Advertisement
by Call to power » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:47 pm
by Anti-Social Darwinism » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:53 pm
by The Romulan Republic » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:54 pm
by Buffett and Colbert » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:57 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Buffett and Colbert wrote:In terms of the law, that is. I should have said disorderly conduct.
http://www.nudist-resorts.org/statutes.htmIt's not illegal to be naked in downtown Boulder. In fact, the city has had a long, proud history of nudity.
Let me reinforce that...It's not illegal to be naked in downtown Boulder.
My Source on Colorado wrote:It is unlawful for any person to knowingly perform any of the following acts in a public place or a place within public view: ...B. A Lewd Act: For the purposes of this section, any of the following constitute a lewd act: 1. Exposure of the breasts of the female or the pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals or buttocks of either sex, done with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of either the person committing the act or any other person.
2. Exposure of the breasts of the female or the pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals or buttocks of either sex, under circumstances in which the conduct is reasonably likely to cause affront or alarm to another person [ed. note: this paragraph is now deleted]. C. An act involving public nudity. For the purposes of this section, the term "public nudity" shall mean knowingly appearing in any public place in a nude state or state of undress such that the genitals or buttocks of either sex or the breast or breasts of a female are exposed. Exposure of the female breast or breasts for purposes of breastfeeding shall not be a violation of this section.
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Call to power » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:59 pm
Anti-Social Darwinism wrote:I think I may drive up to Boulder tonight and get myself a pumpkin hat. If you hear a report of a sixtyish fat lady letting it all hang out ...
by Iron Chariots » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:05 pm
It's not illegal to be naked in downtown Boulder. In fact, the city has had a long, proud history of nudity.
by Buffett and Colbert » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:06 pm
Iron Chariots wrote:From the article:It's not illegal to be naked in downtown Boulder. In fact, the city has had a long, proud history of nudity.
What they are doing is not illegal. Further, it seems unlikely to cause alarm, given the "long, proud history of nudity." Any attempted crackdown is just some prudish dumbass trying to illegitimately force their backwards views on everybody else.
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Swiftor Tayl » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:08 pm
Beckner said his officers will continue enforcing the state's indecent exposure law this Halloween if people organize another Naked Pumpkin Run on the Pearl Street Mall.
And this year, Beckner said, his officers will arrest people rather than just issue tickets.
"We want to stop that type of activity," Beckner said, referencing a Halloween "mall crawl" in the 1980s that was shut down in 1991 after it turned into a drunken festival of tens of thousands of people. "We don't want to have an anything-goes atmosphere on the mall again during Halloween."
...
Beckner said his department agrees with critics who say indecent exposure -- and the sex-offender penalty that comes with it -- is not an appropriate charge for people who are pulling nude pranks or participating in naked events.
"If we can address it in a municipal ordinance, we can meet our needs, and it doesn't put people in the sex-offender category," he said.
by Swiftor Tayl » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:09 pm
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Iron Chariots wrote:From the article:It's not illegal to be naked in downtown Boulder. In fact, the city has had a long, proud history of nudity.
What they are doing is not illegal. Further, it seems unlikely to cause alarm, given the "long, proud history of nudity." Any attempted crackdown is just some prudish dumbass trying to illegitimately force their backwards views on everybody else.
Since when has city law trumped state law?
by LOL ANARCHY NUBZ » Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:04 pm
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Iron Chariots wrote:From the article:It's not illegal to be naked in downtown Boulder. In fact, the city has had a long, proud history of nudity.
What they are doing is not illegal. Further, it seems unlikely to cause alarm, given the "long, proud history of nudity." Any attempted crackdown is just some prudish dumbass trying to illegitimately force their backwards views on everybody else.
Since when has city law trumped state law?
by SaintB » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:34 am
Intestinal fluids wrote:Boulder's Naked Halloween Streak May Be Coming to an End
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125693458626119361.html
What a brilliant piece of logic this chief of police has.
"Police acknowledge they have not been flooded with pumpkin-run-related complaints, but say that's beside the point. A throng of naked people with jack-o-lanterns on their heads is, by definition, an alarming sight, Chief Beckner says. Therefore, it's illegal."
