Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Public nudity laws’ Category

My Camera Editorial Advisory Board comment published on June 21, 2008, in response to the Camera’s question: Late last week, a Weld County jury convicted a Catholic priest for indecent exposure, following his June 2007 arrest for jogging nude around a high school track in Frederick. Then, last Saturday, some 60 nude or mostly nude cyclists pedaled through the City of Boulder, in an oil-dependency protest. There were no reported charges. Do you think the treatments of both “naked” incidents were fair? Why or why not?

The jury got it right in the case of the Catholic priest jogging nude around a high school track in Frederick when it convicted the man of indecent exposure. (Should his jog lead to being labeled a sex offender, however, that’s going too far.) The law is there to protect the public from anyone and everyone who decides to streak, skinny dip or do whatever nude, without being inside their homes with the shades drawn. Public nudity is against the law.

I would expect the jury to convict whether the man had been protesting sweat shops of jogging apparel rather than simply sweating profusely while jogging. Boulder police, on the other hand, don’t get it. The city has laws on the books to protect the public, but the police choose not to enforce them. The public is at risk. It’s not only not right; it’s not fair to the public.

When is naked in public not naked in public? Apparently, in Boulder it’s when the numbers are against the police. It makes me wonder what else isn’t against the law in Boulder if the police are outnumbered? Mortgage fraud?

*This title was not part of the Camera publication.


Source: Daily Camera


Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: