on private premises near to public view, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in places provided for that purpose.
Before our first visit to a nude beach in Florida, I did my best to research nudity laws. The beach we visited is located in a county that also has anti-nudity laws. So I wondered how there could be a beach covered by two laws, state and county, outlawing the beach.
It’s actually located on federal land which as of now has no law forbidding nudity and per my research, meant it was technically not “legal” nor “illegal”. Per Rangers I spoke to, it’s allowed in certain areas unless inappropriate behavior happens.
This change to the federal law could of course change this.
I assume this Florida state law or code still exists.
800.03 is still on the books, I know from my interview with the Masons and my volunteer work with BEACHES Foundation. Presumably this rule would only effect nudity on national forest lands, and as far as I know would not affect BLM or national park lands. However, they may have, or could enact their own anti-nudity rules, I assume. I’m not sure.
The beach(es) we visit are part of the Canaveral National Seashore and was recently announcing a new Superintendent took over in mid September. There was discussion about how the policies of the Clothing Optuonal portion being changed possibly when she took over, but haven’t read or seen anything since. Cleanup from last years hurricanes still the big news.
It's very important to use the terms "naturist" and "naturism" instead of "nudist" and "nudism" in any comments on the proposals. Members of the clothes-freedom community in the U.S. tend to squabble over the terms. But in countries where nonsexual social nudity has some degree of respectability (unlike in the U.S.), "naturist" and "naturism" are the preferred terms by a large margin.
Especially in the U.S., "nudist" and "nudism" are associated with oddballs who go naked in private places, and definitely aren't welcome in public areas such as National Forests. The stem "nat-" is found in words like "nature", "natural", "native", and "national". Consequently, it's much more likely for "naturist" activities to be less controversial.
In the U.S., any terms associated with "nudity" are just asking for trouble. In recent times, the Forest Service has been fairly tolerant of nonsexual nudity except in in popular areas (like campgrounds) or where it's clearly prohibited by local laws. Such laws are often vague about what constitutes "indecent exposure". So in cases of ambiguity, the FS should be clear that enjoying "natural" places without clothing is NOT considered "indecent exposure".
Um, this is completely a matter of local dialect, and what you describe as accepted interpretations runs counter to my own experiences, which just goes to show how variable these determinations can be. Please let's not get into the habit of policing the language of the lifestyle, because then you run the risk of judging good and bad members of our community based purely on the superficial matter of what labels they use, instead of their actual beliefs and behaviors. Nudism is every bit as official a term as naturism, and naturism is no more legitimate than nudism.
It's NOT a question of "judging" members of our community. The issue is how people OUTSIDE our community - especially decision makers - react to different terms. To outsiders - who're mostly clueless - enjoying nature is far less controversial than enjoying nudity. So "naturist" seems less controversial than "nudist".
I just don't see the purpose in arguing semantics and dancing around terminology. How are you going to talk about nudity without mentioning nudity? You can't suggest that naturism is somehow a "purer" term than nudism without casting aspersions on those who prefer to call it what it is. You may not have intended to judge anyone, but can you not see the elitism that is implied by this kind of language policing? If we're trying to educate people, let's not accept arbitrary stereotypes as a foregone conclusion. If you really want to suppress the nature of our interests and court sympathy, we might as well call ourselves the Friends of the Forest Rangers, although good luck trying to explain why you care whether the Forest Rangers let you take your clothes off in the woods.
The last section of the document shows the text of the actual proposed revision to the regulation, which reads:
"Revise § 261.4 to read as follows:
§ 261.4
Disorderly conduct.
The following are prohibited when committed intentionally to cause, or recklessly to create a substantial risk of causing, public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence:
(a) Engaging in fighting or any threatening or other violent behavior.
(b) Making an utterance or performing an act that is obscene or threatening or that is made or performed in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace.
(c) Making noise that is unreasonable considering the nature and purpose of the conduct, location, and time."
This seems a bit narrower than some of the introductory text of the document would suggest, since it refers only to actions that are done "intentionally" or "recklessly" to cause "public alarm, nuisance," etc., and also refers to "obscene" acts instead of "indecent exposure."
That said, all the points you make about ambiguity are definitely valid, just wanted to be precise about what the text of the proposed revision says.
Solid analysis. Reading between the lines, it sounds like there are safety issues at play.
I wonder how Indigenous communities navigate these prohibitions. I noticed a reference to them, essentially saying that they were not impacted, but I imagine some ceremonies would conflict with restrictions.
