Will someone please think of the pumpkins!

[Tev]

And the nudists that wear them! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125693458626119361.html)

BOULDER, Colo. -- This city has always taken pride in its liberal-to-the-point-of-loony reputation. But this Halloween, one of its wackiest traditions is under siege: the Naked Pumpkin Run.

The event is exactly what its name implies. Scores of men and women pour into downtown streets for a late-night jog, wearing not a stitch between the jack-o'-lanterns on their heads and the sneakers on their feet.

For nearly a decade, naked pumpkin runners did their thing unmolested, stampeding through the frigid dark past crowds of admirers who hooted, hollered and tossed candy. But last year the run attracted more than 150 participants, and Police Chief Mark Beckner fears things are getting out of hand. "It's a free-for-all," he says. So he intends to stop it.

He will station more than 40 officers on the traditional four-block route tonight, with two SWAT teams patrolling nearby. All have orders to arrest gourd-topped streakers as sex offenders.

Runners and their fans are outraged. This is not the free-spirited Boulder they know and love. "It kind of reminds me of what's happening in Tehran," says Andy Schmidt, a lawyer. "They're pre-emptively outlawing a gathering."

Even Mayor Matt Appelbaum, who supports the police, admits to a tinge of worry that arresting Halloween streakers will tarnish Boulder's reputation as, well, Boulder.

"I'm a little old for it, but it could be pretty cool to be running around with a pumpkin on your head and not much else," says the 57-year-old mayor.

This saddens me. I personally have always been a fan of Boulder, Colorado. My family has a summer home a few miles outside of town and I always had fun hanging out in this crazy place over the summer. It's pretty shitty of the cops to crack down on a tradition that whole town is known for. Hell the city council and the mayor are for this thing.

[Bells]

Tehran!? Overkill much?

But really, maybe it wouldn't be such a great idea to flat out end the event... but they could make it a bit more organized. If you have groups of 150 and up running nude in your streets with pumpkins in their heads the police, of course, will want to keep an eye out for that... but it's not like this could go so out of control that you would need Swat Patrols... just a bit more planning.

[Krylo]

They should just apply for a lawful protest against anti-streaking laws... along the route they would streak.

Cops wouldn't be able to touch them, then.

[Tev]

Tehran!? Overkill much?Well to be fair, liberals are just as prone to poor analogies as their more conservative brethren.

Either way, it's not quite like, but similar to if Baton Rouge, Louisiana police went "hey, you know what, no more Mardi Gras. All you bead collectors are now sex offenders." Except the pumpkin run is not at all a "sexually construed" event.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

There's no way they could get that charge to stick. You got get them for indecency but how can you charge them for sex offending when they just walking around naked? The police would just be asking for trouble once they took it to court.

[bluestarultor]

You got get them for indecency but how can you charge them for sex offending when they just walking around naked?

Pretend there were children around, actually. Indecency can become sex offending if there are minors in the area, from what I hear.

[Loyal]

Has nobody thought to simply compromise and have them wear shorts or something in addition to the pumpkins?

[bluestarultor]

Has nobody thought to simply compromise and have them wear shorts or something in addition to the pumpkins?

I think it's less about the streaking and more about the stampede. I mean, if the mayor is totally for running about with nothing but shoes and a pumpkin, one would think it's the numbers.

[Loyal]

The only remarkable difference between this and any parade is the choice of garment.

150 people might be enough to warrant an escort or some form of marked organization, but not at all to warrant it being shut down.

[Funka Genocide]

I think it's less about the streaking and more about the stampede. I mean, if the mayor is totally for running about with nothing but shoes and a pumpkin, one would think it's the numbers.

no I'm pretty sure it's about the nakedness. There's no laws against public assembly in America... sort of one of those uh, rights or something.

so a fair compromise would be having everyone cover their legally determined naughty bits before marching around.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Pretend there were children around, actually. Indecency can become sex offending if there are minors in the area, from what I hear.
Does that matter? It may do but it shouldn't....

Has nobody thought to simply compromise and have them wear shorts or something in addition to the pumpkins?
Why should they have to is the point?

I think it's less about the streaking and more about the stampede. I mean, if the mayor is totally for running about with nothing but shoes and a pumpkin, one would think it's the numbers.
In that case it's total total fascist bullshit. The right of public assembly is a ridiculously important right and one that still holds in America. If they shutting down that right it's a much bigger problem that it initially appears.

[Tev]

From what I read in the article that is just about what's at issue here. The run does not happen until well after 11:00pm which is way past time that children should ever be out and about outside in a town. From what I remember the route itself is through the downtown area and is not near any homes or schools so there is no danger of a random child looking out the window and, in some prudish theory, be scarred for life by what they see. And it's not like this is a "new" thing. The run has taken place in Boulder for years.

What this boils down to is the sheriff digging up some crap law to keep people from gathering and doing what they've done for years. It's not even local law that he's digging in either. He had to go find a state statute against indecency.

[Funka Genocide]

eh while I disagree with our societies skittishness around nudity and really don't think this sort of thing is sexually motivated (or would be scarring the children, I mean it'd be like "oh my god mom look at all those pensises! hahaha!") the fact of the matter is that there are some people out there that would do some fucked up shit like expose themselves to a child and start jerking it.

