Update: WNBR Charges Dismissed against Daniel

A form-email myself (and several others) received from the Mayor's office announcing charges have been dropped against Daniel:

"Thank you for taking the time to comment in support of Mr. Johnson. As you may know, Seattle City Attorney Peter Holmes, not the mayor, is the elected official with the discretion to charge city infractions, misdemeanors, and gross misdemeanors. In this case, the decision to prosecute Mr. Johnson was made last month by the previous City Attorney. You will be happy to know that after City Attorney Holmes took office and reviewed the case, the charges against Mr. Johnson were dropped as of this morning. If you have any further questions or comments about this case, feel free to contact Mr. Holmes (peter.holmes@seattle.gov) and his Criminal Division Chief, Craig Sims (craig.sims@seattle.gov).

Again, thank you for taking the time to comment.

Yours in service,

Derek Farmer
Office of Mayor Mike McGinn"

The West Seattle Blog also has coverage, noting the charges of Indecent Exposure were Dismissed with Prejudice . . . which means the case is dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. That good reason?  Probably the realization that this simply did not fit the definition of indecent exposure.  Quite possibly a statement that they are not going to pursue cases like this . . . that they've got better things to do.

In any case, congrats Daniel.

Ashland, Oregon Anti-Nudity Ordinance Update

According to an update posted by Don, the Oregon NACRep,  the Ashland City Council has approved and adopted new language to replace the old ordinance on nudity:

• “It is unlawful for any person eight years or older to intentionally expose his or her genitalia while in an exterior public place. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prohibit any act protected under the circumstances by the federal or state constitution.”

The change has not been reflected on the city web pages yet.

Sauvies Island Parking Fees Go Up

ODFW has increased the parking fees for parking on Sauvies Island, including parking at Collin's Beach, the clothing-optional one.

Effective for 2010, the annual pass is $22 and a daily parking pass is $7.    Passes can still be purchased at the store as you come onto the island . . . or at the 7-Eleven south on Hwy 30 in Lindon.

I may not like the increased fees but if it helps to fully fund Deputy Weaver's replacement and continued law enforcement on the beach, I can live with it.

NAC Advisory: Black's Beach Rumor is NOT TRUE

NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE

ADVISORY

---

http://www.naturistaction.org

---

Copyright 2010 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.

DATE : January 8, 2010
SUBJECT: Black's Beach Rumor is NOT TRUE
TO : All naturists

Dear Naturist,

This is an advisory from the Naturist Action Committee (NAC) concerning an INCORRECT RUMOR about Black's Beach in San Diego County, California.

Torrey Pines State Park, which is often referred to, informally, as "Black's Beach," is still clothing-optional. A rumor has been circulating recently that nudity is no longer permitted at Torrey Pines State Park. THE RUMOR IS NOT TRUE.

The unfounded "news" has been circulating by word of mouth and online via e-mails, social networking sites and message board postings, under titles like: "Blacks Beach Officially No Longer a Clothing optional Beach" and "Blacks Beach is No More." THE RUMOR IS NOT TRUE.

CALIFORNIA DPR WEB SITE

The rumor seems to have arisen from a flawed reading of the Web site of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. A portion of the text on that Web site describes a 10-mile hiking trip from Scripps Pier to Torrey Pines State Beach and back. The text says: "This beach hike begins at Scripps Pier, passes along Torrey Pines City Beach, known locally as Black's Beach, once swimsuit-optional, now enforced suits-only."

The text is correct, but please note that it refers to Torrey Pines CITY BEACH, and NOT to Torrey Pines State Park. The City Beach is located south of the State Park. Despite their respective official names, both the city beach and the state beach are popularly called

"Black's Beach."

Some have asserted that the DPR Web site's reference to Black's Beach has changed recently. NAC's check of Internet archives reveals that the text at the center of the rumor has not been changed.

