Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-28-2017, 10:38 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Limitations on Local "Indecent Exposure" Laws

Supposing you have a jurisdiction in which the majority of the population dresses extremely conservatively. Is there anything stopping the local government from passing a local ordinance forbidding anyone from dressing out of line with the "local custom"? (At this time, it would only be practical in a state in which local authorities set the standards - apparently this varies by state.)

For example, suppose a local municipality is comprised mostly of Muslims/Ultra-Orthodox Jews/Amish/whatever, could they pass a law saying that exposure of any skin other than faces or hands is "indecent exposure"? (I imagine it might have to apply to both men and women or some judges would toss it out on that basis.)

I assume to the extent that you defined the standard as being a purely religious matter, it could be struck down on First Amendment grounds. But that seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Religion influences much of common behavior and moral standards, but if something has become common standards of dress, for whatever reason, ISTM that it's no longer a purely religious matter.

Is there any other limitation?
  #2  
Old 08-28-2017, 11:06 AM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,017
Yes, there are constitutional limits.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual liberty interest in a person's appearance, and the First Amendment limits what a government may do to restrict expression by way of clothing choices.

But this is not a very settled area of law. There are a handful of cases striking down indecent exposure statutes for these reasons. E.g., DeWeese v. Town of Palm Beach, 812 F.2d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1987) (striking down a regulation that prohibited shirtless male joggers as unreasonable).
  #3  
Old 08-28-2017, 11:48 AM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,200
IANAL, but...

I would imagine the porn laws would hold - what's reasonable in the community. Which I would take to mean the state in general, not some small town.

Also, if the law is in any way based on religion, the First Amendment prohibition about state enforcing religious practices comes into play. Plus, equal protection under the law - if it dictates female dress code different from male.

But again, on such issues are many lawyers' green fees paid for...
  #4  
Old 08-28-2017, 11:48 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Yes, there are constitutional limits.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual liberty interest in a person's appearance, and the First Amendment limits what a government may do to restrict expression by way of clothing choices.

But this is not a very settled area of law. There are a handful of cases striking down indecent exposure statutes for these reasons. E.g., DeWeese v. Town of Palm Beach, 812 F.2d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1987) (striking down a regulation that prohibited shirtless male joggers as unreasonable).
Following this line of reasoning : why not knock down any ordinances on females going topless? Precisely what logic makes females showing the exact same organ in public indecent? Before you say 'think of the children', do recall that this is the very mechanism that mothers feed their kids with...
  #5  
Old 08-28-2017, 11:54 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 5,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Following this line of reasoning : why not knock down any ordinances on females going topless? Precisely what logic makes females showing the exact same organ in public indecent? Before you say 'think of the children', do recall that this is the very mechanism that mothers feed their kids with...
Well you could look into this case: http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...onstitutional/
  #6  
Old 08-28-2017, 11:55 AM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Following this line of reasoning : why not knock down any ordinances on females going topless? Precisely what logic makes females showing the exact same organ in public indecent? Before you say 'think of the children', do recall that this is the very mechanism that mothers feed their kids with...
In fact, a number of jurisdictions have IIRC ruled that topless females are not illegal - provided the display is "not sexually provocative"(??!!) I think was the rule. So topless beaches or sunbathing in the park, ok. Topless standing under a streetlight in the questionable area of town, not OK. (Still doesn't account for the painted ladies in Times Square...)

In fact, when the court in Canada was mulling this issue, I think it was some women in Waterloo decided to hold a "topless march" to demand the right. When they saw the large contingent of (male) audience assembled to watch the march, they changed their minds.

Last edited by md2000; 08-28-2017 at 11:56 AM.
  #7  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:04 PM
anson2995 anson2995 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,740
Federal judge ruled earlier this year that local bans on topless women are unconstitutional.
  #8  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:05 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Following this line of reasoning : why not knock down any ordinances on females going topless? Precisely what logic makes females showing the exact same organ in public indecent? Before you say 'think of the children', do recall that this is the very mechanism that mothers feed their kids with...
Indeed. Such lawsuits are being heard in many states as we type.

