| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 87.1 | | CADSE::WONG | Le Chinois Fou | Fri Jul 15 1988 18:43 | 12 |
| What a bummer...
Does a situation like Moonstone resolve that issue? there's the
public textile beach beside the clothing-optional beach and both
sections are always occupied. Those who don't care for nudity
stay on the textile side. The nude section always has some people
who do not sunbathe in the nude. Of course, the two sections are
not separated by a barrier or anything, but people can always walk
a little further down the beach so that they aren't near the dividing
line.
|
| 87.2 | It's their problem | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | Just remember one thing | Fri Jul 15 1988 21:03 | 18 |
| I understand the line of reasoning, but let's apply it to another
group.
In the earlier part of this century, there were those whites who
were offended by the site of a black person on their beach.
With the advent of civil rights legislation, it is now illegal to
refuse to open the beach to blacks. This, in effect, keeps bigoted
whites off of the beach. Most people today would think that is
the bigoted whites' problem.
Likewise, if someone is offended by naked people running around
on the beach, it is their problem.
Maybe someday we will be open enough as a society to make this
happen...
Elizabeth
|
| 87.3 | The legal opinion :-( | MOIRA::FAIMAN | A goblet, a goblet, yea, even a hoop | Sun Jul 17 1988 02:00 | 49 |
| Lest you think I am exaggerating, the following is a brief excerpt from
Judge D. J. Woodlock's decision in _Craft v. Hodel_ (a class action
suit seeking to forbid enforcement of the Special Regulation
prohibiting nudity at the Cape Cod National Seashore), handed down in
Boston federal district court this April. Quoted from an article in
_Clothed With the Sun_, volume 8 number 2:
-Neil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants have maintained that three substantial governmental
interests are served by the Regulation:
...
(ii) preservation of the Seashore as a beach available for the
enjoyment of all persons; i.e., prevention of the preemptive effect
nude bathing would have on the majority's use of the public beach;
...
Defendants maintain that nudity on the seashore is "disturbing to other
users, such as families, and causes them to avoid the beach."
Defendants explain that a primary purpose of the regulation since its
initial promulgation has been to assure that the seashore is available
to all users ...
...
However, there arguably are "less restrictive means" of controlling
nudity on the Seashore ... The government could ... set aside certain
beaches along the Seashore for nude bathing. The critical variable in
the equation is whether an alternative regulation exists to the
outright, total ban on nudity which would also serve, e.g., the
government's substantial interest in keeping the entire Seashore open
to all users. ...
The "less restrictive alternative" of allowing nude bathing on certain
select (and secluded) beaches along the Seashore would also undercut
the government's substantial interest in keeping the entire Seashore
available to all. Although setting aside select beaches for use by
nudists would reduce the risk of other persons being offended by visual
contact with the nudists, it would do so by legitimizing what has
traditionally been viewed as a public nuisance and by reducing in
absolute terms the amount of beach front available to the bathing
population as a whole.
...
|
| 87.4 | Rationalization of the imperial wishlist. | IOENG::JWILLIAMS | Zeitgeist Zoology | Mon Jul 25 1988 21:33 | 24 |
| Re .last:
One thing they forgot to specify was exactly which party was holding
a gun to the victim's head and forcing them to look. If the beaches
were swarming with nude bathers, methinks the nude bathers would
be the majority. It is the opposite which is quite true, and frankly,
I might complain that the sight of bathing suits offends me. I don't
think it likely for the government to come rushing to my aid. It
has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has everything to do with
the fact that people piss and moan about things they can't comprehend.
If people could share in the first place, there wouldn't be property.
Therefore, if they can't share, you gotta split it up and dish it
out accordingly.
I never asked for all beach front. I never expected all beach front.
I only want SOME beach front where I can enjoy myself the WAY in
which I please. If they insist with the notion that I am trying
to offend them ( and I can think of many better ways to accomplish
exactly this ), we'll just have to find different places to play.
If they think they can force me to play their games, and only their
games, they've lost a customer.
John.
|