I think it was Bates beach in california that is/was going through a organizing to demonstrate support.
They had naturists aquire $2 bills from the banks, and spent those dollars in the community as a demonstration of how large the nudist community is by way of purchase power. It could be an interesting result.
With this and the potential of the two new anti-nudity laws up for the governor's signature, Wisconsin will now be the second state with the most restrictive nudity laws. Arkansas is currently the most restrictive state where even organized nudism is outlawed. My home state of California also has a ban on nudity on state owned land. Most cities in California have anti-nudity laws also. If fact is some cities, there are laws stating that if you appear nude in public, you are forced to register as a sex offender. but the state legislature and judiciary branches on the whole are relatively friendly towards nudism, or at least indifferent. There is a California state supreme court standing that states nudity on either public or private land is not necessarily automatically considered to be lewd or indecent behavior. So it's kinda contradictory.
One wonders what the unintended consequences of such legislation might be. Surely there will be some, and then perhaps someone might realise that the law goes too far. It would be awesome if performers started avoiding the state rather than risk breaching the law.
Let's hold hope that this is temporary, knowing that laws change along with politics and that nothing is permanent. Let's remember that you're only as trapped as you allow someone else to make you feel while still being savvy and proactive where good judgement warrants it.
The very sad part is that because of one persons over reaction and views, that this law comes about. We (myself and wife) don't gamble, but the odds are probably good, that this person is probably pretty happy with their self.
Evan Nicks, do you know if there are any other organizations besides NAC working on this? Civil liberties? LGBT rights? Feminists? This isn't just an attack on nudists, it's an attack on women, and trans folks. There should be coalition building!
I could not agree with you more. It has largely flown under the radar of almost all groups because the media keeps framing it as an attack on the world naked bike ride, not an attack on basic human freedoms. AANR is definitely involved in the efforts, but as far as I know nobody has reached out to groups representing other interests.
Thank you for responding at this hour! I'm working on a post for r/Feminism, r/MensLib, r/lgbt, and r/trans, to raise awareness, give some background, and encourage people to reach out to the Wisconsin ACLU, Fair Wisconsin, Wisconsin NOW, and others. It seems like Wisconsin was a topfree equal state, but these laws will be a step backwards. It also puts trans folks in the precarious position of potentially being arrested no matter their gender identity or sex if they ever go topless. If there's anything you think should be included in such a post, I'm open to suggestions.... and keep up the great work!
I appreciate your work on all this! And if it’s not too much more work to save links to your posts on all these subreddits and share them here, I’d love to follow up on the posts.
I think that anything you can say that clearly expresses the danger is important. For one, the laws criminalize adults who bring children to any place where there could be “intentional” exposure of even the buttocks. It criminalizes “intentional” exposure instead of indecent exposure which could criminalize unhoused people urinating in public. Also their definition of public is just two or more people, which means a private backyard could be public if there’s a private event there. It also criminalizes photographing a child at such an event unless it’s for the express purpose of reporting the crime. Include links to the bills on the Wisconsin state website if you can.
This is excellent, thank you! I read about the interaction in the Senate where Johnson raises the 'buttocks' issue and Kapenga's response was outright condescending.
It's also really telling that DNR rules cite a court case dismissing a woman's ability to go topless in protest on first amendment grounds because the government has a compelling interest in "preserving ... *traditional moral norms*".
I seem to remember reading on Planet Nude, about how broad "public" can be defined, but I can't find it. Do you remember? Or do you have a source for the "two or more people" definition?
I’ve also written quite a lot about it under the tag KeepBodiesFree, so if you are looking for more backstory for your posts, you can find a lot of info here: www.planetnude.co/t/keep-bodies-free
Possible help?
I think it was Bates beach in california that is/was going through a organizing to demonstrate support.
They had naturists aquire $2 bills from the banks, and spent those dollars in the community as a demonstration of how large the nudist community is by way of purchase power. It could be an interesting result.