The answer, of course, is a mix of history and culture, from the well-intentioned to the cruel and all the arbitrary in-between. A heaping dose of patriarchy. More than a smattering of sexual Puritanism.

Should a town be able to forbid fucking from the public square? Before you say 'think of the children', do recall that this is the very mechanism that mothers created their children with.
  #9  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:07 PM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Indeed. Such lawsuits are being heard in many states as we type.

The answer, of course, is a mix of history and culture, from the well-intentioned to the cruel and all the arbitrary in-between. A heaping dose of patriarchy. More than a smattering of sexual Puritanism.

Should a town be able to forbid fucking from the public square? Before you say 'think of the children', do recall that this is the very mechanism that mothers created their children with.
What was the old Victorian quote?

"As long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses..."

but that I think was the essence of the SCOTUS ruling way back when on porn. "reasonable community standards" so nothing too shocking, but not the most restrictive choice either.

Last edited by md2000; 08-28-2017 at 12:08 PM.
  #10  
Old 08-28-2017, 01:40 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
In fact, a number of jurisdictions have IIRC ruled that topless females are not illegal - provided the display is "not sexually provocative"(??!!) I think was the rule. ....
Not disputing your point. But carrying forward from it ...

The challenge with this line of logic is that sexual provocativity is also a community standard. AIUI in those Muslim countries that are big on burqas and such, all display of the female form is considered (excessively) sexually provocative.

In Victorian times, it was important to put little cloth socks on piano legs lest their curved carved shape give someone the vapors by reminding them of the oh-so-sensuous appearance of human ankles. In a world where every middle class family owned a piano this was major stuff.

They also insisted that books by male and female authors be shelved separately so the books wouldn't be doing the ol' hoochy coochy right there in your parlor creating scandal far and wide.


As Richard Parker said just above ultimately it's all arbitrary holdovers from a rabidly bluenosed time compared to most people's ideas today. Seeking logic or consistency within it is pointless.

Ultimately the OP's question is political, not legal. The law and precedent at various levels and locales provide some vague pointers towards where the boundaries are probably sorta somewhere near at least for today.

IMO nobody is in a position to say how any given law in any given locale will or won't work out.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-28-2017 at 01:42 PM.
  #11  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:16 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,850
To clarify the legal (constitutional) issue presented:

1) Is there a First Amendment right (free speech) to wear whatever I want (or not wear)?

Answer: no, so long as the thing you are wanting to wear isn't conveying a message. Thus, in the Palm Beach case, the ordinance wasn't a violation of the jogger's free speech rights, since jogging topless isn't the sort of "speech" that gets heightened scrutiny.

2) What right is violated then?

Answer: ALL actions by government have to be "rational"; that is, they have to be trying to address a legitimate government interest, and do so in a "rational" way. The trouble, as some posters above have highlighted, is identifying a legitimate governmental interest in keeping clothes on its residents. In the Palm Beach case, the court noted that, while certain regulations might have a legitimate interest, like the style of hair for police officers, there did not seem to be any legitimate governmental interest in keeping a male jogger's shirt on. Obviously, other potential similar situations would have to be dealt with in the same way: what "interest" is the ordinance trying to further, and is that interest legitimate?

Now, the extent to which forcing citizens to wear clothing to avoid exposure of areas of the body considered sexual is a constant battleground. It seems to me that there are few, if any, other potential "legitimate" interests in forcing people to wear "x" item of clothing.
  #12  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:24 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,500
Depends on jurisdiction:

"San Francisco to Ban Nudity in Restaurants (Wait, It Was Legal to Be Nude in a Restaurant?!)" -- Glamour Magazine --- Oct 25th, 2011 ...

Quote:
This just in: The city of San Francisco may ban nudity in restaurants, if a proposed ordinance goes through. I know what you're thinking, "wait, so it's currently legal to dine out nude?" Why yes, it is. In San Francisco.

Last edited by watchwolf49; 08-28-2017 at 02:25 PM.
  #13  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:27 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,017
It's a little more in flux than you suggest, DSYoungEsq.

There is an ongoing debate about the extent to which clothing choices are inherently expressive speech. In 2017, the weight of authority is a lot closer to that proposition than in 1987.

