A Call for Help Naked Hiking

[Greenbare Woods]

Sure Jon. Repost if you think its good.

[John P]

I will not say "Well put Bob", because I've already explained that the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it legal in every state to print or show anything you want to anyone, short of obscenity, and the courts have repeatedly said that non-sexual nudity is not obscene. If this topic is going to continue, I'd really appreciate not having to state this over and over. Is there actually some reason why people might not want to believe it?

As for "contacting FreewalkerMA", we're together on a naturist hiking trip in Colorado(!!) but when I started writing this he was taking a rest:


Then the call came for the party to assemble to do our afternoon hike, so I had to put this aside, and then we went out to dinner, and then we looked over people's pictures from the week, so now it's the morning of the following day. Dan knows about John and Hiking Naked, and we've talked about what's happening and he'll decide what he wants to do in response. I don't tell anyone else they're wrong for supporting the site, but I'll say I don't support it myself, and why. Applause for anyone who tries to get John of Hiking Naked to change his policy.

[jbeegoode]

Thanks for the contact effort John P.

I don't know if you are aware of the following, but I know that it is likely foreign to some of us, so I'll put it out.

The airwaves are considered an area of privledge, an entity owned and doled out by the government. They are subject to rulings about the public interests and "protecting" people. Like driving is a privilege, because of need for order and safety, even though it could be seen as restricting free movement. That's how people got fined when Jackson flashed her nipple at the Super Bowl. Certain obscenities, which are not.

This is wrong and it does curb free speech and expression, but then again, judges have been ruling with the excuse of public interest, prurient interest, going back at least more than a century. Personally, I'd call it unconstitutional. There is movement to do such to the internet, as it it is seen as subject to those wrong principles. There is fear of reprisal, or government stepping in and providing restrictions, IF we don't police ourselves. There is much controversy with the FCC wanting to allow private entities to police the internet, and private entities would use that for profit, as well as dictating (unelected) free speech to us all.

When I grew up, there was a Supreme Court that held the 1st Amendment principle absolutely. Censorship still happened and still does, but didn't at the Supreme Court level. One day, the court ruled that yelling fire in a theater was not upheld by the constitution and it has been downhill, slow but sure, methodical, every since, during my lifetime.

The current court, a group with politicians in robes, tend to interpret the constitution with less absolutism and agree with excuses to wear away the absolute God Given Rights. They see things as what THEY interpret the founding fathers were getting at. There is controversy between the right-wing, who declare that courts are making up laws/legislating with their interpretations, while they appoint people who do just that. Then the other more left side of the coin that declares the same. Personally, I was happy with the Warren Court of my youth, absolute, simple, knew where we stood, principles, others may differ. But these factors don't make for free speech, Supreme Court or no. It takes years and lots of money to get a case there, and when it doesn't always make it the actual working law of the land in practice, when a case is won. My case cost around $500,000 bucks to get there, $350,000 just to get to the next lower court.

So, I for one, don't believe that we are protected. We can be sued in a civil, not criminal court. We can be pulled off of the street, abused and beaten and/or imprisoned for expressing that non-sexual nudity is not obscene. This is why we must be proactive to educate, and get the body freedom message out there, world wide.

Just take your kids nude pics to Walgreens anymore. There is another example. When Child Protective Services are involved, or the wrong judge is on the bench and there are children around, there is not effective Constitutional protection.

Still, we don't know what John's motives were. Let's hope for the best outcome.

Hiking Colorado! Trip Report! Call for trip report! I know that you're having fun, ya gotta share some of it, that's the unwritten rule...
...or maybe written?

We're getting out of the heat and doing some car camping, some retreat work on ourselves and backpacking all of next week. We'll be in the Arizona White Mountains at around 9000 ft.
Jbee

[John P]

JBG, I'm afraid I can't agree with a lot of what you say there (surprise, eh) but there are some things you're obviously wrong about, and I expect I can make you admit it. I claim there was no golden age when the U.S. Supreme Court held an absolutely liberal view about freedom of the press. Far from it: into the 1950s, nudist literature was regarded as obscene and was prohibited from the mail, with the agreement of the courts. Then there was a brief period when nudism was held to offer enough merit that it wasn't legally obscene, and that was when we had the heyday of the nudist magazines produced for non-nudists, being the closest legal approach to pornography. Eventually the rising tide of liberalism lifted the porn industry away from nudism, but I don't think the effect of that era has ever totally gone away.

