AN IMMODEST PROPOSAL


The Indiana Court of Appeals recently decided a case that, in my view, involves an important but infrequently debated aspect of personal liberty and freedom. See what you think.

The Case: June 10, 2006 was a warm late spring evening in Warrick County, Indiana. It was so nice, in fact, that Chad Weideman decided to step outside of his house to enjoy the evening breeze. Since it was already dark out, he decided to dispense with the formality of clothing, and he walked outside in the nude.

By all indications, Chad had no intention of being seen by anyone else that evening. There were no outside lights on. He was in a secluded part of his side yard, standing near a fence by his property line and enjoying the pleasant night.

Gerald Bowser lived next door to Chad. At about 8:45 p.m., Gerald and his girlfriend Patty came out to get into Gerald's truck that was parked on the street. Even though it was dark out, Gerald and Patty could sense someone standing by the fence as they got into the truck. Gerald then drove his truck up onto the sidewalk, causing his headlights to illuminate Chad.

Gerald and Patty saw Chad standing there naked, with a look of panic or surprise on his face. Chad immediately dropped and rolled into a nearby ditch and crawled on his hands and knees to the back of his property. Patty called the police, and Chad was charged with public nudity as a Class B misdemeanor. He was convicted in the Warrick Superior Court, and appealed.

The Statute: Indiana Code 35-45-4-1.5(c) provides: "a person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor."

"Nudity" is defined as: "the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state." It's true, friends. I'm not making this up. Pitching a tent in public is illegal in Indiana.

Chad appealed his conviction on the basis that there was no evidence presented that he appeared nude in a "public place," that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define what a public place is, and that there was no evidence presented that he had the intent to be seen by another person on the evening in question.

The Decision: The Indiana Court of Appeals decided the case on July 16, 2008. The court held that the statute is not void for vagueness, because a person of ordinary intelligence can understand its meaning. The court stated that the phrase "public place" is not vague, as it is commonly understood to mean a place that is available to all or a certain segment of the public. The court further held that, although Chad was not actually standing in a public place when he was seen by Gerald and Patty, he "appeared" nude in a public place because he was visible to persons in a public place.

The court did conclude that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chad had the specific intent to be seen while in a state of nudity. For that reason, the judges remanded the case to the Warrick Superior Court with instructions to reduce the judgment to a Class C misdemeanor and to resentence Chad.

My Opinion: I think that it was a stretch for the court to find that Chad appeared nude in a public place while he was in a dark and secluded area of his own yard. Still, it's hard to find major fault with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the statutes. My problem lies with the statutes themselves. In my opinion, the law in Indiana pertaining to public nudity is outdated and draconian. It is a vestige of our puritanical past, and it needs to be modernized.

I have to ask: Why are we as a society so threatened by the showing of the human body? Who was Chad hurting? Was it necessary to prosecute him criminally for this incident? We tend to be so very narrow minded in our society, leading to unwarranted feelings of guilt and shame. Public breastfeeding has even come under fire recently.

Why are we so ashamed about our bodies? The Super Bowl incident involving Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction comes to mind. Why do we believe that children will be traumatized and irreparably harmed if they should happen to see a woman's breast, a person's buttocks or, heaven forbid, genitals? To the contrary, I think that the human form is something that should be celebrated. It should not be hidden at all costs as something deemed to be shameful and indecent.

Of course, I understand that I am way ahead of the curve on this subject. I first had this debate, literally, when I was in a debating class in high school. I could not, and cannot, understand why people find public nudity to be objectionable. I know that it is difficult for people to open their minds to a new way of thinking. The legislature in Indiana is conservative beyond compare, and I do not expect them to become enlightened anytime soon. But this is one area in which I wish that it would.

You may disagree, but I believe that this is an issue of personal liberty and freedom. I believe that, eventually, our society will realize that the human body is not something of which we should be frightened and ashamed.