Also, while courts claim they are employing rational basis in many of these cases, they have also talked about due process rights to control your personal appearance. And even when they formally apply rational basis, it is very often rational basis with teeth--suggesting there is a degree of heightened scrutiny here, not that unlike the gay rights cases post-Lawrence and pre-Windsor.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 08-28-2017 at 02:27 PM.
  #14  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:43 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Answer: ALL actions by government have to be "rational"; that is, they have to be trying to address a legitimate government interest, and do so in a "rational" way. The trouble, as some posters above have highlighted, is identifying a legitimate governmental interest in keeping clothes on its residents. In the Palm Beach case, the court noted that, while certain regulations might have a legitimate interest, like the style of hair for police officers, there did not seem to be any legitimate governmental interest in keeping a male jogger's shirt on. Obviously, other potential similar situations would have to be dealt with in the same way: what "interest" is the ordinance trying to further, and is that interest legitimate?

Now, the extent to which forcing citizens to wear clothing to avoid exposure of areas of the body considered sexual is a constant battleground. It seems to me that there are few, if any, other potential "legitimate" interests in forcing people to wear "x" item of clothing.
ISTM that this would depend on local mores, however. If you're part of a culture where male going topless is no big deal, then a court could easily find that there's no legitimate government interest in forcing them to keep them on. But suppose the local culture is such that bare arms in that culture are as shocking as nudity in another culture. ISTM that the government has the same "legitimate interest" in one as the other.

And if you grant that, then I don't see how free expression factors in. Because if you grant that free expression doesn't go as far as full nudity, then if in another culture a much lesser standards is the cultural equivalent why would free expression come into play there?
  #15  
Old 08-28-2017, 02:53 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
But suppose the local culture is such that bare arms in that culture are as shocking as nudity in another culture.
That would be covered under the Second Amendment.

Regards,
Shodan
  #16  
Old 08-28-2017, 03:02 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,361
Well played.
  #17  
Old 08-28-2017, 03:44 PM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas CookingWithGas is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 12,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
In Victorian times, it was important to put little cloth socks on piano legs lest their curved carved shape give someone the vapors by reminding them of the oh-so-sensuous appearance of human ankles.
In Victorian times, a lady or gentleman would even not use the word "leg" in polite company.
__________________
Making the world a better place one fret at a time.
| | |會 |會 |會 |會 | |:| | |會 |會
  #18  
Old 08-28-2017, 06:46 PM
Bert Nobbins Bert Nobbins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
In Victorian times, it was important to put little cloth socks on piano legs lest their curved carved shape give someone the vapors by reminding them of the oh-so-sensuous appearance of human ankles. In a world where every middle class family owned a piano this was major stuff.
Urban myth. This story was actually invented in England as something that puritanical Americans were supposed to do.

It is dangerous to assume our ancestors were dumber than us.
  #19  
Old 08-28-2017, 09:13 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
ISTM that this would depend on local mores, however. If you're part of a culture where male going topless is no big deal, then a court could easily find that there's no legitimate government interest in forcing them to keep them on. But suppose the local culture is such that bare arms in that culture are as shocking as nudity in another culture. ISTM that the government has the same "legitimate interest" in one as the other.

And if you grant that, then I don't see how free expression factors in. Because if you grant that free expression doesn't go as far as full nudity, then if in another culture a much lesser standards is the cultural equivalent why would free expression come into play there?
I think the ultimate point is that the courts do not believe that government has the right to tell people that they have to follow a certain moral code regarding dress. There's a very good quote from an opinion written by then-Judge Stevens (I believe) noting that this is tantamount to allowing government to do things like requiring someone wear a brown shirt, or requiring that they not wear a beard (both of which are examples from other countries that had bad connotations for "liberty"). And, as Richard Parker notes, it's getting increasingly difficult to justify anti-nudity laws as a result of the jurisprudence on this. So, if you cannot even force people to keep their privates covered, it's hard to see how you can force them to keep their ankles covered.
  #20  
Old 08-28-2017, 09:16 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
It's a little more in flux than you suggest, DSYoungEsq.