THE END, A DECADE AGO, OF NUDITY AT TORREY PINES CITY BEACH

After years of clothing-optional use, the City of San Diego declared in 1999 that nudity would no longer be accepted on the City portion of the beach. Lifeguards daily established the boundary between the City beach and the State beach by setting out orange traffic cones and (initially, at least) a amall sawhorse with a makeshift sign that said: "NUDITY LINE."

In 2002, City lifeguards stopped putting out the cones and the sign, because a concern had developed among some officials that the sign might be seen as endorsing or designating nudity on the other side of the line. The ban on nudity on the City Beach only, remains in effect.

Other boundary markers come and go. Reflecting the continuing official caution for avoiding inadvertent designation, some markers have simply been posts that say: "BOUNDARY" or cones that say: "LINE."

TORREY PINES STATE BEACH

Clothing-optional use remains the norm on a stretch of beach of Torrey Pines State Park about one mile in length. For details, see the Web site of Black's Beach Bares, local naturist stewards of the beach. http://blacksbeach.org

The Naturist Action Committee works closely with Black's Beach Bares, which is affiliated with The Naturist Society and publishes an informative newsletter.

THERE ARE THREATS TO TORREY PINES / BLACK'S BEACH

Despite the falsity of the recent rumor, naturists are justified in being wary of threats to the clothing-optional status of the traditional area at Torrey Pines State Park. For more than thirty years, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has managed for clothing-optional recreation through its Cahill Policy and the Harrison letter that affirmed it. However, recent DPR actions at nearby San Onofre State Beach, make it clear that DPR officials feel they can terminate the Cahill Policy without public input at any time and at any State Park unit of their choosing.

In fact, it's likely that the official heavy-handedness at San Onofre has made the untrue Black's Beach rumor easier to believe.

WATCH FOR INFORMATION FROM NAC

Watch for NAC Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on this and other important issues affecting naturists.

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

The Naturist Action Committee remains committed to the vigorous defense of the clothing-optional use of public land. Activism on behalf of naturists can be expensive, and NAC relies entirely on the voluntary financial support of people like YOU.

Won't you please send a generous donation to:

NAC

PO Box 132

Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 (8AM-4PM, Central Time, weekdays) to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: http://www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for choosing to make a difference.

Naturally,

Bob Morton
Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

---

Naturist Action Committee (NAC) - PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton - execdir@naturistaction.org
Board Member Allen Baylis (CA) - rab@baylislaw.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick - naturist@sunclad.com

---

Man vs the Wild: Bear is at it again . . . nude in a frozen river!

>

Yeah, I know what the man is going through. Talk about the ultimate Polar Bare Dip! Brrrrrrrrrrrr

AT&T Mobility - Naked on the Beach Ad

Cute AT&T Commercial supposedly situated on a nude beach in Spain  . . . lol

To me it looks a lot like Big Beach on Maui Hawaii . . . Little Beach (the nude beach) is just on the other side of that rocky spit.

Seattle's nude beaches - Easily show your support WE NEED YOUR HELP TODAY!

**PLEASE forward widely and distribute to your networks and friends and urge them to VOTE as well!**

(URGENT: PLEASE click on link below to VOTE TODAY! Many of you still haven't voted yet and we **desperately** need your support at this critical time!)

Happy New Year Everybody!

As many of you have heard, our new Mayor Mike McGinn is set to move in today to his new office. Let's make one more big push to deliver a message to him that will be firm and clear:

Seattle is one of the most body-positive cities in the world and its time that Seattle finally gets some clothing-optional beaches!

UPDATE: Right now our issue is ranked #5 (number 3 a day later) on the top ideas suggested for Seattle at McGinn's site, http://new.seattle.gov . This site was created to hear gather and rank proposals about issues important to local citizens and those who visit alike. Voting on this site is the easiest and most direct way to get this important issue to the attention of Seattle's New Mayor Mike McGinn! Please help us bring this issue to his attention whether you live in Seattle or plan on visiting and want to have the optional of going to a designated

clothing-optional beach!

