Factual answers only: Why does the ACLU oppose VA's ban on teen nude camps?

[dre2xl]

Let me warn you, I DO not want to hear anything about how evil ACLU is, or how evil Republicans are, or how nudist camps are very nonsexual in nature. I just want a factual answer to a factual question. Here’s the cite:

Cite: http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=639

Now, my question is, I can see them opposing the ban if this were a law banning a nudist camps for consenting adults, but why this?

This isn’t even banning nude teenage camps outright, they only require paternal accompaniment. There are a whole host of restrictions on what minors can and cannot do, and there obviously are a whole bunch of restrictions on what parents can do with their minors.

-Education (even with homeschooling, many states require demonstrated competency or progress)
-Restrictions on voluntary medical procedures like bodypiercing
-vaccination is FORCED
-Driving, drinking, etc.
-Child abuse

So parents obviously can’t do whatever they want with their children as it is, and as such “interfering with the right of families to make their own lifestyle choices” seems to be incomplete to me. Why did the ACLU choose to fight this ban? Is there some information I’m missing?

Again, factual answers only please. IANANT, so I don’t really care one way or another, but I was genuinely surprised to hear that ACLU would choose to fight this ban.

[SmackFu]

A link to the suit. The claims:

26. The amended Va. Code § 35.1-18 violates the plaintiffs’ right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
27. The amended Va. Code § 35.1-18 violates the plaintiff parents’ right to control the upbringing and education of their children under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
28. There is no legitimate government interest for Va. Code § 35.1-18.
29. The amended Va. Code § 35.1-18 violates the plaintiffs’ right to free association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is unsupported by any legitimate government interest.

To more specifically answer your question, all the restrictions you listed have demonstrable negative effects to the child. The ACLU’s position is that there is no similar effect in this case, and that the law was passed just because the legislators are uncomfortable with the concept. And that is not a valid reason for the government to interfere with a parent’s right to raise their child as they see fit.

[dre2xl]

Thanks for the excellent answer-- I understand much better now. Moderator, close this thread if you want…

[Polycarp]

Well, here’s what Google came up with:

http://www.local6.com/news/3476699/detail.html This is an Associated Press story (Bob Lewis was the reporter) repeated at WTOP and other sites.

“Legislators overreacted and in the process they substantially interfered with the right of families to make lifestyle choices,” Virginia ACLU executive director Kent Willis said. “Using the overall logic of this law, legislators are now free to prevent children from swimming, playing baseball or riding a bus.”

“These are parents who have raised their kids in a nudist lifestyle, and they – the parents and the kids – view nudity as something natural and ordinary as opposed to something erotic or sexual,” said Rebecca Glenberg, the lead attorney.

“So for these kids, being around other naked kids is something perfectly normal, and the camp is very highly supervised,” she said.

The thread at SNOPES is not very informative.

From http://aboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2004_06_27_aboutpolitics_archive.html :

“Government should not interfere with how parents raise their children,” said Rebecca Glenberg, ACLU’s legal director. “This is a law based on prejudice and misunderstanding.”

According to an ACLU statement, the law violates the constitutional rights of privacy and association, and the right of parents to “direct the upbringing of their children.”

And the piece de resistance, a press release from the Virginia ACLU website itself:

http://www.acluva.org/pressreleases2004/june29nudistcamp.doc

June 29, 2004
ACLU Challenges Virginia Ban on Teen Nudist Camps

The ACLU of Virginia today filed a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond challenging the constitutionality of a new Virginia law that bans juvenile nudist camps. Passed by the Virginia General Assembly earlier this year, the law takes effect on July 1.

The ACLU is seeking a preliminary injunction from the court to prevent the state from blocking a juvenile camp planned for July 24-31 at White Tail Park, a nudist resort in Ivor, Virginia. A similar camp held last summer prompted Delegate Jack Reid to introduce the camp-banning legislation. Reid’s bill passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a 98-2 margin. The Governor released a pun-filled statement of his support for the bill when he signed it.

“This has to be one of the most uninformed pieces of legislation ever to pass the Virginia General Assembly,” said ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis. “Teen nudist camps in other parts of the country have operated for years without incident, and there were no problems with the gathering in Ivor last year. Yet solely because they were personally ill at ease with the concept, legislators wiped out what is by all accounts a wholesome, carefully controlled, parent-approved activity for young people in Virginia.”

The teen nudist camp in Ivor is heavily supervised by carefully screened adults. White Tail Park operates under strict rules that prohibit “intimate contact, suggestive behavior, overt sexuality or sexually provocative behavior.”

“Legislators overreacted,” added Willis, “and in the process, they substantially interfered with the right of families to make lifestyle choices. Using the logic of this law, legislators are now free to prevent children from swimming, playing baseball, or riding a bus.”

The ACLU asserts that the Virginia law violates the constitutional rights of privacy and association, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The law does not prevent minors from attending nudist camps, but requires their parents or legal guardians to be present when they do.

Three families, including parents and their minor children, are plaintiffs in the case, along with White Tail Park and the American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region. The children all intend to participate in this year’s camp.

