|
Also on this
page: |
Anti-nudity bill dies in Florida legislature
Naturist leaders
had asked all to REFRAIN from any action for tactical reasons
UPDATES: On
March 19, 2008, as a result of discreet lobbying, the bill was amended with the
author’s acquiescence to remove references to Florida’s indecent exposure
statute. The bill and its Florida Senate companion continued to wend through
various committees, however, and required sustained vigilance. On May 2, 2008,
the bill died on the Second Reading Calendar, and its Senate companion died in
committee three days later.
****************************************************************
NATURIST
ACTION COMMITTEE
ADVISORY
****************************************************************
http://www.naturistaction.org
****************************************************************
Copyright 2008 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: February 7, 2008
SUBJECT: Florida House Bill 801
TO: All naturists and other concerned individuals
Dear Naturist,
The Naturist Action Committee (NAC) wishes to make you aware of an important
situation involving legislation in the state of Florida.
Freshman state legislator William Snyder (R-Martin County) has introduced House
Bill 801 in the Florida House of Representatives. The bill proposes troubling
changes to portions of state law that are of direct concern to naturists.
IMPORTANT: NAC IS NOT CALLING FOR YOUR ACTION AT
THIS TIME
Individual naturists, clubs and groups can be a tremendous asset in dealing
with legislation. However, conditions are NOT PRESENTLY APPROPRIATE for making
contact with lawmakers on this matter. Please wait.
NAC believes you should be advised and informed, but this is a case in which
premature action could be damaging. Watch for further NAC Action Alerts,
Advisories and Updates on this topic.
DISCUSSION
Section 800.03 of the Florida Statutes addresses the exposure or exhibition of
sexual organs in a public place. Based on the existing wording of the law,
800.03 has been held by Florida Courts to make such exposure illegal only when
it is done in a lewd manner.
House Bill 801 proposes changes to the wording of 800.03 that could jeopardize
the protection for naturists afforded by current judicial rulings. Moreover,
the bill seeks to add increased penalties under 800.03 in certain locations and
during certain times of day. Nudity within 1,000 feet of a "state, county,
or municipal park" or "a public beach" would be an automatic
felony at any time. The legislation poses an obvious and severe threat to
naturists at clothing-optional Florida beaches like Haulover, which is a public
beach located within a county park. Other Florida sites would be at similar
risk.
HISTORY
Rep. Snyder proposed similar legislation last year. His House Bill 269 drew a
number of Senate companion bills. NAC opposed those bills, working behind the
scenes, and then at the proper moment, calling for grass roots action. Your
gratifying response to NAC's Action Alert last year was a major factor in the
outright defeat of ALL of the anti-naturist bills we opposed in the Florida
legislature. NAC thanks you!
In addition to reintroducing the threatening language from his 2007 bill, Rep.
Snyder has incorporated elements from other failed anti-naturist legislation
and from a committee substitute for his own failed bill from last year.
Specifically, HB 801 seeks the authorization for warrantless arrests where
"[t]here is probable cause to believe that the person has unlawfully
exhibited his or her sexual organs in public in violation of s. 800.03."
The troubling implications for naturists are obvious.
The concept of warrantless arrests for 800.03 was lifted from legislation
proposed last year by Senator Bill Posey (R-Rockledge). NAC vigorously opposed
Sen. Posey's bill, SB 1800, and it was among those that died in committee last
year.
WHAT IS NAC DOING?
Because we carefully monitor all legislation, the Naturist Action Committee
identified this bill and began addressing it within just a few hours of the
moment it was filed. NAC is working closely on this matter with local naturists
and with representatives of Florida naturist clubs and groups.
By telephone and through written correspondence, NAC board member Morley
Schloss has reinitiated a dialog on this issue with the office of Rep. Snyder
and with the legislative committee to which the bill will be assigned.
The Florida legislature has not yet begun its regular 2008 session. The
legislature officially convenes on March 4. However, measures are allowed to be
filed early, an action that often places them higher on the list for
legislative committee consideration.
NAC and its allies are taking House Bill 801 very seriously and are focusing on
the most effective and efficient ways to protect the interests of naturists. As
is frequently the case, there are further things to be done behind the scenes,
and that's exactly what's happening at this point.
WHAT IS NAC ASKING YOU TO DO?
This is an informational advisory only. The Naturist Action Committee is
specifically asking that you do NOT take action at this time.
NAC anticipates an upcoming appropriate time and circumstance for contacts with
lawmakers on this issue, but that time is NOT RIGHT NOW. Please watch for
further NAC Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on this topic.
MORE INFORMATION
You can access additional information on the Web site of the Naturist Action
Committee.
www.naturistaction.org
Select "Alerts, Advisories and Updates." Under Current Advisories,
you'll find the text of this NAC Advisory, along with links to the complete
text of House Bill 801, existing Florida law, pertinent legal cases and
archived details from last year's spate of anti-naturist legislation in
Florida.
PLEASE HELP NAC HELP LOCAL NATURISTS
The Naturist Action Committee exists to advance and protect the rights and
interests of naturists throughout North America. As the nonprofit volunteer
political adjunct to The Naturist Society, NAC is a vigorous force at work on behalf
of naturists.
The Naturist Action Committee relies entirely on your voluntary support. Please
donate generously with a check to:
NAC
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903
Or use your credit card to make a direct donation online through NAC's Web
site:
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 Morley Schloss - morleynaturist@hotmail.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick - naturist@sunclad.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top-free equality
Men don’t think twice about stripping off their shirt to cool off on a hot day — we just take it for granted. Apart from beaches in a few oases of progressivism, however, it’s not so for women. Although there is no objective reason for treating the sexes unequally, the law prevents women from enjoying this simple comfort in most places where it goes unquestioned for men.