I think public comments on this could yield some good progress. If the context is safety, it provides a framework to discuss indecency within safe and unsafe language modalities. It takes naturism/nudity out of a moral framework and gives an opportunity to differentiate on the basis of criminal standards.
Sometimes this can be a powerful tool for building future foundations when positioning it more broadly.
I'm certainly no expert but reading the actual language in the proposed revisions doesn't seem to be much of a change. The relevant section is 261.4 Disorderly conduct. The proposed changes mostly address intent of harm. Here's the text of proposed changes:
Revise § 261.4 to read as follows:
§ 261.4
Disorderly conduct.
The following are prohibited when committed intentionally to cause, or recklessly to create a substantial risk of causing, public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence:
(a) Engaging in fighting or any threatening or other violent behavior.
(b) Making an utterance or performing an act that is obscene or threatening or that is made or performed in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace.
(c) Making noise that is unreasonable considering the nature and purpose of the conduct, location, and time.
That's it and simple indecent exposure or exposed genitals, the common definition of "naked" isn't directly addressed. I don't see much of an issue with the actual proposed changes.
My rule of thumb is that I can be nude in the privacy of my back yard. Since my nudity never includes sexual behavior, i feel quite secure in my ability not to be lawfully arrested. Were I to be nude in my front yard when children were walking home from school would invite attention from the local sheriff.
I wanted to provide some feedback on the US Forestry Service's proposed regulations for National Forest lands in the United States. While the goals and objectives of this new document appear straightforward, the ambiguity in the language leaves a significant amount of room for interpretation (and misinterpretation) especially as it applies to what I refer to as "Naturism" (social and recreational nude activities). Human beings have enjoyed being nude/naked in nature for 1,000's of years and only until recent modernization of society have we started labeling such activity as "Criminal." I believe the proposed legislation does not adequately define and outline the law as it pertains to people being on NFS lands without clothing being worn. Terms like "indecent exposure" are not defined in the document and the tendency to defer to local law, both leave a significant amount of flexibility as to how Naturists found on NFS lands might be treated and/or prosecuted. As an example of how local laws on indecent exposure vary greatly, see North Carolina's indencent exposure law compared to North Daktoa's... NORTH CAROLINA: Indecent exposure (Class 2 misdemeanor): Any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. NORTH DAKOTA: Indecent exposure: a person with intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that person's lust, passions, or sexual desires, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if that person: b. exposes one's penis, vulva, or anus in a public place or to a minor in a public or private place. Note how North Dakota more clearly defines Indecent Exposure with it's "intent to arouse." Verbiage like this goes a long way towards protecting Naturists from criminal charges as Naturism is non-sexual by nature and there is absolutely no intention of arousal. That does not necessarily mean that I personally agree with either State's interpretation of indecent exposure, but it does evidence how individuals in one state would be treated differently than those in another state for the same "infraction" on NFS lands. The document seems to be focused on streamlining the process for law enforcement when they find individuals engaged in lewd conduct (such as sexual acts) or participating in drug use) on National Forest land. Again while I applaud this objective, by not distinguishing between "nude recreation" and "sexual activity" within the context of "indecent exposure" it treats Naturists the same as those people actually engaging in lewd, sexual acts and taking illegal drugs. By deferring to local law, it muddies the waters as to when/where someone can be nude, legally. In Vermont for example, public nudity is 100% legal - Other states allow women to be topless and others do not, while still other states define "indecent exposure" by the amount of buttocks visible (which actually criminalize women wearing string thongs at the beach). I believe that this regulatory document could be made significantly more effective and less ambiguous if additional verbiage is included that more precisely defines what constitutes "indecent exposure" and lays out uniformly applicable (not local law based), straightforward laws concerning nudity on National Forest Lands and ensuring those laws distinguish between 1) Naturism (non-sexual nude recreation) versus 2) lewd/sexual acts and illegal consumption of drugs/alcohol. Thank you!
A great post. One question: How would the NFS apply its rule to the Ocala National Forest in Florida, which occupies parts of three different Florida Counties?
-- "I just don't see the purpose in arguing semantics and dancing around terminology."
Words matter, whether you see it or not.
-- "You can't suggest that naturism is somehow a "purer" term than nudism without casting aspersions on those who prefer to call it what it is."
I can suggest whatever I want. But I never said anything about being "purer" nor cast any aspersions. It is OTHER people, who are neither naturists nor nudists, who will base their opinions on what words are used.
-- "can you not see the elitism that is implied by this kind of language policing?"
