Suppose I’m at home on a rather hot, humid day and I’m keeping myself cool in the most environmentally-friendly way possible, by being completely naked.
Now suppose that someone knocks on my door. Further, let’s assume that this person has shown up without providing me with any advanced notification.
Legally, am I required to put some pants on before opening my door?
The way I see it (I’m not an attorney), by showing up unannounced, this person is invading my privacy, and therefore I should not be required to conform to his or her personal tastes while I’m within the confines of my own home. Is this view accurate?
I’m guessing that laws against indecent exposure vary from place to place, but that they certainly could forbid you from exposing yourself, even while on your own property, to someone who did not wish to see what you have to offer. Sexual harassment could also enter into it. Unless you had some pretty stern “No Trespassing” signs posted, I doubt that you could argue that someone was “invading your privacy” just by knocking on your door.
I was going to say, how about if you had a sign saying “I answer the door naked. If you don’t want to see, don’t knock and/or avert your eyes.” I don’t know about legally, but morally, that would put the onus on the knocker. OTOH, some people are required to come round - police, etc - and it mightn’t be fair on them…
I did something like that to a couple of Mormons once. They knocked and wanted to share the good news. I told them they were welcome but that my home was a clothing-free zone. They declined to strip and I haven’t been bothered since.
Depending on the orientation of your door, you’re also exposing yourself to people who didn’t even come near the door (e.g. driving by or walking along the side of the street).
I’m guessing you are referring to Egal v. State, 469 So.2d 196 Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1985, which is a fascinating case.
The court described the factual situation as follows:
The court went on to discuss prior case law to help determine if the exposure was “lewd and lascivious” as required by statute:
The court went on to find that:
The court went on to discuss the social mores surrounding nudity, but eventually affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
On the female side, I found Moore v. City of Berkeley to be another fascinating case. It had the following fact situation:
However, the police refused to arrest Ms. Moore and Ms. Shilling. Ms. Sipsy, however, made a “citizen’s arrest” of the women, and the police took them to jail. The charges were later dropped.
So, to answer the OP, you can answer the door naked, but don’t do it with "“wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design”. It’s probably easier to just put on a robe, though.