I agree. I was active in a nude yoga class. We met in the home of a dancer who had built a large rehearsal-space addition. We quit advertising because the home was not zoned for adult entertainment.
Here's an anecdote, illustrating the debt nudism has to another group which struggles with restrictions to its civil liberties. Nudist magazines from before 1958 frequently used coy poses or bizarre airbrushing to hide genitals. The reason for this was the USPS's refusal to transport materials which showed full nudity. Isley Boone and "Sunshine and Health," the magazine of the American Sunbathing Association (now AANR) had litigated this for a long time to no avail. Finally the Supreme Court ruled in Boone's favor, in Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield. Boone's Wikipedia bio says this: "[Sunshine and Health] eventually led to a challenge to the U.S. Postal Service's ban against sending obscene materials through the mail. Boone took his challenge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down the ban." In fact, on the same day, the Supreme Court decided in One, Inc. V. Olesen that the USPS had to carry "One: The Homosexual Magazine." It's interesting that One and Sunshine Book came half a year after the Roth. v. US, in which the Court decided that obscenity isn't "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press," and defined the test for obscenity as "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." (Justices Douglas, Black, and Harlan argued that obscenity is protected speech, and Justice Brennan changed his mind in a later decision.) What I think happened in "One" is that the Justices wanted to make the distinction between sexual comment in which the dominant theme is prurient, and in which it isn't, and that they figured if they were going to allow comment by "the love that dare not speak its name," then they'd better give the same opportunity to a bunch of heterosexual wage slaves enjoying the sun where it don't usually shine.
I have long advocated that naturists must demand equality to DOGS because they have designated sections of county and state beaches and we have zilch.
When our request for equality is denied by authorities, we must sue to gain our equality. Otherwise we will continue to live under discrimination, deemed less worthy of fair and equal beach use than dogs.
I agree. I was active in a nude yoga class. We met in the home of a dancer who had built a large rehearsal-space addition. We quit advertising because the home was not zoned for adult entertainment.
Here's an anecdote, illustrating the debt nudism has to another group which struggles with restrictions to its civil liberties. Nudist magazines from before 1958 frequently used coy poses or bizarre airbrushing to hide genitals. The reason for this was the USPS's refusal to transport materials which showed full nudity. Isley Boone and "Sunshine and Health," the magazine of the American Sunbathing Association (now AANR) had litigated this for a long time to no avail. Finally the Supreme Court ruled in Boone's favor, in Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield. Boone's Wikipedia bio says this: "[Sunshine and Health] eventually led to a challenge to the U.S. Postal Service's ban against sending obscene materials through the mail. Boone took his challenge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down the ban." In fact, on the same day, the Supreme Court decided in One, Inc. V. Olesen that the USPS had to carry "One: The Homosexual Magazine." It's interesting that One and Sunshine Book came half a year after the Roth. v. US, in which the Court decided that obscenity isn't "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press," and defined the test for obscenity as "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." (Justices Douglas, Black, and Harlan argued that obscenity is protected speech, and Justice Brennan changed his mind in a later decision.) What I think happened in "One" is that the Justices wanted to make the distinction between sexual comment in which the dominant theme is prurient, and in which it isn't, and that they figured if they were going to allow comment by "the love that dare not speak its name," then they'd better give the same opportunity to a bunch of heterosexual wage slaves enjoying the sun where it don't usually shine.
I have long advocated that naturists must demand equality to DOGS because they have designated sections of county and state beaches and we have zilch.
When our request for equality is denied by authorities, we must sue to gain our equality. Otherwise we will continue to live under discrimination, deemed less worthy of fair and equal beach use than dogs.
Thanks for that distinction between civil rights and civil liberties - good to know!