No, I do not see "elitism". I'm not "policing" anything, just offering my opinion about approaches naturists should take in discussions with non-naturists. Many different approaches have been tried. Unfortunately, most tend to fail.
-- "good luck trying to explain why you care whether the Forest Rangers let you take your clothes off in the woods."
Why I care is quite easy to explain. Just two reasons: (1) It's harmless to others. (2) It enhances my pleasure being in nature. Everyone has their own point of view. How persuasive it is to others is a different matter.
This is a forum for expressing opinions. But opinions differ, so let's agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
I think the discussion of local laws is the key here. I live in a van and I live almost exclusively in national forests and BLM lands. I've had forest rangers approach me many times, and I'm always nude. They never even bring up the issue of nudity. It's always campfires and trash that they're concerned with. I think that's what this proposal is aimed at.
Perhaps it is time for TNS, AANR & other organizations to come up with model legislation that would preserve our rights to be nude at the state level. Once enshrined at the state level, it becomes more and more difficult for bigots and prudes to pre vail.
Deference to state/local laws has always been the rule in National Forest and BLM land. In California at least, 99% of all law enforcement on NF and BLM land is by the local sheriff. Out here, NF personnel will usually call the sheriff because they don't have the resources to do the job. California does not prohibit nudity. If the county has an ordinance prohibiting nudity it will be up to local law enforcement to enforce it - or not. If it doesn't, one can hope either the dispatcher or the deputy realizes this.
I'd still want to know what the Forest Service definition of "indecent exposure" was.
Good to see someone is staying on top of the social policy changes that have the potential to have a negative impact.
Linda Weber is due some credit for first flagging this one!
That’s great influential people like her are paying attention, hopefully more people will as well we need to be more engaged
Local laws are different in every locality, even Florida. While Florida has no law against nudity some counties ban nudity while others make no mention of it, except perhaps to ban it where alcohol is served.
Any rule should be carefully crafted to allow nude hiking, either solo or in groups, breastfeeding, sunbathing, swimming, and group naturist activities.
A quick Google search shows this from a Florida criminal defense attorney.
Under Florida Statute § 800.03, it's unlawful for a person to expose or exhibit their sexual organs in public or on private premises near to public view, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in places provided for that purpose.
Before our first visit to a nude beach in Florida, I did my best to research nudity laws. The beach we visited is located in a county that also has anti-nudity laws. So I wondered how there could be a beach covered by two laws, state and county, outlawing the beach.
It’s actually located on federal land which as of now has no law forbidding nudity and per my research, meant it was technically not “legal” nor “illegal”. Per Rangers I spoke to, it’s allowed in certain areas unless inappropriate behavior happens.
This change to the federal law could of course change this.
I assume this Florida state law or code still exists.
800.03 is still on the books, I know from my interview with the Masons and my volunteer work with BEACHES Foundation. Presumably this rule would only effect nudity on national forest lands, and as far as I know would not affect BLM or national park lands. However, they may have, or could enact their own anti-nudity rules, I assume. I’m not sure.
The beach(es) we visit are part of the Canaveral National Seashore and was recently announcing a new Superintendent took over in mid September. There was discussion about how the policies of the Clothing Optuonal portion being changed possibly when she took over, but haven’t read or seen anything since. Cleanup from last years hurricanes still the big news.
if you haven’t heard it, this episode has some great info about how the Masons navigated a lot of this territory when they established Haulover 30 years ago. https://www.planetnude.co/p/the-mother-and-father-of-haulover-b8c#details
Yes--a great episode.
It's very important to use the terms "naturist" and "naturism" instead of "nudist" and "nudism" in any comments on the proposals. Members of the clothes-freedom community in the U.S. tend to squabble over the terms. But in countries where nonsexual social nudity has some degree of respectability (unlike in the U.S.), "naturist" and "naturism" are the preferred terms by a large margin.
Especially in the U.S., "nudist" and "nudism" are associated with oddballs who go naked in private places, and definitely aren't welcome in public areas such as National Forests. The stem "nat-" is found in words like "nature", "natural", "native", and "national". Consequently, it's much more likely for "naturist" activities to be less controversial.
In the U.S., any terms associated with "nudity" are just asking for trouble. In recent times, the Forest Service has been fairly tolerant of nonsexual nudity except in in popular areas (like campgrounds) or where it's clearly prohibited by local laws. Such laws are often vague about what constitutes "indecent exposure". So in cases of ambiguity, the FS should be clear that enjoying "natural" places without clothing is NOT considered "indecent exposure".
Important point. Thank you.
