NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/09/college.nudity.reut/index.html

There was a case in Florida in which a couple sued Girls Gone Wild because their 17 year old daughter was featured in one of their videos.
The case went up to the federal appellate level and the federal court ruled that the parents could not get any thing from Girls Gone Wild nor could Girls Gone Wild be punished. The reason being that underage girls have a constitutional right to expose their breasts or just plain get naked in public places. The judge also ruled that the parents were violating the young girls rights by sheltering her too much.
The only problem is that case only applies to the southern states.

May be these students could do something and get it applied to the northern states, then eventually the west.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/09/college.nudity.reut/index.html

There was a case in Florida in which a couple sued Girls Gone Wild because their 17 year old daughter was featured in one of their videos.
The case went up to the federal appellate level and the federal court ruled that the parents could not get any thing from Girls Gone Wild nor could Girls Gone Wild be punished. The reason being that underage girls have a constitutional right to expose their breasts or just plain get naked in public places. The judge also ruled that the parents were violating the young girls rights by sheltering her too much.
The only problem is that case only applies to the southern states.

May be these students could do something and get it applied to the northern states, then eventually the west.

An awful lot of laws are violating the Constitution, in that case.

Don't get me wrong, though; I think outlawing voluntary nudity is one of the most preposterous constraints on personal liberty ever dreamed up by one group to oppress another.

Well I don't know about the underage people but I could care less if an adult goes nude anywhere they want. Even if it was someone that may not be of my preference to see naked, why should my preference come into play anyways. Nature and God has quite a few more things to teach us if we want to control everything and anything that ever crosses our eyes paths, that sounds about as self defeating as a war on drugs but even more impossible. We may as well all lock ourselves in a box if were that afraid of seeing more than 10% of a fellow humans body. We have a law that allows women the same right to take off their top as a man in eugene oregon.

I don't understand why people get so worked up about nudity, if the girl can make concess decisions and chose to do it then theres nothign wrong with it. The body was made naked, all other animals are naked, why confine our natural beauty with synthetic beauty? Clothes purpose is to keep you warm and protect against harsh weather so if it doesnt bother you you should be able to walk around nude, sure at first people would stare (god that would drive me crazy guys just staring at me b/c im naked) but hey they'll get over it it would be a shock at first but eventually it wouldn't bother anyone. It doesn't do anything to harm another person and its not like anyone would ever live their life without ever seeing a naked body, i mean really there in tha movies all the time. I love being naked its more pure and your more open about yourself, and people cant fake thigns (like make themselves look better, or worse than they are.) Well thats just this chics opinion so.... but i dont see anything wrong with being how you were born.

Well I don't know about the underage people but I could care less if an adult goes nude anywhere they want. Even if it was someone that may not be of my preference to see naked, why should my preference come into play anyways. Nature and God has quite a few more things to teach us if we want to control everything and anything that ever crosses our eyes paths, that sounds about as self defeating as a war on drugs but even more impossible. We may as well all lock ourselves in a box if were that afraid of seeing more than 10% of a fellow humans body. We have a law that allows women the same right to take off their top as a man in eugene oregon.
I bet if Fox was doing a live report at one of those parks and woman did do that, the FCC would probably fine both FOX and the woman.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/09/college.nudity.reut/index.html

There was a case in Florida in which a couple sued Girls Gone Wild because their 17 year old daughter was featured in one of their videos.
The case went up to the federal appellate level and the federal court ruled that the parents could not get any thing from Girls Gone Wild nor could Girls Gone Wild be punished. The reason being that underage girls have a constitutional right to expose their breasts or just plain get naked in public places. The judge also ruled that the parents were violating the young girls rights by sheltering her too much.
The only problem is that case only applies to the southern states.

May be these students could do something and get it applied to the northern states, then eventually the west.

Well, did the kid ask to be in it? Laws are laws regarding underage nudity, but I can see where Girls Gone Wild can't be forced to cough up money to the parents in this case. Maybe they need to be punished for filming someone underage, but that's about it.

I bet if Fox was doing a live report at one of those parks and woman did do that, the FCC would probably fine both FOX and the woman.

I dont know but dont want to assume either. I know it would be an interesting scotus discussion over states vs federal (federalist papers interpretation) rights and constitutional right to expression. Plus a human right to be in your own skin.

don't you like to think that when you get naked to have sex with someone that should be kept...special. I mean if people were naked all the time, some of the meaning to sex-of offering up yourself and sharing that pleasure with someone else would be lost.

