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.
Yes it is; when it is not a private, and romantic and intimate situation, and you are naked with other naked people; it shows your libido and not your mind and your heart is in control. Jeesh, talk about people who cannot control their base "desires"!
I wouldn't be okay with it. However, if we were both nudists/naturalists and that's how we preferred to hang out in private, that would be different.
The point I'm making is that the presence of a group of people doesn't, in of itself, make a certain location "public."
Following your logic, if someone sunbathes nude in their back yard (and nobody other than consenting people see them) they are in public.
Once you put your nakedness on display to others under the sky in public, you're no longer in private.
Why does being under the sky make something public?
"Family oriented nudist park"? What kind of sick freaks think this is ok?
"I'D BE UP FOR THAT!"
Let's just say that with me at a nudist camp my husband would invariably be kicked out rapidly for "immaturity." I don't think I'd want to change that.
In my mind it's just normal. That's why practically (?) every civilization has clothes of some type.
>>>"Family oriented nudist park"? What kind of sick freaks think this is ok?>>>
Apparently Modernman does.
If the camp is supervised and there is nothing sexual going on, how is this any different than beaches in Europe where kids (and parents) routinely run around naked?
The problem with our society is that we've sexualized kids. A naked child is no more sexual than a "naked" dog or cat.
Alrighty - let the personal attacks begin!
"You're different than me - you're a sick freak!!"
For the record, I must be a sick freak too. I've been on nude beaches and you can usually tell the sexually immature people by the gawking that they do. To me, the sick freaks are the ones who equate nakedness with arousal.
Why do you suppose the Old Testament has any bearing on our legal code? Aren't there some pork eaters out there you could be hassling instead?
>>>A naked child is no more sexual than a "naked" dog or cat.>>>
Speaking as a victim of rape at the age of three, I beg to differ. Glad that YOU don't see a naked child as a naked dog or cat, unfortunately there are some who don't. While being clothed doesn't protect a child, but to flaunt it in the face is asking for trouble. IMO
I'll change my statement- to a normal person, a naked child is not sexual. There are, of course, sick freaks in the world.
>>>"You're different than me - you're a sick freak!!" >>>
Don't put words in quotations that I did not say.
>>>To me, the sick freaks are the ones who equate nakedness with arousal. >>>
So glad you are soooo much more advanced than I am. You must immediately move to Europe to be with your more enlightened culture. We are just too primitive to accept child/adult nudity with strangers. Poor me.
>>>There are, of course, sick freaks in the world>>>
EXACTLY!! Why put innocent children on display for them??
I'm not talking about a toddler running around the yard in their diaper, please understand I am not naked phobic, but 13 years old??? Come on!
If all the parents involved agree and the kids are okay with it AND there is no hanky-panky going on, what's the problem?
Naked sunbathing to me seems odd in itself. What possible benefits come from naked sunbathing other than no tan lines?
Some people like to enjoy the sun and the fresh air unclothed. It's a personal preference, like enjoying vanilla ice cream over chocolate.
What's still hanging out here unanswered is, why do you suppose God clothed his (married) creation?
I don't believe the Judeo-Christian creation myth. However, nudity is not appropriate in every (or most) circumstances.
Because we shouldn't allow sick freaks to dictate how the rest of us behave. If someone wants to oggle or molest a naked child at the beach, the proper response is to either remove them from the beach or arrest them.
>>>If someone wants to oggle or molest a naked child at the beach, the proper response is to either remove them from the beach or arrest them>>>
I'm afraid I think you live in a niave world. No, we don't lock them up, but we don't parade them for their sexual kicks either. Otherwise, why is child porn illegal?
What part of "White Tail Park" didn't you understand?
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.