Broadcast (not cable or satellite) TV is indeed regulated because the electromagnetic spectrum is limited, and broadcasters had to be licensed, which led to demands that they had to use the airwaves "in the public interest", which meant no erotica. But by the time the final decision about "Nipplegate" happened, it was pretty much irrelevant, because broadcast TV has declined in importance. I'm sorry that naturists so often feel that something was lost there, though: it was an issue of obscenity, not nudity, and we ought to be eager to put ourselves on the right side of that boundary. Just as we ought to be insisting that children will suffer no harm from any naturist activity!

I will post a trip report about our Colorado adventure in the appropriate section.

[eyesup]

Whoever eventually assumes the management of the Naked Hiking site can change the policy at their discretion, can't they?

Much quicker and easier than a long campaign to get him to change it. I am assuming he had his reasons for it in the 1st place.

Duane

[reubenT]

I always ignored the 18 restriction,  figured it was just for legal safety,  knowing that there was nothing there a child shouldn't see.  And much that would benefit.    So how many kids are on non filtered computers?  The computer or a website doesn't know how old I am until I tell it.   And I think a pretty high percentage of them,  when they hit an adults only or over 18 only,  their curiosity will arouse,  will claim to be of age just to see what's it's all about.    And if they start talking and the regular inhabitants realize they are underage.  I don't think anyone would chase them away.      That's how real life works, the over 18 only verbal barrier is very little barrier, next to none really.   Only filtering programs on the users computer,  installed by parents or someone,  would keep them away if they got interested.    The human element of   "tell them they can't have it and it'll be just what they want"    Which is closely related to the inventor mindset.   If you want something invented,  find a good inventor and tell him he can't do it.    That gets the thoughts rolling,  and he says;  "oh yah?   watch me!"    "Can't" is seen as a challenge instead of a block.  Pretty familiar because I'm that way.   I'm currently working on an "impossible"  invention.    I'll admit to having sent $10 to John twice. I know it's not much,  I want to send some more but would like some communication.  I just hope he's OK with his health issue. 

[eyesup]

The whole underage argument is a front for the people seeking to maintain control of speech on the net. Seeing naked people shouldn't be a crime even if you are under 18. I can understand why some worry over pornography, but that isn't about nudity. It's about controlling people.

Parents should be in charge of this, it is their responsibility to raise their children as they see fit. The government doesn't need to be in the middle of family dynamics. It's when these folks start to try and codify their morals and ethics into law that we start running into problems.

I have seen a little of the type of action and combat video games that are out there. If you wish to make the argument that seeing naked people causes issues, what kind of issues will a steady diet of combat videos cause?

I would be more concerned about the problems arising there than from those likely from seeing nudity.

Duane

[Greenbare Woods]

I always ignored the 18 restriction,  figured it was just for legal safety,  knowing that there was nothing there a child shouldn't see.  And much that would benefit.

Teens generally ignore the restrictions on age.   They get to see everything on line.   The restrictions are there to assure the site owner that teens who frequent the site are violating his "rules" so they aren't his responsibility

[JOhnGw]

I always ignored the 18 restriction,  figured it was just for legal safety,  knowing that there was nothing there a child shouldn't see.  And much that would benefit.

Teens generally ignore the restrictions on age.   They get to see everything on line.   The restrictions are there to assure the site owner that teens who frequent the site are violating his "rules" so they aren't his responsibility

Well said, Bob.

[John P]

I won't argue about the facts, but this makes it possible to use some very nasty words about the people who run these websites. They'll trade away the innocence of naturism to gain some kind of imaginary cover from imaginary trouble, and they'll do it in a way that they and everyone else knows is just a sham. When I say "imaginary" I mean that none of this has ever been proved to be real! If there's been an instance when a young person was claimed to suffer harm from viewing any web discussion group, followed by the site operator getting into trouble, I'd be interested to hear about it. And if that happened in spite of an "adults only" rule, did that rule give any protection? I'm thinking of "fig leaves" in the metaphorical sense! And also,  the irony of naturists believing they have to keep their rear ends covered.

This can't look good if a non-naturist ever considers naturism. "Let's see, that's one of those things that they don't let kids participate in, right?... Oh, so they say kids can't participate, but they really do, and everyone accepts it and it's OK?" The more I think about this, the worse it sounds.

