In the U.S. we have lots of laws about public nudity and most are pretty explicit about what can be exposed.  They actually leave little room for interpretation since some actually include dimensions, etc.  However, they are pretty much defined by each locality or state.  For instance, San Francisco used to not enforce regulations about public nudity until some new supervisors retained control and started to crack down.  (Pun intended)

I prefer a less restrictive set of laws and regulations that state there is only a problem if someone is offended.  If no one complains the law enforcement people would not have any reason to act.  We all accept that some behavior is anti-social and has no place in public life.  Simple nudity is not one of those behaviors.  If safety is not compromised and no one is harmed there should be no reason to punish someone for being nude.  I hope common sense prevails with most of us and we act as does Marc when he prefers to not shock or offend others.  

So true Don - the UK laws ( and some other countries) follow that tactic - the problem is that people can claim to be offended by anything. But if I found someone's hairstyle offensive the police wouldn't ask them to shave it off or put a hat on to protect my eyes. Unfortunately some do make the complaint that nudity simply offends them - when really it should be about behaviour - aggression etc. If memory serves the problems that would lead to Mr Gough going to prison was not his nudity in the first instance but his refusal to cover up when asked to. He refused to get dressed on a plane once and also appeared naked in court on more than one occasion. His fight is a just one that I approve of (though I wouldn't undress on a plane because it is just asking for trouble and being naked in court is actually quite funny but it won't get the judge on your side). The argument should really be if he isn't doing anything to cause alarm or disturbance then he should be left alone - but the loop hole is a bit of a catch 22. Being naked shouldn't be offensive, but if someone finds it so then the police can have the attitude that refusing to take their thoughts into consideration is possible causing alarm and disturbance and if the police then ask you to cover and you don't it could be seen as a breach of the peace. OK - I am no laywer but that is how I read it. Though a counter argument could be that a naturist is alarmed by the insistence that their nudity is upsetting. But the law is far from perfect... 

Here is an example actually witnessed by Steve. A friend of ours after years of bullying misery told his wife he wanted a divorce. Her family later came into the couples home and started shouting at him with his then wife. One of them called the police and said he was causing a breach of the peace. The police came and he reasonable explained that he was in his house and that he wasn't shouting, and it fact everyone else in the house (with the exception of Steve) was doing the shouting. Steve also explained to the police that his friend had not raised his voice once. The police acknowledged this but said if he left then the shouting from the others would stop. He explained that it was his house so why shouldn't all the shouters leave instead. The police explained that it was also his wife's house and she wanted them there. The police explained that if he didn't leave for 24 hours they would arrest him. They acknowledged he was being peacable and that the other people were shouting but as they were shouting at him he was considered to be the breach of the peace. Wishing to be amiable and to not be arrested he left the house with Steve. When he returned the next day the house was empty, the bank accounts also and the wife and children gone. He then entered into the divorce proceeding on a far less than equal footing and didn't see his children for months even though he had done no wrong and simply wanted a divorce. The law sometimes doesn't make sense. 

If someone is harmlessly naked and someone wants to kick up a fuss, no matter how reasonable the naked person may be the police may well say "the fuss will end if you get dressed and if you don't we will arrest you." They may consider the peaceful nudity to be the problem and not the person shouting about how offensive they find it. Mr Gough may have been right to stand by his beliefs - but for the average non-naturist and the average policeman he was seen as a nuisance and that is why I feel that sometimes if the fight isn't fought sensibly it can do more harm than good. Not so much with the courts but with how we are assessed by non-naturists. I watched a documentary of Mr Gough many years back and in some ways you definitely had to admire him and the BBC (if I remember right) portrayed him as quite reasonable and likable. 

It seems to me that since I have no idea of an afterlife or a beforelife, the only thing I actually have is this small slice of time called the present.  You can slice that period of time as narrow as you like even down to nanoseconds.  To spend that period of time causing grief to myself or others is a mistake and going good things that make sense is much more satisifying.  What is offensive to me may be perfectly normal to someone else and that is as it should be.  However, external beliefs seem to control how some folks look at the world and they spend their time trying to mold society and others to their way of thinking.  Threats of eternal damnation seem to convince some to mount the charge against behaviors they disagree with and the results are the foolish laws we have.  

This does not only apply to nudism but to many other areas also.  Abortion is the hot topic now and states are getting geared up to outlaw that practice.  Candidates are offering solutions for "the problem" where there is really no problem. 

It is dismaying to realize that common sense seems to never prevail and that the loudist, moneyed up, supporters of an issue get their way with the resulting regulations that cause others to change their ways.

Rob, you made me think of this quote (and by the way, thank you for your last sentence above. It is so refreshing, to have someone in your profession offer that assessment in these upside down times) :

“One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words.  It is expressed in the choices one makes.  In the long run, we shape our lives and we shape ourselves.  The process never ends until we die.  And the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.”      - Eleanor Roosevelt

Don, I'm going to step out of the topic of this forum for a second; but you opened the door, so, I have to walk through.  You admit that you 'have no idea of an afterlife,' which leaves open the possibility that there is one. If there is not, think that through to a logical conclusion and if this sliver of time is all we have and all there is, then there is no place for debate over morality or values, because there is no one to ultimately judge who was right and who was wrong.  - I'm trying to think of the most concise way to say this for the sake of space and time - If there is a posibility that there is an afterlife, isn't that something worth looking into and pursuing?  And if it is, would it not make sense to find the most reliable source of information on the topic?  I mean, if I want to know all about how my car works, I go straight to my owner's manual; I don't start by studying the nomenclature of bicycles and skateboards.  Additionally, once I've read that owner's manual, I abide by it or take a chance on ruining my car.  Just some thoughts.  I could suggest some quick and informative reading for anyone interested in pursuing the thought of what comes 'after'.

BTW: Those who use the fear of eternal damnation to control the behavior of others are in just as much danger of eternal damnation as those they would manipulate. They should be avoided.

I will certainly agree with this, Don.  The loud, moneyed-up supporters of an issue do seem to get their way most often. It is because we live in a world unfortunately fueled by greed and politics; and the wealth and clout are very often in the grip of the sociopaths who have gotten where they are by climbing over bodies.  

    Sorry to get gloomy; but we're all pretty fed-up these days, aren't we?

Ok, stepping back out the door now. Thank you and please continue.

The eternal damnation - makes me wonder about what religious topics we have here in the forum- I will have to peruse. 

One thing is certain Steve and I have lost count of the times we have been told that our naturism is like sticking our thumb out for the devil to give us a lift straight to hell. It isn't something that concerns us for one moment but it is disturbing how many people out there are either so cruel or so troubled that they would consider naturism being enough for such a reaction. It is part of promoting naturism on social media. 

As Sam suggests threatening such things simply isn't right or moral. It is an irony that those who have protested the loudest against naturism have done so with foul language, physical threats, sexual threats and eternal torment threats. Why is it that so often those that act shocked by something often behave the most shocking? I have too regularly been told that I deserved to be raped and gang raped, or murdered, or been told that at some point my son's will take me physically. Add to the list the threats of hell and the strings of four letter words that get thrown at me and you do wonder just how these people's minds work. How can people be so disturbing and yet act upset by the idea of naturism? Throw the nasty comments about our bodies body, body hair, body parts and then mix in the sexual requests, the sending of close ups of male genitalia (often aroused) and the just plain dumb comments and thoughts and you have to wonder why we do it. Because these people don't matter - their stupid words are vile but also meaningless. They say more about themselves than us or naturism. But what we also find are people that come to ANW and have conversations like this and that is a wonderful thing. And a reminder that society is actually worth taking part in.