This article reports that it's not illegal to be naked in public in Seattle. It apparently only becomes so, according to the article, when wearing your birthday suit is done with "the intent to alarm and offend." Last summer, I saw the naked bikers and revelers at the Fremont Solstice Festival — but in that instance, I assumed that it was OK because police were simply looking the other way, not because it was legally sanctioned activity. Very interesting.
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but such an ambiguous and vague policy raises more questions than it answers. For instance, when is public nudity alarming and offensive, and when is it not? Does one's physical composition have anything to do with this? Without going into too much detail, I'd suspect that the naked appearance of some people is more alarming and offensive than it might be with others. And is denial an acceptable defense? If I choose to shed my attire in public and someone complains, can I apologize to the responding officers and say that I didn't mean to offend anyone? Would they document this and then decline to arrest me?
Most importantly, is this a legal standard worth testing?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ha, give it a try, Pete. I'd be interested in learning the results. :P
for science!
Take it off.
This is your mama. Don't do it. But I must say that your recent postings seem to imply that we of the older generation are conservatives who would, for example, deny gays the right to marry, or be shocked by nudity. In my experience, not so. I find that many younger people tend to be very judgmental of people not like themselves. Be kind to us oldsters, remember: we protested Viet Nam AND originated streaking.
Post a Comment