There is an ongoing debate about the extent to which clothing choices are inherently expressive speech. In 2017, the weight of authority is a lot closer to that proposition than in 1987.

Also, while courts claim they are employing rational basis in many of these cases, they have also talked about due process rights to control your personal appearance. And even when they formally apply rational basis, it is very often rational basis with teeth--suggesting there is a degree of heightened scrutiny here, not that unlike the gay rights cases post-Lawrence and pre-Windsor.
Are you aware of any Circuit Court of Appeals case which has stated that nakedness in and of itself (as opposed to, say, naked dancing) is protected speech? (I pay little attention to District Court opinions; the F.Supp. is useful only if you're needing something to hang your client's case on and you're desperate; district judges will say the most interesting things in opinions at times. ) I'm not at home, so some of my usual source materials are not at my finger-tips.
  #21  
Old 08-28-2017, 10:26 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Nobbins View Post
Urban myth. This story was actually invented in England as something that puritanical Americans were supposed to do.

It is dangerous to assume our ancestors were dumber than us.
Thanks for the correction.

I don't think our predecessors were any dumber. On average they were less educated and on average had less knowledge of the world beyond their personal experience.

For our purposes here what matters is that fashion is ultimately entirely a matter of taste. Your well-dressed wealthy person of the late 1700s was acutely aware of what being fashionable meant in his/her world. Well-dressed wealthy people in 2017 are equally aware. And yet they wear totally different clothes and affect totally different speech. Why? Because times change.

The Victorians were, by our standards, real uptight about sex, real unfussy about personal hygiene, and real casual about violence. They'd equally think we're the ones who're weird and wrong while they're normal and right.

Who/What is right? Who knows? That's not the point.

The point is it was different then from how it is now. The rules of civilization laid down in law change more slowly than society does. That's often a good thing; it reduces some of the mad gyrations. That's sometimes a bad thing. Not everything was better the old way; some things are changing / being changed for the better.

I don't even argue that modern sexual mores are better. I merely argue that they're different from what came before, and the law is a lagging indicator of that change.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-28-2017 at 10:27 PM.
  #22  
Old 08-28-2017, 10:50 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Are you aware of any Circuit Court of Appeals case which has stated that nakedness in and of itself (as opposed to, say, naked dancing) is protected speech? (I pay little attention to District Court opinions; the F.Supp. is useful only if you're needing something to hang your client's case on and you're desperate; district judges will say the most interesting things in opinions at times. ) I'm not at home, so some of my usual source materials are not at my finger-tips.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes...n_Theatre,_Inc.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre is a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Indiana law banning all nude dancing in private liquor clubs. It is still good law, although part of the opinion cites Bowers v. Hardwick which may make the entire opinion rest on shaky grounds.
  #23  
Old 08-29-2017, 12:27 AM
SCSimmons SCSimmons is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 3,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Depends on jurisdiction:

"San Francisco to Ban Nudity in Restaurants (Wait, It Was Legal to Be Nude in a Restaurant?!)" -- Glamour Magazine --- Oct 25th, 2011 ...
Of course, individual restaurants can set their own dress codes, and eject you if you fail to follow them. But you won't be arrested unless you refuse to leave, and then it would be for trespassing.

"Sir, I'm afraid that it is required that you wear a tie if you wish to dine in this establishment. The management would be happy to loan you one if need be." "Um, so it's OK that I wouldn't be wearing anything else?" "Our dress code has no specifications regarding coats, shirts, pants, or undergarments."

(My uncle had a poster in the guest bathroom at his house (!!) depicting a man staring wide-eyed at a bottomless woman sitting at the next barstool, directly under a sign proclaiming "NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE" ...)
__________________
-Christian
"You won't like me when I'm angry. Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources." -- The Credible Hulk
  #24  
Old 08-29-2017, 01:01 AM
Isilder Isilder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,357
Your television ratings laws may be a better guide than the constitution ?

