Posted on 07/06/2005 7:39:00 AM PDT by wildbill
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal appeals court Tuesday reinstated a lawsuit challenging a 2004 Virginia law requiring parental supervision at a nudist camp for juveniles.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the American Association for Nude Recreation can pursue its claim that the law violates its free speech rights, crimping its ability to spread its nudism philosophy.
The organization claims it had to cancel last summer's camp because only 11 of the 35 youths who signed up would have been able to bring a parent.
"A regulation that reduces the size of a speaker's audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest," Judge William B. Traxler Jr. wrote in the unanimous ruling.
Advertisement
A lower court judge ruled last August the lawsuit was moot because organizers of the camp at White Tail Park surrendered their permit after the state law took effect.
Emily Lucier, spokeswoman for the Virginia attorney general's office, said prosecutors were disappointed "but we expect to win at trial."
The 2003 summer nudist camp for children 11 through 17 was the first in Virginia - and only the third in the country, according to its sponsors.
Indeed! Indecency is "speech", but political or religious discourse is "hate".
Is this for fat kids only? Who benefits besides the owners?
Hello muddah,
Hello faddah,
Here I am at,
Camp Show-your-bodda.
Okay.
(heh heh)
The White Tail Park is a family oriented nudist park. The notion for the teen camp was the same as with any teen summer camp, a place and time for kids to get out of the house for a while and enjoy the summer. The fact that it was nudist is what set it apart. The kids that would have gone were kids that grew up in nudist families and were already members of the park. This is just another example of government intrusion into people's private affairs.
Have to disagree with you there.
Who in their right mind is going to let a mix of kids, 11 - 17, run around naked without solid adult supervision? They are all minors and until the government started prying parents from the picture, minors are the responsibility of their parents.
No good and a lot of potential harm (very likely to be swept under the carpet of "tolerance") is possible.
Besides, the judge's ruling seems to indicate that anyone who wants to speak has a right to an audience, and not just an audinece, but a larger audience than migh be on hand without insisting on parental oversight of minors. How stupid and dangerous is that?
When a family decides that nudism is healthy for its members, I have no problem with that. Their decision.
On the other hand, knowing the pressures on teen agers when puberty comes and sex is a new and exciting prospect that can overcome judgement, I don't think it is too much to ask that parents be around for supervision of their naked teens.
No mix of kids, 11-17, should be allowed to run around without adult supervision whether naked or fully clothed!
Why don't they call this the "Child Sex Camp" and get it over with?
Jeez.
You don't have to be in your right mind to have children, you don't even have to take any reponsibility for their actions. Walking around naked in public is not natural or normal.
God (actually Christ, since no one has ever seen God) himself killed animals in the garden (before PETA) to clothe Adam and Eve so they wouldn't be naked.
When Noah got drunk and naked it was considered shameful.
Why do we need camps for children who want to be naked?
Some parents don't want their children playing with matches so they get them a lighter...
>>>No mix of kids, 11-17, should be allowed to run around without adult supervision whether naked or fully clothed!>>
There is adult supervision, just not parent supervision. My kids just got back from Bible camp, 16 kids to 2 >18 camp counselors. The big difference is they were CLOTHED.
There was never any question of adult supervision. The question was whether or not the parents had to go to camp with the kids. How many parents have to go to camp with their kids?
And what kind of parents would let their kids go to such a camp? Parents who have always taken their kids to family camps just like it, for most of their lives.
Their children have grown up less self-conscious about their bodies and other people's bodies. It is not a place where people let down their sexual inhibitions. It is a place where people let down their social inhibitions about the naked human body.
Of course most of those who complain about such places would probably not be allowed to stay long if they went there, because they would be unable to hide their sexual arousal, demonstrating their immaturity about sex and about their own bodies. Such people are quickly escorted out of most nudist camps.
Personally I have never been to a nudist camp but I have been to a couple predominately nude beaches here in the states and one in Europe. You can quickly tell who the perverts are and they are always in a minority and usually appear to be people who are not nude around other people very often. Their immaturity is as exposed as the rest of them.
I hope I'm wrong, but if this camp actually opens up with 'adult supervisors' other than parents, I wonder if they won't get a lot of pedophiles applying for the jobs.
It just seems a little creepy to me.
Well, a private camp like this isn't really "public" any more than your living room is public.
Wait a second, becoming aroused at the sight of the naked body of an attractive member of the opposite sex is "immature"?
>>>I hope I'm wrong, but if this camp actually opens up with 'adult supervisors' other than parents, I wonder if they won't get a lot of pedophiles applying for the jobs.>>>
I think that's a big fat DUH. That was my first thought on the hiring of camp counselors. Personally, I think people who join this nudist colony w/family is a big pedo dream. I think the parental supervision is good, but not so much in the fact that I'm also not convinced the PARENTS aren't some sort of pedo's as well. Who wants their 11 year daughter running naked around 50 year old men? IMO,only someone who doesn't mind, if you know what I mean. DCFS would get involved if parents were giving their children alchohol or tobacco, why is this different? If it's the 'parents choice' for their children's naked bodies to be ogled, why isn't it the parents 'choice' to give their child beer, or cigarrettes?
>>>Well, a private camp like this isn't really "public" any more than your living room is public.>>>
So if I come over to your house for tea and crumpets you wouldn't have a problem walking around serving me naked?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.