Posted on 05/16/2007 2:23:27 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. -- Spring has arrived in this southeastern Vermont shire town. The trees are less bare, and some local residents are more so. Brattleboro has no ordinance, and Vermont no law, against public nudity. Some of the people who caused a stir last year when they began appearing downtown as nature made them are back.
Not everyone is happy.
Resident Theresa Toney said she was dining at a downtown restaurant when she spotted her first naked person of the spring. She looked out the window "and saw a man in his 60s walking up and down Main Street totally nude," she said. "This is indecent exposure where it doesn't belong."
Toney was one of the most vocal critics of public nudity when young people first started congregating without clothing in a downtown parking lot last year.
This week she was back before the Select Board, demanding to know what the town was going to do "about this behavior."
Audrey Garfield, chairwoman of the board, said she had spoken with the town manager, and that a log of complaints would be compiled.
Some are worried about the town's image.
"How do you want to be viewed as Brattleboro?" asked the Rev. Kevin Horion. "We want to welcome families with small children." Nudists could pop up anywhere, he said. "I am concerned we don't know where they are going to strike."
Knowing his ilk and knowing how secure he feels with his "electorate" I'll wager that he doesn't even try to pretend to live in VT.
My guess is that he has a nice,comfortable little $3 million townhouse in Georgetown.
Driving thru town these days you just might see the average wacko anti-nuclear nut holding vigals and protesting VT Yankee. Average age, 75!
“And there are no laws against “indecent exposure” in Vermont either?”
You’d have to define what ‘indecent exposure’ is in light of the fact that you are NUDE your totally ‘exposed’ to begin with.
your = you’re (you are)
Can you envision a scenario where a particular thing might happen to a guy that would turn his "innocent nudity" (my phrase) into "indecent exposure",as defined by the laws of pretty much every state in the nation?
“Can you envision a scenario where a particular thing might happen to a guy that would turn his “innocent nudity” (my phrase) into “indecent exposure”,as defined by the laws of pretty much every state in the nation?”
Without complete knowledge of Vermont law, it would be hard to determine.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. It just seems this town, and state, doesn’t seem to see it the way the rest of the country does.
I think I’ll look it up.
This is what I found.
“Vermont
T.13 Sec. 2601
(Lewd and Lascivious Conduct)
Statute prohibits “open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior”. Annotations do not indicate whether or not specific intent is required.
5 yrs and/or $300”
So I’m still not sure that a ‘particular thing’, that you are referring to ,would be apply without a better definition of what ‘open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior’ is in Vermont.
Man, my grammar is terrible.
Take out ‘be’ after ‘would’.
:0(
Although it might not represent "lewd and lascivious behavior" might it be considered "indecent exposure" (or worse) if,as he passes an attractive woman,a naked guy's Levitra kicks in?
“Although it might not represent “lewd and lascivious behavior” might it be considered “indecent exposure” (or worse) if,as he passes an attractive woman,a naked guy’s Levitra kicks in?”
I don’t know. Because the way the law reads, it doesn’t seem to define what ‘lewd a lascivious behavior’ really is.
I guess the only way to really be sure would be to look up actual cases that have been prosecuted, if any.
I don’t have the time to check right now.
It’s my bedtime in about 15 more minutes.
:0)
From Article 1, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "No person shall be a Senator ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen."
So my intuitive guess would be that Sanders at least makes a pretense of being a Vermont resident. But then again, lefties in general are not particularly interested in complying with constitutional mandates because they find the supreme law of the land to be too restrictive. That, despite the fact they take an oath of office to abide by it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.