Um, this is completely a matter of local dialect, and what you describe as accepted interpretations runs counter to my own experiences, which just goes to show how variable these determinations can be. Please let's not get into the habit of policing the language of the lifestyle, because then you run the risk of judging good and bad members of our community based purely on the superficial matter of what labels they use, instead of their actual beliefs and behaviors. Nudism is every bit as official a term as naturism, and naturism is no more legitimate than nudism.
It's NOT a question of "judging" members of our community. The issue is how people OUTSIDE our community - especially decision makers - react to different terms. To outsiders - who're mostly clueless - enjoying nature is far less controversial than enjoying nudity. So "naturist" seems less controversial than "nudist".
I just don't see the purpose in arguing semantics and dancing around terminology. How are you going to talk about nudity without mentioning nudity? You can't suggest that naturism is somehow a "purer" term than nudism without casting aspersions on those who prefer to call it what it is. You may not have intended to judge anyone, but can you not see the elitism that is implied by this kind of language policing? If we're trying to educate people, let's not accept arbitrary stereotypes as a foregone conclusion. If you really want to suppress the nature of our interests and court sympathy, we might as well call ourselves the Friends of the Forest Rangers, although good luck trying to explain why you care whether the Forest Rangers let you take your clothes off in the woods.
The last section of the document shows the text of the actual proposed revision to the regulation, which reads:
"Revise § 261.4 to read as follows:
§ 261.4
Disorderly conduct.
The following are prohibited when committed intentionally to cause, or recklessly to create a substantial risk of causing, public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence:
(a) Engaging in fighting or any threatening or other violent behavior.
(b) Making an utterance or performing an act that is obscene or threatening or that is made or performed in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace.
(c) Making noise that is unreasonable considering the nature and purpose of the conduct, location, and time."
This seems a bit narrower than some of the introductory text of the document would suggest, since it refers only to actions that are done "intentionally" or "recklessly" to cause "public alarm, nuisance," etc., and also refers to "obscene" acts instead of "indecent exposure."
That said, all the points you make about ambiguity are definitely valid, just wanted to be precise about what the text of the proposed revision says.
Thank you!
Solid analysis. Reading between the lines, it sounds like there are safety issues at play.
I wonder how Indigenous communities navigate these prohibitions. I noticed a reference to them, essentially saying that they were not impacted, but I imagine some ceremonies would conflict with restrictions.
I think public comments on this could yield some good progress. If the context is safety, it provides a framework to discuss indecency within safe and unsafe language modalities. It takes naturism/nudity out of a moral framework and gives an opportunity to differentiate on the basis of criminal standards.
Sometimes this can be a powerful tool for building future foundations when positioning it more broadly.
Well done in the process so far. 👏
I'm certainly no expert but reading the actual language in the proposed revisions doesn't seem to be much of a change. The relevant section is 261.4 Disorderly conduct. The proposed changes mostly address intent of harm. Here's the text of proposed changes:
Revise § 261.4 to read as follows:
§ 261.4
Disorderly conduct.
The following are prohibited when committed intentionally to cause, or recklessly to create a substantial risk of causing, public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence:
(a) Engaging in fighting or any threatening or other violent behavior.
(b) Making an utterance or performing an act that is obscene or threatening or that is made or performed in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace.
(c) Making noise that is unreasonable considering the nature and purpose of the conduct, location, and time.
That's it and simple indecent exposure or exposed genitals, the common definition of "naked" isn't directly addressed. I don't see much of an issue with the actual proposed changes.
My assertion of the lack Florida laws against recreational nudity was based on a search of the Florida Statutes.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?StatuteYear=2023&AppMode=Display_Results&Mode=Search%2520Statutes&Submenu=2&Tab=statutes&Search_String=Nudity
County ordinances can be searched using this string, inserting the name of the county in question:
Pasco County Florida Ordinances
For any other county go to:
https://library.municode.com/
My rule of thumb is that I can be nude in the privacy of my back yard. Since my nudity never includes sexual behavior, i feel quite secure in my ability not to be lawfully arrested. Were I to be nude in my front yard when children were walking home from school would invite attention from the local sheriff.