[reubenT]

Research is against the violent video games.  It was explained by a senior military training advisor that when a child below around age 16 trains their mind to shoot and kill by video game,  That training will be acted out in real life without passing by the the part of the brain that makes decisions. But once they reach 18 they can take that same mind training, it has to pass the decision filter before being acted out,   reserve it for appropriate times, without acting it out at inappropriate times.   But because the companies who create them are big political donors the games are not restricted. 

However what research has been done on nudity shows benefits to children rather than detriment.    But since adults have some notion the other way,  even though contrary to common sense,  restrictions are made.      What is needed is a large political donor basing his donations on striking down laws restricting child viewing of simple nonsexual nudity.    Then action will be seen.   Money has a way of shaping society that way.   It's happened too much to the detriment of society already.   However I suppose there is no big money making corporation making profit on the benefits of children having nudity around them while growing up.  Therefore who has the extra millions to blow on a good cause with zero profit potential? 

[jbeegoode]

Politicians listen to organized groups, too. Numbers of voters, numbers of donors, influence, and feet on the ground during election time..
Jbee

[John P]

What is needed is a large political donor basing his donations on striking down laws restricting child viewing of simple nonsexual nudity.

How many times do I have to say this? THERE ARE NO SUCH LAWS.

Reuben, please consider this as a challenge. You've just casually referred to something that doesn't exist, and mentioned it as though a fantasy is common knowledge. Where did you get this from, and how long have you believed it? What will it take to convince you otherwise?

If someone starts a new topic: "When mermaids ride unicorns, why don't they fall off?" I won't participate.

 

[Greenbare Woods]

What is needed is a large political donor basing his donations on striking down laws restricting child viewing of simple nonsexual nudity.

How many times do I have to say this? THERE ARE NO SUCH LAWS.

Thanks for the reminder John. 

[eyesup]

What is needed is a large political donor basing his donations on striking down laws restricting child viewing of simple nonsexual nudity.

How many times do I have to say this? THERE ARE NO SUCH LAWS.

Reuben, please consider this as a challenge. You've just casually referred to something that doesn't exist, and mentioned it as though a fantasy is common knowledge. Where did you get this from, and how long have you believed it? What will it take to convince you otherwise?

If someone starts a new topic: "When mermaids ride unicorns, why don't they fall off?" I won't participate.

This is the sort of thing that used to make me crazy. It happens in all sorts of ways. Not just nudity. I have since begun to temper my reaction because I know that it is happening unconsciously.

If I see this and I believe that the subject is important, I’ll speak up. If not, I let people go on their happy way. If they are intelligent and alert, they will learn (hopefully). I have made the mistake of forwarding one of those “facts” I received by email and had it come back on me that it was wrong. After checking and discovering that that is what happened, I check everything I get and try to validate it. If I can’t, I ignore it. If it’s important or critical, I will respond to the sender that they need to do some checking. Or I will add a correction to the email before forwarding it.

We are familiar with the psychological precept that says that if a thing is repeated often enough with authority, it will be treated as fact. Wishing a thing to be true that we have heard for years doesn’t make it so.

There are laws in my community that are specific to the presence of minors that view the type of nudity that the law forbids. This law was written with latitude given to the courts to “protect children” and at the same time catch anyone attempting to abuse children or engage in trafficking of child porn.

Viewing casual nudity is a different matter. Here I have no clue what the law says about that.

These are the only laws I know of. That doesn't mean those laws don't exist. I know authorities run sting operations all the time trying to find the pornographers. If laws didn't exist regarding this, the prosecutions would get tossed. They do get convictions. Ergo, the laws must exist.

Unfortunately those engaged in harmless nudity will get swept up in an indictment by those wanting to stamp out that particular market. These types of laws can and will be used against non-pornographic nudity in any form they find. That law is very broadly written. Should it be struck down, No. Child abuse and pornography should be prosecuted. Could it be more definitive. Yes. Should prosecutors be more focused and diligent in their prosecutions. Absolutely.

There is plenty of room for improvement all around. Using a cannon to smash a fly is theatrics. Using a rolled up newspaper is expected and also requires a bit of skill. We all know how fast a fly can move. More and better training and education on both the part of the judicial branch and on the part of the populace will eventually begin to balance this issue.

Duane