Oddly enough i looked up definitions of alarming and nowhere did it mention organized fun loving naked people running around with gourds on their heads.
by Little Jim P » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:42 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Intestinal fluids wrote:How so? How about if they line up in nice straight orderly quiet lines naked with pumpkins on their heads. Is that disorderly too? Or do you just have an anti-gourd agenda?
The nudity is obviously a symbol of satanism, and as we all know, Satanism corrupts our children, making them disorderly.
by SaintB » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:44 am
Little Jim P wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Intestinal fluids wrote:How so? How about if they line up in nice straight orderly quiet lines naked with pumpkins on their heads. Is that disorderly too? Or do you just have an anti-gourd agenda?
The nudity is obviously a symbol of satanism, and as we all know, Satanism corrupts our children, making them disorderly.
Man, we get blamed for everything.
by Little Jim P » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:48 am
SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Intestinal fluids wrote:How so? How about if they line up in nice straight orderly quiet lines naked with pumpkins on their heads. Is that disorderly too? Or do you just have an anti-gourd agenda?
The nudity is obviously a symbol of satanism, and as we all know, Satanism corrupts our children, making them disorderly.
Man, we get blamed for everything.
And its all your fault Jim P.
by ChengISao » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:48 am
by SaintB » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:52 am
Little Jim P wrote:SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Intestinal fluids wrote:How so? How about if they line up in nice straight orderly quiet lines naked with pumpkins on their heads. Is that disorderly too? Or do you just have an anti-gourd agenda?
The nudity is obviously a symbol of satanism, and as we all know, Satanism corrupts our children, making them disorderly.
Man, we get blamed for everything.
And its all your fault Jim P.
Of course it is.
by Little Jim P » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:53 am
SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Intestinal fluids wrote:How so? How about if they line up in nice straight orderly quiet lines naked with pumpkins on their heads. Is that disorderly too? Or do you just have an anti-gourd agenda?
The nudity is obviously a symbol of satanism, and as we all know, Satanism corrupts our children, making them disorderly.
Man, we get blamed for everything.
And its all your fault Jim P.
Of course it is.
Sexual offenders are usually the ones who didn't actually do anything sexual.
by SaintB » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:54 am
Little Jim P wrote:SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Intestinal fluids wrote:How so? How about if they line up in nice straight orderly quiet lines naked with pumpkins on their heads. Is that disorderly too? Or do you just have an anti-gourd agenda?
The nudity is obviously a symbol of satanism, and as we all know, Satanism corrupts our children, making them disorderly.
Man, we get blamed for everything.
And its all your fault Jim P.
Of course it is.
Sexual offenders are usually the ones who didn't actually do anything sexual.
Methinks you quoted the wrong post.
by SaintB » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:55 am
ChengISao wrote:I'm still trying to figure out where the sex for sexual offender is.
by Little Jim P » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:56 am
SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:SaintB wrote:Little Jim P wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Intestinal fluids wrote:How so? How about if they line up in nice straight orderly quiet lines naked with pumpkins on their heads. Is that disorderly too? Or do you just have an anti-gourd agenda?
The nudity is obviously a symbol of satanism, and as we all know, Satanism corrupts our children, making them disorderly.
Man, we get blamed for everything.
And its all your fault Jim P.
Of course it is.
Sexual offenders are usually the ones who didn't actually do anything sexual.
Methinks you quoted the wrong post.
Yes I did, I blame you
by Gerechtigkeit fur Mann » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:00 am
by Gerechtigkeit fur Mann » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:03 am
by ChengISao » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:07 am
by LOL ANARCHY NUBZ » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:12 am
Gerechtigkeit fur Mann wrote:It is public indecency you genii.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Deblar, Dimetrodon Empire, Eahland, Ifreann, Kager South, Philjia, Platypus Bureaucracy, The Archregimancy, The Two Jerseys, Turenia, USHALLNOTPASS, Utquiagvik
Advertisement