With this and the potential of the two new anti-nudity laws up for the governor's signature, Wisconsin will now be the second state with the most restrictive nudity laws. Arkansas is currently the most restrictive state where even organized nudism is outlawed. My home state of California also has a ban on nudity on state owned land. Most cities in California have anti-nudity laws also. If fact is some cities, there are laws stating that if you appear nude in public, you are forced to register as a sex offender. but the state legislature and judiciary branches on the whole are relatively friendly towards nudism, or at least indifferent. There is a California state supreme court standing that states nudity on either public or private land is not necessarily automatically considered to be lewd or indecent behavior. So it's kinda contradictory.
One wonders what the unintended consequences of such legislation might be. Surely there will be some, and then perhaps someone might realise that the law goes too far. It would be awesome if performers started avoiding the state rather than risk breaching the law.
Let's hold hope that this is temporary, knowing that laws change along with politics and that nothing is permanent. Let's remember that you're only as trapped as you allow someone else to make you feel while still being savvy and proactive where good judgement warrants it.
The very sad part is that because of one persons over reaction and views, that this law comes about. We (myself and wife) don't gamble, but the odds are probably good, that this person is probably pretty happy with their self.
Evan Nicks, do you know if there are any other organizations besides NAC working on this? Civil liberties? LGBT rights? Feminists? This isn't just an attack on nudists, it's an attack on women, and trans folks. There should be coalition building!
I could not agree with you more. It has largely flown under the radar of almost all groups because the media keeps framing it as an attack on the world naked bike ride, not an attack on basic human freedoms. AANR is definitely involved in the efforts, but as far as I know nobody has reached out to groups representing other interests.
Thank you for responding at this hour! I'm working on a post for r/Feminism, r/MensLib, r/lgbt, and r/trans, to raise awareness, give some background, and encourage people to reach out to the Wisconsin ACLU, Fair Wisconsin, Wisconsin NOW, and others. It seems like Wisconsin was a topfree equal state, but these laws will be a step backwards. It also puts trans folks in the precarious position of potentially being arrested no matter their gender identity or sex if they ever go topless. If there's anything you think should be included in such a post, I'm open to suggestions.... and keep up the great work!
I appreciate your work on all this! And if it’s not too much more work to save links to your posts on all these subreddits and share them here, I’d love to follow up on the posts.
I think that anything you can say that clearly expresses the danger is important. For one, the laws criminalize adults who bring children to any place where there could be “intentional” exposure of even the buttocks. It criminalizes “intentional” exposure instead of indecent exposure which could criminalize unhoused people urinating in public. Also their definition of public is just two or more people, which means a private backyard could be public if there’s a private event there. It also criminalizes photographing a child at such an event unless it’s for the express purpose of reporting the crime. Include links to the bills on the Wisconsin state website if you can.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/proposals/ab504
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/proposals/sb477
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/proposals/ab503
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/proposals/sb478
This is excellent, thank you! I read about the interaction in the Senate where Johnson raises the 'buttocks' issue and Kapenga's response was outright condescending.
It's also really telling that DNR rules cite a court case dismissing a woman's ability to go topless in protest on first amendment grounds because the government has a compelling interest in "preserving ... *traditional moral norms*".
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I seem to remember reading on Planet Nude, about how broad "public" can be defined, but I can't find it. Do you remember? Or do you have a source for the "two or more people" definition?
Maybe here? https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gf1bv4ithgfjws6g8rj63/Wisconsin-Public-Hearing-01.mp4?rlkey=cxzzggp197hwa8irh3dtkb9v7&dl=0
I finally found it. It's *What is "Public" Anyway?* by Doug Hickok in this NAC/NEF newsletter: https://naturisteducation.org/wp-content/uploads/library/newsletters/2023_12.pdf
You might also direct them to our petition: change.org/keepbodiesfree
I’ve also written quite a lot about it under the tag KeepBodiesFree, so if you are looking for more backstory for your posts, you can find a lot of info here: www.planetnude.co/t/keep-bodies-free