If the clothing doesn't trigger a "not suitable for children" advisory, or censorship, may be its never going to be banned.
  #25  
Old 08-29-2017, 09:09 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Depends on jurisdiction:

"San Francisco to Ban Nudity in Restaurants (Wait, It Was Legal to Be Nude in a Restaurant?!)" -- Glamour Magazine --- Oct 25th, 2011 ...
Quote:
This just in: The city of San Francisco may ban nudity in restaurants, if a proposed ordinance goes through. I know what you're thinking, "wait, so it's currently legal to dine out nude?" Why yes, it is. In San Francisco.
Early last spring I was in San Francisco and wandering around the Marina district when about 50 people went by on bicycles wearing nothing but silly hats.

It was a lovely unseasonably warm day and it turns out the SF nude bicycling club was having an outing. I eyeballed the rest of the pedestrians & bystanders; the ones who looked local didn't give the nude cyclists much of a second look. Some obvious tourists were pretty flabbergasted. And, true to stereotype, several oriental tourists promptly pulled out their cameras.

SF: it's just not like the rest of the US. Damn good thing too.
  #26  
Old 08-29-2017, 09:42 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
I think the ultimate point is that the courts do not believe that government has the right to tell people that they have to follow a certain moral code regarding dress. There's a very good quote from an opinion written by then-Judge Stevens (I believe) noting that this is tantamount to allowing government to do things like requiring someone wear a brown shirt, or requiring that they not wear a beard (both of which are examples from other countries that had bad connotations for "liberty"). And, as Richard Parker notes, it's getting increasingly difficult to justify anti-nudity laws as a result of the jurisprudence on this. So, if you cannot even force people to keep their privates covered, it's hard to see how you can force them to keep their ankles covered.
Understood. My point is that to the extent that the courts do allow localities to force people to keep their privates covered - which is currently the law in most places to my knowledge - then this raises the question of whether locations where the culture is more conservative can fit a lot more into that same rationale.
  #27  
Old 08-29-2017, 10:48 AM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Depends on jurisdiction:

"San Francisco to Ban Nudity in Restaurants (Wait, It Was Legal to Be Nude in a Restaurant?!)" -- Glamour Magazine --- Oct 25th, 2011 ...

So now carrying one's own cushion everywhere one goes will be de rigueur if this ordinance fails ?
  #28  
Old 08-29-2017, 11:45 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Understood. My point is that to the extent that the courts do allow localities to force people to keep their privates covered - which is currently the law in most places to my knowledge - then this raises the question of whether locations where the culture is more conservative can fit a lot more into that same rationale.
IANA expert, but I'd analogize it this way.

The tide right now is at X level and is slowly going out/down in fits and starts here and there. You're asking if in some particular location it might not go way, way up/in.

Logically it can, recently it hasn't, practically it won't.

In empiricism, the difference between "hasn't" and "can't" is very difficult to discern. The law as a system may aim to be logical. Viewed in any kind of close detail public nudity law is mostly empirical historical accident with some occasional snippets of logic sprinkled on like a rare and expensive spice.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-29-2017 at 11:46 AM.
  #29  
Old 08-29-2017, 12:16 PM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Not disputing your point. But carrying forward from it ...

The challenge with this line of logic is that sexual provocativity is also a community standard. AIUI in those Muslim countries that are big on burqas and such, all display of the female form is considered (excessively) sexually provocative.

In Victorian times, it was important to put little cloth socks on piano legs lest their curved carved shape give someone the vapors by reminding them of the oh-so-sensuous appearance of human ankles. In a world where every middle class family owned a piano this was major stuff.

They also insisted that books by male and female authors be shelved separately so the books wouldn't be doing the ol' hoochy coochy right there in your parlor creating scandal far and wide.


As Richard Parker said just above ultimately it's all arbitrary holdovers from a rabidly bluenosed time compared to most people's ideas today. Seeking logic or consistency within it is pointless.

Ultimately the OP's question is political, not legal. The law and precedent at various levels and locales provide some vague pointers towards where the boundaries are probably sorta somewhere near at least for today.

IMO nobody is in a position to say how any given law in any given locale will or won't work out.
To follow the equality and free "speech" law to its ultimate end, then even separate but equal bathrooms would be illegal. (Isn't that sort of what we're working toward?)