I submitted a comment to the Forestry Service:
I wanted to provide some feedback on the US Forestry Service's proposed regulations for National Forest lands in the United States. While the goals and objectives of this new document appear straightforward, the ambiguity in the language leaves a significant amount of room for interpretation (and misinterpretation) especially as it applies to what I refer to as "Naturism" (social and recreational nude activities). Human beings have enjoyed being nude/naked in nature for 1,000's of years and only until recent modernization of society have we started labeling such activity as "Criminal." I believe the proposed legislation does not adequately define and outline the law as it pertains to people being on NFS lands without clothing being worn. Terms like "indecent exposure" are not defined in the document and the tendency to defer to local law, both leave a significant amount of flexibility as to how Naturists found on NFS lands might be treated and/or prosecuted. As an example of how local laws on indecent exposure vary greatly, see North Carolina's indencent exposure law compared to North Daktoa's... NORTH CAROLINA: Indecent exposure (Class 2 misdemeanor): Any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. NORTH DAKOTA: Indecent exposure: a person with intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that person's lust, passions, or sexual desires, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if that person: b. exposes one's penis, vulva, or anus in a public place or to a minor in a public or private place. Note how North Dakota more clearly defines Indecent Exposure with it's "intent to arouse." Verbiage like this goes a long way towards protecting Naturists from criminal charges as Naturism is non-sexual by nature and there is absolutely no intention of arousal. That does not necessarily mean that I personally agree with either State's interpretation of indecent exposure, but it does evidence how individuals in one state would be treated differently than those in another state for the same "infraction" on NFS lands. The document seems to be focused on streamlining the process for law enforcement when they find individuals engaged in lewd conduct (such as sexual acts) or participating in drug use) on National Forest land. Again while I applaud this objective, by not distinguishing between "nude recreation" and "sexual activity" within the context of "indecent exposure" it treats Naturists the same as those people actually engaging in lewd, sexual acts and taking illegal drugs. By deferring to local law, it muddies the waters as to when/where someone can be nude, legally. In Vermont for example, public nudity is 100% legal - Other states allow women to be topless and others do not, while still other states define "indecent exposure" by the amount of buttocks visible (which actually criminalize women wearing string thongs at the beach). I believe that this regulatory document could be made significantly more effective and less ambiguous if additional verbiage is included that more precisely defines what constitutes "indecent exposure" and lays out uniformly applicable (not local law based), straightforward laws concerning nudity on National Forest Lands and ensuring those laws distinguish between 1) Naturism (non-sexual nude recreation) versus 2) lewd/sexual acts and illegal consumption of drugs/alcohol. Thank you!
Thanks; I mined your comment to make a comment to the federal agency.
A great post. One question: How would the NFS apply its rule to the Ocala National Forest in Florida, which occupies parts of three different Florida Counties?
-- "I just don't see the purpose in arguing semantics and dancing around terminology."
Words matter, whether you see it or not.
-- "You can't suggest that naturism is somehow a "purer" term than nudism without casting aspersions on those who prefer to call it what it is."
I can suggest whatever I want. But I never said anything about being "purer" nor cast any aspersions. It is OTHER people, who are neither naturists nor nudists, who will base their opinions on what words are used.
-- "can you not see the elitism that is implied by this kind of language policing?"
No, I do not see "elitism". I'm not "policing" anything, just offering my opinion about approaches naturists should take in discussions with non-naturists. Many different approaches have been tried. Unfortunately, most tend to fail.
-- "good luck trying to explain why you care whether the Forest Rangers let you take your clothes off in the woods."
Why I care is quite easy to explain. Just two reasons: (1) It's harmless to others. (2) It enhances my pleasure being in nature. Everyone has their own point of view. How persuasive it is to others is a different matter.
This is a forum for expressing opinions. But opinions differ, so let's agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
Thanks; I used your post and the replies from others to craft and submit what is hopefully a concise, clear comment.
I think the discussion of local laws is the key here. I live in a van and I live almost exclusively in national forests and BLM lands. I've had forest rangers approach me many times, and I'm always nude. They never even bring up the issue of nudity. It's always campfires and trash that they're concerned with. I think that's what this proposal is aimed at.
Thank you for sharing this perspective!
FYI in case you have not seen this
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11158-018-09406-z
Perhaps it is time for TNS, AANR & other organizations to come up with model legislation that would preserve our rights to be nude at the state level. Once enshrined at the state level, it becomes more and more difficult for bigots and prudes to pre vail.
I did go to the site and left a comment. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Deference to state/local laws has always been the rule in National Forest and BLM land. In California at least, 99% of all law enforcement on NF and BLM land is by the local sheriff. Out here, NF personnel will usually call the sheriff because they don't have the resources to do the job. California does not prohibit nudity. If the county has an ordinance prohibiting nudity it will be up to local law enforcement to enforce it - or not. If it doesn't, one can hope either the dispatcher or the deputy realizes this.
I'd still want to know what the Forest Service definition of "indecent exposure" was.