Ban on public nudity: Does a ban on public nudity violate individual liberties?

  • Banning public nudity is not consistent with the way that other First Amendment rights are handled.

    The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression even when it offends people. The Constitution does not allow banning things just because people are offended by them. Hate speech, while offensive to many, is protected. It is hate crimes that are illegal. The same concept should apply to nudity. The current laws prohibit public nudity because it offends people. That is completely out of line with the other First Amendment laws. As with hate crimes, it should be illegal to to commit actual crimes while nude like engaging in obscene sexual behavior, but that should technically have nothing to do with nudity itself. For the sake of Constitutional precedence, having laws that prohibit the freedom of nudity is unconstitutional.

  • I think I can argue yes

    The first issue is the first Amendment. This could be a protected form of expression. To those saying they would be offended or grossed out, those are not rights. Being offended by something does not men we should ban it otherwise everything would be banned because someone will always be offended by something.

  • I say yes because...

    While many people are just arguing for liberties, I'm going to put this in a different perspective. The US constitution says we get the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well simply being naked makes many people happy. Many of us want to pursue our happiness by just being naked. And those who are thinking, this makes many people unhappy, just need to think about it. We are born naked, were meant to be naked. Not causing pollution by creating clothing in factories. Being naked is a liberty and a happiness, and is generally proven better for health too.

  • To be consistent banning public nudity has to be held to violate the first amendment

    The arguments in the "no" column are forgetting that your emotions like thinking something is gross are your own responsibility, nobody else's. By the same logic we can make swearing in public or the middle finger in public illegal but court cases have struck those down as infringing on freedom of speech and expression. By the same logic public nudity should be protected.

    Honestly I don't care so much about whether public nudity is legal. I'd like it to be, but I care even more about this glaring legal inconsistency. The court should either rule that public nudity is protected by the 1st amendment or reverse previous rulings saying swearing and the middle finger are protected. Just for the sake of consistency.

  • No, it allows other liberties.

    No, a ban on public nudity does not violate individual liberties, because it allows other people to exercise the liberty of going out in public without being grossed out by having to look at ugly naked people. We still are a civil society, and part of that is allowing other people to go out in public without having to look at naked people.

  • Liberties end when they infringe on others' liberties.

    A person's liberties extend only to the point where they infringe on others' liberties. In the case of public nudity, one person's desire to be nude in public infringes on the overwhelming majority's right to be free from obscene of sexual presentations in public places. The best solution is if there is enough demand for public nudity to set aside a park or area where that would be permitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.