With recent news coverage about McGinn's support of legalizing marijuana, word of this website has spread and the pot issue and light rail issues have are far and away breaking away from the rest. We need your support and the support of your friends, family members and all of their friends as well to VOTE NOW! SEND THIS message to as many of your supportive networks as possible!

Please vote (you can use up to *3* of your 10 allowed votes (each category gets 10 max votes)) at the Seattle Mayor's new website, Ideas for Seattle:

http://bit.ly/7V61rA

Leaving comments would also be very much appreciated!

Its very quick and easy to setup an account so you can vote!

Description:

Set aside park beach areas for European-style, clothing-optional recreation (sunbathe + skinny dip)

The Greater Seattle Area has long hosted the world's most renowned, colorful, family-friendly and free-spirited clothing-optional cultural events and groups in the world including: The Fremont Solstice Cyclists (17 years), World Naked Bike Ride, Body Pride Ride, Seattle Free Beach Campaign, Gardens Everywhere Bike Parade, Seattle Critical mAss, Hemp Ride, Love Every Body, Seattle Swims rentals at Seattle Parks Department Aquatic Facilities, Sun Lovers Under Gray Skies (SLUGS), Magnuson Beach Bares, Friends of Denny Park, Friends of Secret Beach, Fraternity Snoqualmie, Bare Buns Fun Runs, Nudestock, Body Freedom Collaborative, and Naked Pumpkin Run. Additionally, a handful of shoreline park areas have seen quiet yet significant clothing-optional use for decades. In 2008, after a considerable grassroots public campaign by local skinny dippers, the Seattle Parks Board recommended that the Parks Department look into establishing designated and signed areas for clothing-optional use. Let's make it happen!

Thanks for taking a moment of your time and showing your support in this critical Seattle government transition time!

Very best,

Daniel Johnson

Seattle Free Beach Campaign, supporter

206 369 2661 mobile

http://twitter.com/rawexuberance

Commentary on WNBR Indecent Exposure Citation

(Note: I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice . . . the following is merely my take and understanding of the dynamics of the law as I understand it. If you find yourself in similar circumstances, please find yourself competent legal representation.)

"... Public nudity, for example, causes offense to some people, but most of us find it at most a bit embarrassing, and it is avoided by a simple turn of the head. ..." 
van Mill, David, " Freedom of Speech", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/freedom-speech/ 

Precedent:

Nude bicycle riding has become a "well-established tradition" in Seattle and many other cities around the U.S. and the world. It is understood and interpreted as a form of "symbolic protest." The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) does not have a specific prohibition against public nudity. Portland does and judges there have ruled in favor of defendents in dismissing indecent exposure charges based on the above traditions and First Amendment Rights.

The Seattle WNBR has been going on for years. Occassionally, riders get threatened, sometimes they get cited . . . usually for not dressing when ordered to do so by police officers, a Disorderly Conduct charge. Riders are generally left alone and often given a police escort to safely control the ride route. Those who do get cited have the charges quitely dropped after-the-fact . . . an acknowledgement of the difficulty of prosecuting Indecent Exposure charges when there has been no lewd of obscene conduct.
(Image from Seattle's 2004 World Naked Bike Ride)

Another example of tradition and acceptance within Seattle has been the participation for years of the body-painted nude bicycle riders in the annual Fremont Solstice Parade. Riding nude in the parade has become a fact 'accompli. In 1998, SPD officers arrested two naked cyclists in the Fremont Solstice Parade. The city attorney at that time declined to prosecute the pair because they hadn’t violated the indecent exposure law. Police since have not bothered to attempt to stop the tradition of nude cyclists in the parade . . . the thousands of families and children lining the parade route love them and applaud when they go by. (Personal experience and participation, 2002-2009; image from the 2008 Fremont Solstice Naked Bicyclists)

The former Seattle Superintendent of Parks had this to say to naysayers and critics of permission to ride through Seattle Parks by WNBR participants: "While public nudity is objectionable to many citizens, under Washington state’s Indecent Exposure Law, public nudity in itself is not illegal. The law specifies that ..." Kenneth R. Bounds, (former) Superintendent, Seattle Parks and Recreation, responding to a complaint, dated 12 July 2006, about World Naked Bike Ride Seattle.

