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.
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.
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” …)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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 …
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.
