If someone are fondeling themselves, then that meets the criteria. Simple nudity does not
So if a person presented camera/video evidence of a person covering their genitalia because the person covering up with their hand didn't take to being stalked say by a neighbour. Surely the judge/prosecution wold need to see some form of real evidence of it, and if not then how would that be viewed?
You see using common sense, most everyday average people if naked in their own property grounds would put their hand(s) over their privates if it came to their attention they were being stalked.
Why do people make such a fuzz of the most natural thing on earth?I never could understand that...
Its not though, thats why threads like this exist.
Staying away from the view of those fuzz making people is the only way to protect yourself.
Having a kink about wanting to be caught nude in public is not being a nudist. Why there are so many groups for this kink is what Ill never understand.
Looking for some advice.........I've been summoned to appear for an arraignment pertaining to an early morning naked walk, and someone called the cops! I was alone, in an empty parking lot or so I thought. Anyway, has anyone had to go through this? Open to any input
This is from your Washington State Legislation I found online.
RCWs ] Title 9A ] Chapter 9A.88 ] Section 9A.88.010
Beginning of Chapter ] 9A.88.030
RCW 9A.88.010
Indecent exposure.
(1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) of this subsection, indecent exposure is a misdemeanor.
(b) Indecent exposure is a gross misdemeanor on the first offense if the person exposes himself or herself to a person under the age of fourteen years.
(c) Indecent exposure is a class C felony if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
[ 2003 c 53 92; 2001 c 88 2; 1990 c 3 904; 1987 c 277 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 9A.88.010.]
You didn't intentionally expose yourself to anybody, so as far as I see this is a case of Basic Nudity and someone being a bloody prude. Unless you were actually flashing said person and waving your penis at her with the intention of causing shock, then her having seen you is possibly an invasion of your privacy, even though you should not really have been naked in what you thought was a very quiet car park !
I understand for some the need to push certain boundaries is a thrill, but common sense has to prevail sometimes.
According to the Legislation (1), other than just being naked, you have done NOTHING wrong, your nudity was not intentional to offend anyone, you were just testing your own boundaries. IF they are going to try and make more of this than needs be, then I would call her out on why she stood there watching you for as long as she did ! That becomes an invasion of your privacy, even if you were in a public place with no one around. From what you have stated, you don't meet most of the wording in this small part of legislation.
I hope you are absolved of whatever they are trying to get you on and that basic nudity is nothing more than what it is !
I'm in Washington State, and the statute states "intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm."
Point of fact here, you didn't intentionally expose yourself obscenely to anyone ! As far as you knew, you were on a parking lot that was empty, you didn't see anyone else about, so you can't have exposed yourself to this person with the intention of causing affront or alarm.
This is where the Laws in the USA need to be reformed or changed, it's a joke that someone seeing you from afar can be classed as you intentionally flashing your bits at them, when they were not even there.
Steve,
If We dont regularly Exercise Our INALIENABLE #ClothesFREE Liberty & Codified #1stAmendment Right to DiVest from inane nanny bodymask tyrannies & defy codes & rulers aimed & armed to deamonize & criminalize #TheHumanBody, ignoramuses might dupe Us into feeling We dont deserve them or never had them in The Beginning.
Forgettable vapid laughable circus stunts & esoteric codes/ by #TheTemps ( vain nanny virtue signaling legislators desperate for attention lest they risk becoming completely irrelevant to Our daily lives ) aside, according to every Nudist/Naturist outlet available for comment, NO #USgovt Court / Judge / or DA has recently ( in the past half century ) prosecuted anybody for simply defying inane bodymask ( clothing or smile ) mandates. If someone can find 10 (ten) cases, unencumbered by other charges, I will offer US$5.00 to anyone for the first 10 transcripts & docket numbers I receive. Even a blind halfwit attorney could effectively protect her/his client from formal indictment ( much less derealy hearings, conviction, sentencing, fines, or cagings unfit for a rabid animal ) IF the case was not fully DISMISSED by The Court, as most arrests I know of are, without any penalty or other records suggesting a crime was committed. Even so, most statues under the #USgovt rate fines for Nudism comparable to parking tickets ( & I know of few automobilists who dont have a few of those under their belts & have paid them without any regrets.
Brush up on The Constitution & First Amendment & any personal statement You might give directly to a Judge, who will Respect the hell out of You Intelligence, more than most illiterate imbeciles they deal with daily ad nauseam, & let You walk with NO RECORD & an ( enabling ) slap on the wrist at most. That is if they dont dismiss the case because they have MUCH more serious things to deal with.
https://freemannoone.substack.com/p/living-his-beliefs
Good luck with that. Ever wonder if You ware wasting Your Member dues? The fact that this was not Your first call suggests that AANR has at least not met some very low bars on communications with Members about their GAT & advocacy expenditures & junkets.
If any LITERATE NUMERATE* SOBER folks on this thread think Our totally overburdened over extended #USgovt Courts ( not to mention DoughNut chasing cops & legislators who have far too much time on their hands ) have time to give extensive serious attention to harmless NON VIOLENT offenses, then I have an iconic *Solid Gold* Bay Area bridge to sell You at a discount. Please let Me know ( THIS ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER EXPIRES AT THE END ON THE MONTH, Sunday 31 March 2024 ).
* Has anyone given thought to how much #USgovt LAWYERS cost taxpayers in billable hours ( & what #USgovt pays out in Settlements every month )? I used to date one; they live pretty darn comfortably mainly because Jane/Joe taxpayer never sees the costs; like stealing candy from blind babies.
https://freemannoone.substack.com/p/living-his-beliefs
Having a kink about wanting to be caught nude in public is not being a nudist. Why there are so many groups for this kink is what Ill never understand.
You dont understand because you are an actual nudist not a sexual libertine using nudism as a front for sexual proclivities.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!