Former Police Chief Kerlikowske had this to say to his subordinates about circulating rumors and allegations that police would arrest nude participants in the 2008 Gay Pride Parade:

"Washington's indecent exposure law makes it a misdemeanor to 'make an 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.' In other words, there must be lewd or obscene behavior for an officer to take action." [emphasis mine]

Chief Kerlikowshe goes on in the same communique to say,

"In order for the police to make an arrest, we must have witnesses currently in the public place where the nudity is occurring [sic] who must make a complaint. These witnesses must be willing to appear in court. Also in order to prosecute, the burden is on the government to prove the the offender was knowingly aware that their conduct created alarm and offense of others."

The Law

Since Seattle has no public nudity prohibition on the books of the Municipal Code (nor does King County have an anti-nudity ordinance), Daniel was cited under the state Indecent Exposure statute . . . RCW 9A.88.010 which I quote below:

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.

In order to successfully prosecute, all the elements of the statute must be met. There has to be intention to expose with the knowledge of likely affront, the exposure has to be open AND obscene, and there has to be someone who was affronted or alarmed at the exposure.  Four required elements to sustain the charge.

Element #1: Someone Must Complain
As Chief Kerlikowske has stated, and the King County Sheriff's Department spokesperson has reinteratted in email exchanges, there must be someone complaining and that someone must be willing to appear in court to testify to the complaint. It is not sufficient for a law enforcement officer to be the one affronted or alarmed to sustain a complaint. I've been told by the King County Sheriff's department that a complaint must be made by someone alleging affront and alarm; a deputy [or police officer] cannot be a victim of indecent exposure (aka nudity in their eyes). As the spokesman states, "I guess the courts have figured we've seen it all."

Element #2: Intention and Knowledge
Intention is always difficult to prove in court; the prosecutor must assess and prove the defendant's alleged state of mind. In my reading of the statute, the bar is raised even higher because I read the statute to say the cited 'had the intention to obscenely expose him or herself, knowing it might cause reasonable affront or alarm'. It's not just the intention . . . it's intention with knowledge.

Element #3: Nude? Or Nude and Obscene?

"Public nudity in itself is not illegal." Former Seattle Parks Superintendent Ken Bounds

"... there must be lewd or obscene behavior for an officer to take action." Former SPD Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske

Arrests and citations for indecent exposure rarely hold for simple nudity. Why? Because of that one required charging element . . . the exposure must also be obscene.

The current test for obscenity rests with the Miller Test (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973). The Miller Test requires a three-pronged approach for courts to determine whether an act or expression is obscene:

"(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,]

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. [Pp. 24-25.]"

The precedence of the Miller test holds in our state courts (see last para above). Lacking any patently offensive sexual conduct, simple nudity cannot be considered 'obscene'.  Without obscene exposure, as defined and clarified by the Supreme Court, how can a charge of Indecent Exposure be sustained?

Where Constitutional First Amendment Rights to Free Speech (and Expression) are involved, prosecutors and the courts must step very carefully to avoid infringing on those rights.  Though there are those who may feel affronted . . . or alarmed . . . or in some way offended by someone's exercise of their Constitutional Rights, the Supreme Court has affirmed that those Rights are paramount and important to protect over mere offense or harm.

[For an excellent discussion of John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle and Joel Feinberg's Offense Principle as they relate to free speech read the treatment here.]