Well, did the kid ask to be in it? Laws are laws regarding underage nudity, but I can see where Girls Gone Wild can't be forced to cough up money to the parents in this case. Maybe they need to be punished for filming someone underage, but that's about it.
nope, the judge ruled they can't even be punished for that. Cause it was the girl's own fault.

The people who are bothered by that are free to keep their clothes on...

don't you like to think that when you get naked to have sex with someone that should be kept...special. I mean if people were naked all the time, some of the meaning to sex-of offering up yourself and sharing that pleasure with someone else would be lost.

Sure but its not really the outside of a person that turns most people on sexually. Sight is equal to any of the other 5 senses, but I still prefer a couple of those over sight imho. Although that may be because I am with someone that I could not dream to be better visually to my taste buds!

And I thought they were complaining that our society was overly fasinated with sex.

nope, the judge ruled they can't even be punished for that. Cause it was the girl's own fault.

Not sure what's done to the girl in that case...Girls Gone Wild was free not to photograph her.

nope, the judge ruled they can't even be punished for that. Cause it was the girl's own fault.
But what about child porn laws and the laws regarding the distribution of child porn?

An awful lot of laws are violating the Constitution, in that case.
Yes. Congressmen and Sentors and Presidents as well. Especially the current ones.

But what about child porn laws and the laws regarding the distribution of child porn?

Porn means sex. A kid running around in public naked and someone catching it on film is not child porn.

Every time I hear about some idiot photobooth clerk who sics the cops on a mother who took a picture of her kids in the tub I seriously consider how one might draft legislation against stupidity.

Porn means sex. A kid running around in public naked and someone catching it on film is not child porn.

Every time I hear about some idiot photobooth clerk who sics the cops on a mother who took a picture of her kids in the tub I seriously consider how one might draft legislation against stupidity.
Actually distributing pics. of anyone under age even if they are not engaged in a sexual act is considered a violation of child porn laws....And I agree with the whole pics. of your kids in the tub.... I think it is all about context.... Kids in tub is just cute for memories and such.....Naked young teen is masturbation fodder for pervs home alone in the dark with out kids of their own...

I dont c why people should go around nude.

there are some people i just dont wanna see nude and the people you do wanna see would slap you for staring at them

Come on, you know if a mature-looking chick with DD's is on flashing her stuff for 5 seconds or so, you wont be paying attention if she is 12 or 21. :p I believe though, if you "do it for the camera" you are basically agreeing to a 400 page legal contract by GGW. So, she would be breaking the contract.

Nudity should be legal sans for the pelvic region, solely due to health concerns.

The rest is a matter of just being logical. Pants are nice when it snows.

Actually distributing pics. of anyone under age even if they are not engaged in a sexual act is considered a violation of child porn laws....And I agree with the whole pics. of your kids in the tub.... I think it is all about context.... Kids in tub is just cute for memories and such.....Naked young teen is masturbation fodder for pervs home alone in the dark with out kids of their own...
how would we know who was doing that, with out:
1. violating their privacy rights
2. knowing thier thoughts

People are going to masturbate to thoughts or photos of young teens whether they are naked or not. There is no way you are going to be able to stop people from masturbating to the image of a young teen. You don't need an actual picture in your hand to do that. It is in fact only natural. Your thesis is thus seriously flawed.

how would we know who was doing that, with out:
1. violating their privacy rights
2. knowing thier thoughts

People are going to masturbate to thoughts or photos of young teens whether they are naked or not. There is no way you are going to be able to stop people from masturbating to the image of a young teen. You don't need an actual picture in your hand to do that. It is in fact only natural. Your thesis is thus seriously flawed.
Reason nature designed humans this way is that females reproductive years are confined between 16 and 32. Any older and the female has a 60% likelihood of having a physically or mentally deficient child and that risk goes up one percentage point with each additional year. Hence, men are programmed by evolution and by natural selection to prefer young females.
Now females younger than 16 or 15 would be a problem cause nature and evolution did not program us for that. Well, down to 12 or 13 it could be debated.

Come on, you know if a mature-looking chick with DD's is on flashing her stuff for 5 seconds or so, you wont be paying attention if she is 12 or 21. :p I believe though, if you "do it for the camera" you are basically agreeing to a 400 page legal contract by GGW. So, she would be breaking the contract.
Its only a legal contract if she signs a peice of paper or agrees to it while she is in a sober state of mind. The act of exposing yourself does not make you bound to a contract. You must be capable of making a rational decision in order to make a contract.