The case is White Tail Park v. Robert B. Stroube. (Stroube is head of the Virginia State Health Commission, which oversees private camps in Virginia.) Lawyers for the plaintiffs are ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca K. Glenberg and Richmond practitioner Frank M. Feibelman. Electronic copies of the papers filed in court today are available by contacting the ACLU at the number below or by sending an email to acluva@acluva.org.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Google News: “ACLU teen nudist camp”

Teen nudist law faces challenge

An ACLU legal director called the legislation a "knee-jerk reaction" against a legal lifestyle. 

"There was no good reason to enact this law, and there is no reason to believe that these camps are harmful to children in any way," said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the Richmond-based ACLU of Virginia. 
Earlier this year, the General Assembly overwhelmingly passed the law that says teens can only attend a nudist camp if a parent, grandparent or legal guardian is present. The law goes into effect July 1, unless legal action is taken. 
Miss Glenberg said "litigation is likely" against the law, which targets Camp White Tail in Ivor, a city in southeastern Virginia. Camp White Tail runs an annual week-long nudist camp for nearly 50 teens and preteens. 
Bob Roche, the camp's manager, said he is working with the ACLU and will file an injunction in the coming weeks. The ACLU would not confirm this. 
Mr. Roche said that unless the law is repealed, it will affect this year's camp, which is to be held the last week of July. 
"There's a whole bunch of kids that won't be able to come without their parents," Mr. Roche said. "We want to overturn this extremely bad law that is unconstitutional, and if we have to, we will sue for money." 
Mr. Roche said the law discriminates against nude teens. "It singles them out — a church group that lets students take nude showers doesn't need parents there. A youth hockey camp or summer camp doesn't need their parents," he said. 
Miss Glenberg agreed. 
"There's absolutely nothing unlawful or wrong about not wearing clothes, as long as you are not in public, where other people might be offended," she said. "By denying children the opportunity to go to this summer camp and by denying parents the right to choose where to send their children during the summer, the state is trampling on their right to privacy and the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children." 

There are teen nudist camps operating in Arizona and Florida, so they are not inherently unlawful.

[dre2xl]

Thanks for the additional information all. I was primarily wondering why the ACLU would choose to oppose this when parents already have so many restrictions on childrearing. I see two good reasons within the responses:

(1) The other restrictions in place are for the wellbring of the children, whereas this restriction does not appear to advance the wellbeing of children at all.
(2) This particular restriction unfairly singles out nudists compared to many, many other activities where a group of teenagers could get naked without paternal supervision.

As I don’t believe in unenforceable laws, I’ll throw my support in favor of the ACLU on this one because of #2. Thanks all.

[Polycarp]

Not to argue in GQ and against the OP’s specific request, nor to advocate nudism in particular, but in gauging what is going on here, it needs to be remembered that one purpose behind the nudist movement is to de-eroticize the naked human body as body. If you can go through a day working alongside an attractive clothed person without constantly being erotically stimulated by his/her attractiveness, goes the thinking, then spending time doing normal non-sexual activities with an attractive nude person effectively divorces “nakedness” from “sexual turn-on.” Hence there is actually some sense in placing teens in a supervised nude environment together, from the POV of “turning down the hormone-o-stat.” A boy who spent two weeks last summer playing tennis, swimming, and hiking with several naked girls his age is not going to be turned on by hot pants and a midriff-showing blouse in school that fall.

[jayjay]

@Polycarp

Not to argue in GQ and against the OP’s specific request, nor to advocate nudism in particular, but in gauging what is going on here, it needs to be remembered that one purpose behind the nudist movement is to de-eroticize the naked human body as body. If you can go through a day working alongside an attractive clothed person without constantly being erotically stimulated by his/her attractiveness, goes the thinking, then spending time doing normal non-sexual activities with an attractive nude person effectively divorces “nakedness” from “sexual turn-on.” Hence there is actually some sense in placing teens in a supervised nude environment together, from the POV of “turning down the hormone-o-stat.” A boy who spent two weeks last summer playing tennis, swimming, and hiking with several naked girls his age is not going to be turned on by hot pants and a midriff-showing blouse in school that fall.

While I really hate to disagree with Poly, that’s not necessarily true. To someone who spends a great deal of time with others of the opposite sex (or the same sex, for gays and lesbians), clothing can add a great deal of sex appeal, simply by adding a bit of mystery to the package. Sure, you don’t necessarily feel attracted to someone you spend weeks with nude, but a stranger wearing just enough clothing to cover the “hot spots” can still put someone into hormonal overdrive.

[dre2xl]

Polycarp, my request was largely to stave off kneejerk answers and/or reactions. I have read a bit about these camps and I do agree that nudist camps are LESS likely than “clothed” camps be orgy hotbeds just for the reasons you stated.

It’d be interesting to have a GD on how successful nudists are in their endeavors to desexualize the human body, and if there is even a need to desexualize the human body at all. IMHO I think back to Piers Anthony’s Apprentice Adept series, wherein he depicts a world where clothes are illegal. The hero doesn’t become excited by naked women. However, when the hero has a chance to see women in clothes, particularly feminine ones, he becomes quite sexually aroused. I can concur… most females hate speedos on a guy; they prefer normal swimming trunks.

We’re going into GD territory here so I’ll stop, but it’d be quite interesting to have a discussion on this.

[samclem]

Closed at the request of the OP.

The question was answered, and we seem to be drifiting.

samclem GQ moderator