No permit? No release form? No problem

chapelgrovefilms said:
The point is it's up to the parents to decide whether they want their children exposed to nudity, and at what age. It brings up a lot of questions and confusions that younger kids may not be emotionally or intellectually prepared to deal with at that stage of their lives.

Some people think we should all live in one giant nudist colony, where anything goes. They think we'll be 'healthier' that way. But that's not the society we have, and I doubt if that's what most parents want.

To ridicule and insult people because they have an objection to an illegal public display of nudity is rude and condescending.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that society should cater the the beliefs of parents even when it is clearly demonstrable that the supposed harm they fear simply does not exist? Surely you can't maintain that it is less harmful for a parent to keep their children ignorant of art than it is for the child to see a painting or statue of an unclothed figure or to keep them ignorant of literature than it is for them to read "Catcher In The Rye?" And shall we excuse kids from geography class when their parents are members of the Flat Earth society, respecting the parents wishes that their children not be exposed to any information that contradicts those parental beliefs as well?
 
Last edited:
My girl and I were actually talking about public nudity and we couldn't figure out if it was legal for a girl to walk around topless. I mean, a woman can breast feed in public, right? A man can certainly walk down the street with his shirt off. Why can't women in ads have their tops off the same as men? Something feels intensely discriminatory about this -- like civil rights wrong. Not even jokingly.

Is it really a state to state issue? This article says "it's legal in Maine for women to be topless". So we can violate civil liberties in some states and not others? Wow.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/women-march-topless-despite-ogling
 
I see that this is a charged subject with a few of you...

Here is my head shaker.... What I can't even begin to understand is that right wingers are up in arms about nudity... but the same people have no problem with guns, war, killing people, killing animals, violent movies and TV shows, violent video games, and brainwashing their kids to think that all of this is ok. But God forbid if the child sees a human naked form... You tell me which is the real evil and has the most profound effect on the child? At 12 you give the kid a gun and tell him he can now go with daddy and kill little animals. I know from experience... that's how my family was.

I relate my point to especially the film industry... Go watch the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". It is an expose on the MPAA rating system... Than my point will be abundantly clear.

I have spent many years traveling back and forth to Europe to work. They think we are nuts over here...
 
IMHO the bigger offense than nudity is the total disrespect this artist has shown to a fallen Presidents honor. And for what? To sell records? What?
 
phudsontx said:
IMHO the bigger offense than nudity is the total disrespect this artist has shown to a fallen Presidents honor. And for what? To sell records? What?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the nudity is the issue, I think. Artists do wacky stuff all the time. I can name more than a few times Eminem made fun of perfectly nice people who happened to die tragically. That's an aspect of free speech.

If you're doing physical harm to yourself or others (including animals) for your art, that's where the line is drawn -- when your rights of free speech infringe on another person (or animal's) right to exist without physical infringement. But if a person decides to be nekkid...??? I personally don't understand why there's something illegal about it all. If you go into a public establishment that requires no special licensing you can watch girls (or boys) dance nekkid for you, but if someone were to exit that public establishment still being nekkid they'd be arrested.

I think anti-nekkid laws are made up by people who don't want to be nekkid themselves -- or don't want their daughters to be nekkid. Just nonsense.

Regardless, it's okay to show some dudes at a football game with their shirts off, but if it's a woman it needs to be blurred out (or probably not shown at all because she'd probably be thrown out of the stadium)?

I'm telling you, we point fingers at other countries who have their women wear scarfs to cover their hair, but in the end we're not ACTUALLY any better in this regard. We tell women what they can and cannot wear in public. No matter how it's spun, it's shady.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
The point is it's up to the parents to decide whether they want their children exposed to nudity, and at what age. It brings up a lot of questions and confusions that younger kids may not be emotionally or intellectually prepared to deal with at that stage of their lives.

Some people think we should all live in one giant nudist colony, where anything goes. They think we'll be 'healthier' that way. But that's not the society we have, and I doubt if that's what most parents want.

To ridicule and insult people because they have an objection to an illegal public display of nudity is rude and condescending.
Click to expand...
I agree with Chapelgrove. I am not a prude, but it was not appropriate in such a public environment. If she did it in a studio or in a more confined setting, there would not be a problem.
 
Let's make sure this stays non personal and non political.

For our purposes that means no name calling and no associating an ideology or view point with any political group such as Right Wing or Left wing.
(and this is not directed at any one post or person)

Feel free to have a civil Philosophical discussion on your personal views about freedom of expression, art, nudity vs. violence, freedom of the individual, what's worth impinging on the right of others for, what's not, etc.

Just don't judge each other or discuss any political parties or groups.

Also remember that where the line is drawn on these issues is really a matter of opinion so there's really not much point in arguing about it.

THX,

The Management.
 