Brave women and their supporters have challenged this unfairness on constitutional grounds in a number of jurisdictions, with a mixed result of victories and setbacks. A case was pending for a long time against a top-free activist, Liz Book, stemming from her shirtless demonstration for top-free equality in Daytona Beach in March 2004.
Liz and several other women, some of them our friends from South Florida Free Beaches / Florida Naturist Association (SFFB/FNA), were arrested during a follow-up demonstration a year later.* The initial charge was indecent exposure, but it was changed to disorderly conduct. The defendants planned to plead not guilty, but the disposition of that case is unclear. Finally, in June 2005, a county judge ruled that Liz’s original protest was constitutionally protected free speech, and dismissed the charges from the prior year. The City of Daytona Beach appealed the ruling, but eventually lost on September 25, 2007.
To refocus public attention on the issue, Liz held another top-free demonstration in Daytona Beach on Saturday, July 2, 2005 in front of Peabody Auditorium, alongside several classical sculptures of bare-breasted female figures. Now barred from invoking Florida’s indecent exposure statute against her, local police arrested Liz on disorderly conduct charges instead, claiming she disturbed the peace by causing a traffic jam and sidewalk blockage, “corrupt[ing] the public morals[,] and outrag[ing] the sense of public decency…”
Liz vowed to fight the new charges, and her initial hearing was set for Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2005. Exactly one year later, the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida affirmed the earlier ruling that women may appear top-free in public to protest an ordinance against top-freedom. The City of Daytona Beach stubbornly continued to appeal. In a further victory on Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006, however, the judge in the July 2005 disorderly conduct trial found Liz not guilty.
Liz held another top-free public “demonstration” (she just stood on a bridge and fished) in Daytona Beach on March 8, 2008, and, for once, the police didn’t bother her. On May 7, 2008, Liz won a victory of sorts, collecting from the City of Daytona Beach a court-approved, negotiated award of $15,000 in partial coverage of damages stemming from her arrests, and a dismissal of any pending charges. (Her lawsuit had initially requested $100,000.) In a slap, however, the City amended its code to ban public nudity in constitutional protest of, well, bans on public nudity! (It seems to imply by such specificity that public nudity for any other purpose, or none at all, is not a violation. Such singular treatment begs a First Amendment challenge on the basis of prior restraint of free expression.)
For details, contact Liz or visit her
MySpace.
(Her access to e-mail is sporadic, so please be
patient for a reply.) You may also donate to the B.E.A.C.H.E.S. Top-Free Ten Lawsuit fund.
==>
National GoTopless Protest Day, Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008, Miami Beach. Find out more…
For more information on this issue, see:
Topfree Equal
Rights Association
* Daytona Top-Free Protest (A
Personal Account)
(Article in Summer 2005 issue of The SunDial,
SFFB/FNA newsletter)
Busting
the Boob Ban (Orlando Weekly)
Sun safety and skin health – some common-sense
suggestions
[Webmaster’s
note: The following letter to the editor from several dermatologists appeared
in the Nov. 14, 2006 edition of The Miami Herald. For additional information on this topic,
visit the website of the American Academy of Dermatology at www.aad.org. If you notice any
suspect changes in your skin, do not hesitate to make an appointment with a dermatologist.]
Re: Dr.
Robert D. Bibb's Nov. 2 Other Views
column, Sunscreen and skin cancer:
Bibb's claim that the use of sunscreens has seriously increased the incidence
of melanoma is incorrect.
Sunscreens,
properly used, provide protection from the damage of harmful UV rays that cause
skin cancer, including melanoma. We must all be educated on how to properly use
sunscreens. Most people apply only 25 to 50 percent of the amount actually
required to achieve the rated sun-protection factor. They also do not apply
sunscreens uniformly or often enough to achieve the rated SPF value.
Sunscreens
are not a free pass to sunbathe. UV rays should be avoided during peak hours,
and everyone should apply sunscreen as part of the daily skin-care ritual.
The idea
that sunscreen use increases the risk of melanoma by prolonging exposure of
susceptible individuals to the sun was disproved in several case-control
studies. Unfortunately, however, melanoma is increasing for other reasons.
According to one study, melanoma incidents in fair-skinned populations increase
with proximity to the Equator. Unsurprisingly, it was found that people's risk
of melanoma increases when they move from areas of low- to high-sun exposure. A
second factor was the role of the depleting ozone layer. And third, genetics
may be just as important as UV exposure in development of melanomas. Genetic
attributes such as skin, hair and eye color, presence of mutations in tumor
suppressor genes and presence of atypical moles all play a role.
Other
factors that may be attributed to the increase in melanoma include the
increased popularity of tanning booths, diagnosis of thinner lesions, early
detection of lesions, better reporting techniques and increased life
expectancy.
We are not
suggesting that sunscreen is a panacea. Individuals should minimize sun
exposure during peak UV hours (10 a.m-4 p.m.), wear protective clothing, hats
and sunglasses and seek shade in addition to using sunscreen daily.
Anti-oxidants are also recommended, with the best-studied agents being vitamins
C, E and Ferulic Acid.
Except for
total sun avoidance, sunscreens along with the above protective measures remain
the best method of protection from UV-induced damage to the skin, including
skin cancer.
KEYVAN
NOURI, MD, professor, dermatology and cutaneous surgery
JOELY KAUFMAN,
MD, assistant professor, cosmetic dermatology
LAWRENCE A.
SCHACHNER, MD, chairman,
Department
of Dermatology,
University
of Miami, Miami
