We are not lawyers, but from our reading of the above bill, it is
difficult to imagine how the Arkansas legislature could have gone further
afield in wanton disregard of the principles upon which this nation was
founded– principles and rights specifically guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution, and by most state constitutions.
Certainly, in these United States, any law must be unconstitutional which contains within itself, denial of the right to advocate– to go before a court of law and argue against the law itself.
We feel that this law must be unconstitutional, also, on the grounds that it is unclear and vaguely drawn. What is meant by “private parts?” We do not find the term in any of our dictionaries– and we have several large ones. Colliers International dictionary defines “privates” (at the bottom of a long column of other meanings) as “the external organs of sex.” Does the term “private parts,” means the penus and scrotum of the male, or of the female? If so, is the vulva “exposed” when covered with pubic hair? Are the female breasts considered to be “private parts,” which portion is to be so considered. Certainly if the upper portion and the “cleavage” are “private parts,” then high society has suffered a serious blow in Arkansas. Is the navel a “private part,” – the thigh, the neck, the ankle? Many a man has been soundly slapped for laying his hand upon a woman’s knee. It is not the knee also a private part?
Under title of “Tyranny in America,” the Sycamore Tattle Tale says, “The (Arkansas) law legalized the privileges of ANTI-nudism ballyhoo, but leads to arrest of anyone saying one word in FAVOR of nudism. Thus even the communication of ideas is prohibited although it is one of the fundamental freedoms upon which our nation was founded. Let us demonstrate our faith in America by donating to the ASA Legal Fund which now must also finance the ARKANSAS FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.”
SIR magazine apparently has read the Arkansas law, for they came up with an article in their May issue, entitled “Snapping Nude Photos Can Land You in Jail,” and burned a couple of galleys of metal suggesting to readers that the safest thing to do is to “confine your (photographic) efforts to landscapes and family portraits.” Other articles in the May issue are entitled, “Lesbians Are Not Legally Liable,” “The Case For Virgin Birth,” “I Was a White Slaver,” etc., and “What Nudism Has Done For Me,” by Mildred Darby, which we haven’t seen yet at this writing.
The papers have been full of it, so you know that Senate probers have told Portland Mayor Terry Schrunk that 35 gambling joints and houses of prostitution operate “wide open, some on split shifts,” in his city. We certainly do not claim that nudism or nudist literature can cure the ills of the world, but it seems worthy of note that the most militant nudist-haters usually turn out to be the worst sinners themselves, and that cities which ban nudist magazines, usually harbor the country’s worst flesh-pots. American Sunbather has not been sold on the Portland newsstands for several years. This is not an isolated instance. These circumstances have been noted so often, that they form a recognizable pattern.
Certainly, in these United States, any law must be unconstitutional which contains within itself, denial of the right to advocate– to go before a court of law and argue against the law itself.
We feel that this law must be unconstitutional, also, on the grounds that it is unclear and vaguely drawn. What is meant by “private parts?” We do not find the term in any of our dictionaries– and we have several large ones. Colliers International dictionary defines “privates” (at the bottom of a long column of other meanings) as “the external organs of sex.” Does the term “private parts,” means the penus and scrotum of the male, or of the female? If so, is the vulva “exposed” when covered with pubic hair? Are the female breasts considered to be “private parts,” which portion is to be so considered. Certainly if the upper portion and the “cleavage” are “private parts,” then high society has suffered a serious blow in Arkansas. Is the navel a “private part,” – the thigh, the neck, the ankle? Many a man has been soundly slapped for laying his hand upon a woman’s knee. It is not the knee also a private part?
Under title of “Tyranny in America,” the Sycamore Tattle Tale says, “The (Arkansas) law legalized the privileges of ANTI-nudism ballyhoo, but leads to arrest of anyone saying one word in FAVOR of nudism. Thus even the communication of ideas is prohibited although it is one of the fundamental freedoms upon which our nation was founded. Let us demonstrate our faith in America by donating to the ASA Legal Fund which now must also finance the ARKANSAS FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.”
SIR magazine apparently has read the Arkansas law, for they came up with an article in their May issue, entitled “Snapping Nude Photos Can Land You in Jail,” and burned a couple of galleys of metal suggesting to readers that the safest thing to do is to “confine your (photographic) efforts to landscapes and family portraits.” Other articles in the May issue are entitled, “Lesbians Are Not Legally Liable,” “The Case For Virgin Birth,” “I Was a White Slaver,” etc., and “What Nudism Has Done For Me,” by Mildred Darby, which we haven’t seen yet at this writing.
The papers have been full of it, so you know that Senate probers have told Portland Mayor Terry Schrunk that 35 gambling joints and houses of prostitution operate “wide open, some on split shifts,” in his city. We certainly do not claim that nudism or nudist literature can cure the ills of the world, but it seems worthy of note that the most militant nudist-haters usually turn out to be the worst sinners themselves, and that cities which ban nudist magazines, usually harbor the country’s worst flesh-pots. American Sunbather has not been sold on the Portland newsstands for several years. This is not an isolated instance. These circumstances have been noted so often, that they form a recognizable pattern.
Which brings us to the thought that it is perhaps time for American nudists to quit sitting a fence like a row of pigeons, waiting for Braxton Bragg to fire away, and hire a detective agency to take a look into Sawyer’s own background. We’ll wager that plenty of skeletons would be found. We would not advocate blackmail, but if Braxton knew that we knew, the things his character and activities indicate he is probably guilty of… he might go back to giving the devil a bad time, and give the nudists a rest.
In the February issue of MSA News (just received) we read, “Two years ago Sawyer was our enemy in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, and Michigan. In his defeat at that time he threatened to renew his efforts on a wider scale. His new tactics have proved quite effective. By persuading county sheriffs to do his dirty work for him, he has drawn us into two expensive court battles in Michigan and Arkansas. Possible he hopes to break us financially and thus end nudism state by state. Little does he know that we have not yet begun to fight in comparison with what’s forthcoming? Indeed, our fighting spirit has not been vanquished. To enable the ASA to lead the command successfully in this fight we must all once more reach into our pocketbooks and supply the ASA with the needed funds. There is not yet enough to finance the Michigan case to a finish. Also, we now have before us the financing of the entire Arkansas case. Our solution lies in a new wave of contributions to the ASA Legal Fund. Those who are regular listeners of Sawyer’s Radio Pulpit report that he is proudly gloating over his victory in the Arkansas Legislature with the anti-nudism law. He is making statements about trips to Oklahoma… also that he is adding 19 more stations eastward. He is boasting that Senator Estes Kefauver of Tenn. will introduce an anti-nudism law on the national level. Of course, Peter J. Kelly long ago indicated he would re-introduce the anti-nudism bill in Michigan this session.
(Source: The Nudist Newsletter, Issue Number 64)
No comments:
Post a Comment