John_in_NY said:
I agree with Chapelgrove. I am not a prude, but it was not appropriate in such a public environment. If she did it in a studio or in a more confined setting, there would not be a problem.
Click to expand...

It may well have been in poor taste and and an exercise in poor judgement - in fact, I'd agree that it was - but artistic taste and the exercise of common sense are not within the purview of the legal system. The idea that the law needs to intervene in order to protect children from harm is simply absurd because there is no evidence whatsoever that the harm so feared will occur. A parent's belief that the children will be harmed by the sight of an unclothed person does not make it so. The argument that "but I don't want them to see it anyway" doesn't hold water if there is no rational basis for their objection. Arbitrarily shielding them from an awareness of nudity becomes like shielding them from an awareness of the existence of France or from discovering that a lot of people like to dance and don't believe it's evil. You have the political right to raise your kids any way you wish short of child abuse but you don't have the right to demand that society become your partner by catering to your desire to shield your children from awareness of the world around them.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
It may well have been in poor taste and and an exercise in poor judgement - in fact, I'd agree that it was - but artistic taste and the exercise of common sense are not within the purview of the legal system. The idea that the law needs to intervene in order to protect children from harm is simply absurd because there is no evidence whatsoever that the harm so feared will occur. A parent's belief that the children will be harmed by the sight of an unclothed person does not make it so. The argument that "but I don't want them to see it anyway" doesn't hold water if there is no rational basis for their objection. Arbitrarily shielding them from an awareness of nudity becomes like shielding them from an awareness of the existence of France or from discovering that a lot of people like to dance and don't believe it's evil. You have the political right to raise your kids any way you wish short of child abuse but you don't have the right to demand that society become your partner by catering to your desire to shield your children from awareness of the world around them.
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]I believe the incident would be a misdemeanor and the worst penalties would most likely be some fines, but no jail time. I am sure Ms. Badu and her producers of this video knew the likely legal ramifications beforehand and took a calculated risk. The potential fines and legal expenses will be outweighed by the free publicity generated. There are many people who never heard of her before, but now know her name. How many of us would have watched her video if not for the publicity surrounding it? As far as effects on children, they will not be scarred for life, but it doesn’t set a good example for them either.[/FONT]
 
John_in_NY said:
[FONT=&quot]I believe the incident would be a misdemeanor and the worst penalties would most likely be some fines, but no jail time. I am sure Ms. Badu and her producers of this video knew the likely legal ramifications beforehand and took a calculated risk. The potential fines and legal expenses will be outweighed by the free publicity generated. There are many people who never heard of her before, but now know her name. How many of us would have watched her video if not for the publicity surrounding it? As far as effects on children, they will not be scarred for life, but it doesn’t set a good example for them either.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Progress only takes place when courageous individuals push the boundaries so in that sense I think it indeed sets a very good example for the children. Remember, the idea of freedom of speech only means something when the speech it protects is speech disapproved by the majority. No one is ever in danger of being jailed for advocating the popular opinion.
 
Steve House said:
Progress only takes place when courageous individuals push the boundaries so in that sense I think it indeed sets a very good example for the children. Remember, the idea of freedom of speech only means something when the speech it protects is speech disapproved by the majority. No one is ever in danger of being jailed for advocating the popular opinion.
Click to expand...

+ 1

In some ways it's good to have someone crossing the line in a small ways every now and then so we know where the line is. And to remember that it's important and OK to think outside what's popular.

And really this is small potatoes. If you want to get freaked out. Two words: Spencer Tunick.

He began by taking photos of 50 - 150 people posing nude in the streets (literally in the streets) of NY. He progressed to huge installations such as 18,000! people posing nude in the public square of Mexico City. :shocked:

The 150 people in NY stuff when he was starting out got him arrested. Now I think the stuff he does is mostly in conjunction with major art institutions and cities. Maybe he still gets hassled for some of the stuff he pulls off though.

To date no children or adults who were children at the time have reported being traumatized and his only ill impact on society seems to be obstructing traffic for a short while (for the smaller no permit ones obv)

Really this seems like a lot of hulabaloo over one naked lady.
 
Steve House said:
Progress only takes place when courageous individuals push the boundaries so in that sense I think it indeed sets a very good example for the children. Remember, the idea of freedom of speech only means something when the speech it protects is speech disapproved by the majority. No one is ever in danger of being jailed for advocating the popular opinion.
Click to expand...
You are correct that freedom of speech laws were intended to protect unpopular speech, but that is not the issue in this case. The controversy is not over her making a nude video, but that it was done in a public place without a permit. I don't know if a permit would have been granted if they applied for one, but most certainly if a permit was granted, there would have been appropriate restrictions, as there should be. I am 100% for freedom of expression, just as long as it expressed in the proper venue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top