I'm ok with female nudity. The female form is the most beautiful thing on the planet IMO.

But male nudity offends me.

Nudity should be legal sans for the pelvic region, solely due to health concerns.

The rest is a matter of just being logical. Pants are nice when it snows.
Agreed on the sanitation part.

I'm ok with female nudity. The female form is the most beautiful thing on the planet IMO.

But male nudity offends me.

Well anything between the legs would be unsanitary and threaten the public health whether it be male or females. People should wear underwear at the least. Unless you don't mind getting diseases down there from having it exposed. Under wear would just make it easier to keep that region clean which would be very difficult if you just kept it exposed all the time.

There was a case in Florida in which a couple sued Girls Gone Wild because their 17 year old daughter was featured in one of their videos. The case went up to the federal appellate level and the federal court ruled that the parents could not get any thing from Girls Gone Wild nor could Girls Gone Wild be punished. The reason being that underage girls have a constitutional right to expose their breasts or just plain get naked in public places. The judge also ruled that the parents were violating the young girls rights by sheltering her too much.

Could you give me a citation or link to this appellate court decision? I'm willing to believe it if I see it, until then it sounds like urban myth, particularly the part about Southern State judges saying it is OK to go naked if you are underage and that parents who keep their underage children from doing so are violating the child's rights. Without some evidence that a federal judge actully said this, it sounds like BS to me.

I too want to see a copy of that apellet decision.. If she was an underaged child .. she can't legaly give her consent to anything wihtout her parents, and they can't legally film her naked even if she was doing it on her own accord.. as well in that other case with nudity on campus.. someone remarked about constitituional laws being voilated. This voilation is only based on UR own loose interpretation.. infact if you try to walk butt naked in the streets of new york will quickly be arrested for indecent exposure.. right to free expression has its limits as all things do. I for one am not ready to have to deal with people walking around naked whenver they want (MANY people were not meant to be seen in public naked).. they can express themselves in their own homes, or on private properties such as nudist colonies.. they do not have the right to expose themeslves in public because our soceity has already deemed the acceptable limits on this freedom. As so reflected in our laws.

In most cases nudity isnt practical, climate keeps peoples clothes on easier than any law ever will. Also public nudity is problem in that you cant do anything, you know all those stores with signs that say shirts and shoes required?

If you wanted to be an ass you could go in with JUST shirts and shoes, but you would be told to leave the building, and if you dont leave you can be arrested. I remmember reading an article about a guy who was arrested in a Taco Bell for wearing a speado, technically he was arrested when he became beligerent about being told to leave the resturant. All buisnesses are private organizations and can make whatever decency rules they feel are appropriate.

Theres a time and place for nudity, college campus isnt either of them, your

there to learn, not to walk around showing your dangly bits.

Nudists are idiots.

Nudity should be legal sans for the pelvic region, solely due to health concerns.

The rest is a matter of just being logical. Pants are nice when it snows.

I bet our pelvic regions would be a lot healthier if they got more air and didn't have to be wrapped in moisture-trapping layers of cloth. *nod*

Theres a time and place for nudity, college campus isnt either of them, your

there to learn, not to walk around showing your dangly bits.

Nudists are idiots.

You learn a lot by exposing your dangly bits. Like caution around open flames. *nod*

Could you give me a citation or link to this appellate court decision? I'm willing to believe it if I see it, until then it sounds like urban myth, particularly the part about Southern State judges saying it is OK to go naked if you are underage and that parents who keep their underage children from doing so are violating the child's rights. Without some evidence that a federal judge actully said this, it sounds like BS to me.
Not BS. this happened in Florida in the late 90's.And it was woman judge who made the decision.

I too want to see a copy of that apellet decision.. If she was an underaged child .. she can't legaly give her consent to anything wihtout her parents, and they can't legally film her naked even if she was doing it on her own accord.. as well in that other case with nudity on campus.. someone remarked about constitituional laws being voilated. This voilation is only based on UR own loose interpretation.. infact if you try to walk butt naked in the streets of new york will quickly be arrested for indecent exposure.. right to free expression has its limits as all things do. I for one am not ready to have to deal with people walking around naked whenver they want (MANY people were not meant to be seen in public naked).. they can express themselves in their own homes, or on private properties such as nudist colonies.. they do not have the right to expose themeslves in public because our soceity has already deemed the acceptable limits on this freedom. As so reflected in our laws.
As I said alredy, the decision only applies to the south cause that is the area covered by the appellate court's decision. As such, New York would be outside their jurisdiction and hence not affected by any of their decisions.
No she can't legally give her consent but if she is in public place, they can film her. That's because when you are in a public place, you have no reasonable right to privacy.
No its not my interpretation, it was the court's interpretation.
As for your last point, our socieity has had many other barbaric laws on the books that have also been overturned.