...there is no evidence of harm that is more than grossly speculative. All that the trial judge had before him was some evidence indicating specific individuals' lack of acceptance of the appellant's choice of clothing. There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what the appellant did. The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non-commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her ...  there was no harm in what was done ..." Criminal law study papers: A REVIEW OF THE LAW OF INDECENCY AND NUDITY IN CANADA; A lengthy discussion on the Harm Principle and Nudity in Canada; a good read to understand how Canadians approach public nudity. [emphasis added]

There is no doubt that the World Naked Bike Ride was promoted as an exercise of Free Speech and Expression and that many forms of simple, nonsexual public nudity are expressions of our desires to see the lifestyle accepted and venues allowed.  Much of public nudity is made to express one's beliefs in a more natural existence on this planet . . . surely forms of First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and Expression!

Element #4: Was Someone Offended?

What is missing from the notice that Daniel received? Who was offended? When and where were they offened? Why was Daniel cited and not the others? I suppose those questions will come out in court but I find it awfully disingenious of the city and inconvenient for the charged to prepare a defense in advance (or even decide a plea) without the knowledge of the essential charging elements of the citation (including the identity of the complainant who may have another agenda to pursue . . . or may not have even seen Daniel but an different rider near the back of the pack).

Why Daniel? Was it perhaps because he was leading the ride . . . the only person identifiable? There must be a complainant and that person must be able to testify that he or she was affronted and alarmed at a specific open and obscene exposure . . . the who, what, when, and where.

Are they alledging Daniel broke the law specifically. Or are they complaining because they saw someone naked . . . perhaps not Daniel at all. According to the recollection I received, the police did not confront the riders until some time later at an entirely different location. In my mind, I have to wonder if Daniel was cited because he identified himself as the leader of the group. The specifics of the complaint are missing and that makes this charge suspect in my mind.

I would hope that Daniel fights this charge all the way. I disagree with much of the activism of this type of nudity but we cannot let precedent be set to reinterpret what the state's indecent exposure law was meant to cover . . . and simple, innocent nudity is not one of them.

WNBR Seattle 2009 organizer headed to court (recap)

This just in from Daniel:

Looks like Thomas Carr http://www.seattle.gov/law/ http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/08/03/1961689-finish-him , who just got voted out of office by a landslide, is trying to scare at least one of the World Naked Bike Ride http://WNBRseattle.org West Seattle cyclists.

My intake hearing is Tues, 12 Jan 2010 at The Muncipal Court of Seattle at 9:05 AM. I am being charged with "indecent exposure" RCW9A. 88.010(1) for my role in the 13 Sept 2009 WNBR West Seattle event.

Here is the link to both the WSB and KOMO stories if you wish to help out with a supportive comment http://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=25925

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/80398782.html

Get this, the order was made on Christmas, 25 Dec 2009. We must all be in the holiday mood because I just gave Parks a Public Disclosure Request on Mon, 28 Dec 2009.

Due to court date approaching quickly and legal prep, other urgent issues with City and family medical issues I may need to move next Jan indoor swim to February. Hope you understand.

Any legal help would be appreciated.

Peace be with you this Holiday season. :)

Daniel Johnson

Follow me at http://twitter.com/rawexuberance for updates

Help Save Remington Hot Springs

Hot Spring lovers know how rare and precious Natural Hot Springs are.

Unfortunately the Forest Service is considering demolishing the Remington Hot Springs, which have been beautifully maintained by Friends of the Remington Hot Spring volunteers for over 10 years.

Local residents and others are ready willing and able to address any valid concerns the Forest Service may have, but right now we need your help.

In just TWO MINUTES you can help by submitting a letter using pre-drafted comments or your own comments, which will be hand delivered to the Sequoia National Forest voicing your support for keeping the Historic Natural Remington Hot Springs open to the public.

Click the link below to submit your comment letter and thank you for taking action to help keep the Remington Hot Springs from possibly being destroyed.

http://www.savethetrails.us/Default.aspx?PetitionID=42

Your Friends at Save The Trails