blecch....let me guess, clinton or Carter appointee?
Posted on 07/06/2005 5:02:31 PM PDT by CHARLITE
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court yesterday reinstated a lawsuit challenging a Virginia law requiring parental supervision at a summer camp for juvenile nudists.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region could pursue its claim that the law violates its free-speech rights by crimping its ability to spread its social nudism philosophy.
The organization claims it had to cancel a summer camp last summer in southeast Virginia because only 11 of the 35 youths who signed up would have been able to bring a parent as required by the law.
“A regulation that reduces the size of a speaker’s audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest,” Judge William B. Traxler Jr. wrote in the unanimous ruling in White Tail Park v. Stroube.
U.S. District Judge Richard L. Williams ruled last August that the lawsuit was moot because the organizers of the camp at White Tail Park in Ivor surrendered their state permit for the camp after the law took effect on July 1, 2004.
The appeals court affirmed Williams’ ruling that White Tail Park and six parents who wanted to send their children to the camp lacked standing to sue. The parents’ claim was moot because the camp date had passed, the court said, and nothing in the record explained White Tail’s interest in educating juvenile nudist campers.
However, the court said the regional nudist organization, which designed and would have conducted the camp, had a case because it wanted to conduct future juvenile nudist camps in Virginia.
“What we’ve got is our case reinstated, maybe with a little different plaintiff lineup,” said the nudists’ lawyer, Rebecca Glenberg of the American Civil Liberties Union. “We will still be able to make the same constitutional arguments.”
Emily Lucier, spokeswoman for the Virginia attorney general’s office, said: “We are disappointed with the court’s ruling, but we expect to win at trial.”
A summer nudist camp for children ages 11 through 17 was conducted at White Tail Park in 2003. It was the first camp for nude juveniles in Virginia and only the third in the country, according to its sponsors.
Virginia’s General Assembly found out about the camp and passed the legislation requiring a parent, grandparent or legal guardian to accompany each participant, scuttling plans for the 2004 camp at the Ivor park.
I went to camp an all-boys sleep-away camp in Maine in the 1950s, when I was 7.
We had regular all-camp skinny dips at the lake several times during the summer.
I didn't see a problem with it then and I don't see one now.
Tax dollars at work.....
Sheesh .... has anyone ever seen a nude beach? After the first 15 minutes of shock and awe ... its boring. I can watch bikini's for hours, because SOMETHING is still left to the imagination. A woman in jeans and a T-shirt can be captivating. Often, seeing the same woman nude is a dissapointment, because NOTHING can live up to what we all envision. This has been demonstrated time and again by the genius Alfred Hitcock, in any number of his movies. What we imagine is ALWAYS more intense than the reality of the situation.
But, totally naked people walking around is neither erotic, nor shocking. In fact, it's quite boring.
Teens love this setup
yeah....
with adults, generally the ones going nude are the ones you DON'T want to see nude...
later pingout.
There is absolutely no need for juvenile nudist camps, other than to provide fodder for various sexual perverts.
I would argue that it's up to responsible parents and capitolism to dictate the 'need for juvenile nudist camps', not the Federal gov't. What if the Federal Gov't next decides there is NO NEED for Boy Scout camps? 4-H camps? Band camp?
My attitude exactly. Ordinary adult nudist beaches, campsites or "colonies" are one thing. A parade of unclothed teens, given the scientific FACTS concerning "raging hormones," is asking for trouble, even without the pervert/predator potential, as you rightly point out.
Further, there is some significance in the statistic cited in the article.......that only 11 out of 30+ parents were willing to chaperone their teens on this junket!
Thanks for an astute comment!
Char :)
Wait, wait; don't tell me! Clinton appointees!
It figures. Where there's stink....
Apparently you are all right with the Federal Gov't restricting a nude camp for minors (11-17) because you don't agree with their set of family 'values'. The fact that no law is being broken, and no crime is being committed, and these minors are being sent WITH their parent's permission bears no weight.
The fact that the odds are more than average that the family values in these families find nothing wrong in nudity enforces your approval for the need for the Federal Gov't to get involved.
So, what happens when the same court decides that there is 'no need' for your church camp; even though you (the parent) know and approve of those family values? Or, if the Federal court should then decide that 4-H, Boy Scouts and Band camps aren't needed either? You are ceding powers to the Federal Gov't that they do not need, nor should they have them.
Now, you and I would never dream of sending our adolescent children to a camp like this. Nor would we send them to a Muslim camp; because the chances are that those camps do not instill the family values we believe are important.
However, I would say that the decision as to OUR children's values is OUR responsibility, not the Federal Goverments. Never has been, never should be, and if I have a say about it, never will.
This one is a Clinton appointee:
Judge William B. Traxler Jr. wrote in the unanimous ruling in White Tail Park v. Stroube.
Traxler was appointed a district court judge by G.H.W. Bush, then elevated to the Court of Appeals by Clinton. The other 2 judges on the panel were appointed by G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush.
I do have a problem with your comment. I'm a Canadian and a religious conservative, but I don't agree with the prudish attitudes towards the human body many of my fellow conservatives (especially American conservatives) have.
King David danced in the nude. The prophet Isaiah wandered around for several years buck naked, to be seen by all in his glorious birthday suit. Adam and Eve were wandering around naked prior to the fall.
The naked body is natural, and its sexual eroticism lies in being partially covered, or immediately upon undressing. Observing naked people after five minutes completely removes their "hubba hubba" appeal. I know of what I speak. I have NEVER had an erection at a nude beach nor have seen anyone else get one.
We have a nice nude beach here in Vancouver (Wreck Beach). I've been there and I've already told my three older sons (11, 9 & 7) that I'll bring them there some day.
Entire families go there - sometimes, three generations at a time.
I'm making sure my sons grow up without being shackled by the illogical "sex is bad" or "masturbation is a sin" nonsense I grew up in. I believe seeing naked women and accepting them as people instead of just sexual objects is the healthiest option for my children.
Surely, the next thing they'll find is a "need" for traffic lights.
If we weren't half-a continent apart, and had joined more than 2 years ago; people would claim we were the same person.
You must have missed the 'Naked Human body is a sin' memo that went out about 500 years ago. Some people are still fixated on that one.
Spend 10 minutes at a nude beach, see the human body in it's natural state all around you; and the LAST thing, and I do mean the LAST thing you think about is sex. You can't say the same thing at the other beaches.
Your point is 100% correct; unfortunately as I'm sure that most everyone on this forum has never been to a nude beach, or at best has only stolen a quick peek at one; our point is missed entirely.
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.