I'll envoke my right now.

*streaks through thread*

This is something worth fighting for, and I hope they win. They took our senior streak last year from us at our school, and I was pretty annoyed by it (this was a cracking down on the pre-drinking, though). I wasn't pissed, since the group to which I belonged had a clothing-optional house on campus and I got to see that kind of thing on a regular basis, but it was still an irritating termination of a tradition in which I had wanted to take part!

You learn a lot by exposing your dangly bits. Like caution around open flames. *nod*

If you enjoy roasting your nuts by standing that close naked to an open fire,

then more health to you.

The first singed pubic hair on the bottom of my scrotum would alert me of

course.

On a side note, you wouldnt have this problem if you were wearing something

protective, like a pair of Levis.

If you enjoy roasting your nuts by standing that close naked to an open fire,

then more health to you.

The first singed pubic hair on the bottom of my scrotum would alert me of

course.

On a side note, you wouldnt have this problem if you were wearing something

protective, like a pair of Levis.

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/grinser/grinning-smiley-019.gif

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12850
In this case, the judge ruled that videotaping minors exposing themselves in public did not constitute child porn.
I am currently searching for other related cases.

the only reason that people even notice nudity is because of cloths. nudity in its self is not the issue. if everyone were naked then no one would notice. it would take an actual sexual encounter to become aroused. "not to rule out strong chemical attraction" clothes are what makes nudity so noticable and attractive/ unattractive.

the only reason that people even notice nudity is because of cloths. nudity in its self is not the issue. if everyone were naked then no one would notice. it would take an actual sexual encounter to become aroused.

What about sexual thoughts hmm?

most sexual thoughts occure because you wonder what some one looks like without cloths, and then proceeds from there. it is like a wrapped christmas presant, you want to know what is inside, and what it does.

if nudity were every day then you would not notice it, like when you live by a freeway, at first when you moved there you noticed the noise every day, and could not sleep, but then you got used to it and now you sleep all night long and have to really pay attention to notice.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/09/college.nudity.reut/index.html

There was a case in Florida in which a couple sued Girls Gone Wild because their 17 year old daughter was featured in one of their videos.
The case went up to the federal appellate level and the federal court ruled that the parents could not get any thing from Girls Gone Wild nor could Girls Gone Wild be punished. The reason being that underage girls have a constitutional right to expose their breasts or just plain get naked in public places. The judge also ruled that the parents were violating the young girls rights by sheltering her too much.
The only problem is that case only applies to the southern states.

May be these students could do something and get it applied to the northern states, then eventually the west.
I strongly agree. My population is on the verge of breaking 100 mil, once it does, I can finally start nuking those evil anti-nudists! :mp5: :D

YOu could do that. Or you could create a nanotechnological plague that destroys all natural and synthetic cloths. *nod*

That's kinda like forcing them to be nude against their will. We only nuke those who have LAWS and CULTURAL TABOOS against nudity. We WILL take that nanotech plague option into consideration though. ;)

BTW, what the hell is this smiley: :gundge:
:confused:

I'm still trying to figure that smilie out. Considering how it's used, I infer that it's some sort of weapon. But It looks more like he's throwing confetti...while angry.

Clothing is there to keep us warm in winter, and to cover up ugly fat people.

I don't really care what they choose to do, but they can freeze in winter for all I care.

ANother link:

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2002/08/12/story4.html

Abreast of the law

Is this an episode of "The Practice" or what?

Florida District Judge Anne Conway ruled last week that the makers of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series did not violate the rights of 17-year-old Veronica Lane, who flashed her breasts to a cameraman in Panama City. Lane accepted beads in exchange for her boobs.

The litigious Lane was seeking unspecified damages, arguing the film and all involved with it, had violated her right to privacy.

Privacy, Veronica? You were walking half-naked on a public street. You could have been arrested for indecent exposure.

Taken from here:
http://www.broward.com/mld/dailynews/4653551.htm

most sexual thoughts occure because you wonder what some one looks like without cloths, and then proceeds from there. it is like a wrapped christmas presant, you want to know what is inside, and what it does.


Well my pubescent thoughts used to go well beyond merely undressing them.