Also note that any law dependent on religious mores risks being overturned because it violates the constitution's ban on "establishment of religion". You'd be hard-pressed to argue local community standards being fairly strict in a locale without dragging the dominant religion into it. OTOH, cultures all over the world, advanced and primitive, do and did cover the genitals so it's a lot easier to argue that is not a religion-based rule.
  #30  
Old 08-29-2017, 12:31 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
To follow the equality and free "speech" law to its ultimate end, then even separate but equal bathrooms would be illegal. (Isn't that sort of what we're working toward?)
...
Bathroom law (even ignoring the recent ructions about folks other than plain ol' hetero Ms & Fs) is a different and surprisingly deep topic. You might want to start a thread on it.

e.g. If a lavatory for males in a building has 3 sit-down toilet stalls, 3 urinals, and 3 washbasins, what is an "equal" facility for females? And why? Show your work for full credit.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-29-2017 at 12:33 PM.
  #31  
Old 08-29-2017, 03:03 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes...n_Theatre,_Inc.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre is a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Indiana law banning all nude dancing in private liquor clubs. It is still good law, although part of the opinion cites Bowers v. Hardwick which may make the entire opinion rest on shaky grounds.
That opinion offers the complete opposite of what I asked you for.
  #32  
Old 08-29-2017, 05:22 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
Your television ratings laws may be a better guide than the constitution ?
Of course not.

For one thing, we don't have television rating laws.

For another, the FCC only has the power to fine specific stations after the fact, for specific things they aired unencrypted on public airwaves, assuming those things drew complaints. So the only television which is controlled, or could ever be controlled, in that fashion is free-to-air broadcast television.

Finally, all aspects of that must be done in consonance with the Constitution.
  #33  
Old 08-29-2017, 06:51 PM
SpoilerVirgin SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Obama Country
Posts: 6,874
Just want to clarify that the current law in San Francisco (upheld by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year) bans public nudity unless you have a parade permit. So the presumably permitted nude bicyclists are fine; just randomly taking off your clothes is not.
  #34  
Old 09-03-2017, 11:13 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
That opinion offers the complete opposite of what I asked you for.
I know, but I cited the case for the proposition that no circuit could plausibly hold that nudity was protected speech when they are presented with binding Supreme Court precedent holding that nudity is not protected speech.

Scalia's concurrence, though not binding, makes a good point. A violation of any law could be considered speech, even if the only message conveyed was a belief that the law was improper. If I drive at .08 BAC in protest that the level is too low, it could be argued that such action is speech.

It would be argued that the State's interest in regulating driving at .08 BAC overrides my speech right, but that's his point: every single law would be subject to heightened scrutiny under a free speech analysis instead of for rational basis.
  #35  
Old 09-03-2017, 11:48 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
[snip] ... SF: it's just not like the rest of the US. Damn good thing too.
If you want to know what the culture of the United States will be in twenty years, go to California today ... and if you want to know what the culture of California will be in twenty years, go to San Francisco ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin View Post
Just want to clarify that the current law in San Francisco (upheld by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year) bans public nudity unless you have a parade permit. So the presumably permitted nude bicyclists are fine; just randomly taking off your clothes is not.
San Francisco is losing it's edge ... too many other communities are actively trying to be more liberal and it's beginning to wear on the San Franciscans ... Jerry's gone and things have been going downhill ever since ...

The point is that before 2012, one could just randomly take off their clothes in public ...
  #36  
Old 09-04-2017, 05:57 AM
Banksiaman Banksiaman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Supposing you have a jurisdiction in which the majority of the population dresses extremely conservatively. Is there anything stopping the local government from passing a local ordinance forbidding anyone from dressing out of line with the "local custom"?

.....
I've been told until the 1950s if you were a man out in public and were 'properly dressed' and were not wearing a hat, older Australians felt it was their birthright to tell you off.

Although there was no legal basis, the moral authority of these interfering old deadshits was strongly socially sanctioned, so your scenario is not at all far-fetched.

And because history comes back to haunt us, the conservative nationalists here are once again calling for the days of the clothing police, this time because it it is devout women wearing burqas who have brought society to the crumbling precipice where it is now.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017