So it's a case of best case vs. worst case and things like this are just a byproduct of the need to enforce law. Like I don't personally care if a bunch of naked people go running through the streets, but I do care about the integrity of our legal system. What it boils down to is that they should probably put some pants on and stop moaning about it.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

eh while I disagree with our societies skittishness around nudity and really don't think this sort of thing is sexually motivated (or would be scarring the children, I mean it'd be like "oh my god mom look at all those pensises! hahaha!") the fact of the matter is that there are some people out there that would do some fucked up shit like expose themselves to a child and start jerking it.
If that happened the guy would get the shit smacked out of him/arrested quickly. How the shit do we go from nudist to exposing himself to children. That's a ridiculous leap in logic. I will make a similar one by saying we shouldn't let people go outside because they might murder each other.
And people comfortable in the nude tend not to sexualise the body that much because they see it in the nude all the time.


So it's a case of best case vs. worst case and things like this are just a byproduct of the need to enforce law. Like I don't personally care if a bunch of naked people go running through the streets, but I do care about the integrity of our legal system. What it boils down to is that they should probaably put some pants on and stop moaning about it.
So the integrity of the legal system means "the people have no rights" and the police can do whatever the fuck they want. Stopping people from assembly is a tool to suppress people and prevent them from complaining about their leaders. It is a fundamental tool of democracy.
Even legal system which says you can't do it has no intergrity to start with.

[Funka Genocide]

Well your analogy I believe is completely inapplicable. Making the jump from being naked in public to being a perv is, while not necessarily implied, far more likely than people who enjoy the outdoors spontaneously developing a penchant for manslaughter.

just sayin.

And I brought up the right to free assembly before you did home slice, and I'm totally down for protecting that. I'm just saying, they can wonder around mostly naked legally, so why make a big deal about it? I'm not advocating denying them the right to do their thing, I'm just saying that the law dictates that they should be "decent" whatever that means, legally speaking.

If they want to bare it all in public, they should try to get someone to legislate a change, but since the general public probably won't go for that, well at worst you have a case of the tyranny of the majority, and in this case it's not a big enough deal to overrule.

(would just like to point out your obvious use of hyperbole to support your side)

edit: god damn you're/your mix ups so early in the morning!

[FenrisWolf]

Well your analogy I believe is completely inapplicable. Making the jump from being naked in public to being a perv is, while not necessarily implied, far more likely than people who enjoy the outdoors spontaneously developing a penchant for manslaughter.

just sayin.


No, your analogy was equally as ridiculous and unlikely, considering your definition of being a perv is going up to children and masturbating in their faces.

just sayin.

[Funka Genocide]

wait what?

ok yeah, if we're allowed to just bust out the crazy then I'm going to have to say your argument is invalid because I have been to space.

(In other words please rephrase your rebuttal in a manner that make sense if you wish for me to consider it seriously.)

Otherwise I mean yeah, sure you got me? Of course masturbating in front of children isn't perverted, what was I thinking? God I'm such a dick.

Eh I don't feel like waiting for you to explain what you mean so I'll just reply to what I assume you mean, so feel free to disregard if I've completely missed the point.

Public nudity in America is against the law. The reasons for this are varied, but it's mainly a product of our culutural distrust and dislike of nudity, our cultural background being heavily influenced by religious fundamentalists from the early founding days that had a definitive puritanical bent. However in the modern context this religious distrust has been bolstered by sexual assault/abuse paranoia, which relatively speaking is far more grounded in fact and function than the concept of carnal sin.

So, we have very broad definitions to protect people from sexual abuse. Of course its highly unlikely that these people are seeking to sexually brutalize the town with their nakedness, however they are breaking laws which are, in part, in place and enforced for the sake of protecting innocent people. This is, from a limited perspective, a completely illogical reaction based on a lack of "common sense", however when viewing law enforcement practices it usually benefits one to view things from a perspective that assumes the worst, because that is what law enforcement exists for.

So you have a very small minority of the people opposed to the enforcement of these laws, a large majority that are likely indifferent and another minority who are vehemently opposed. The determining factor in this case is the officials interpretation of the law. This interpretation can be changed by electing other officials with differing outlooks or by legislating change in the currently extant laws. Since none of these avenues of resolution has been pursued or has much of a chance of success considering the lingering sentiment of the majority of American society that their is something inherently wrong with public nudity (right or wrong) these people should probably cover up their junk to avoid persecution.

[MasterOfMagic]

wait what?

ok yeah, if we're allowed to just bust out the crazy then I'm going to have to say your argument is invalid because I have been to space.

(In other words please rephrase your rebuttal in a manner that make sense if you wish for me to consider it seriously.)

Otherwise I mean yeah, sure you got me? Of course masturbating in front of children isn't perverted, what was I thinking? God I'm such a dick.
I believe his point was that masturbating in front of children is such an extreme version of perversion that going from "being naked in public when no children are likely to be around once a year or so" to it is just as unlikely.

Also, I'm sure the reason they don't put neglibable clothes on as they do the running is that would destroy the whole point of the thing. Of course, I'm not the kinda person that would do this in the first place, so I'm not sure what that point would be, exactly, but it seems pretty integral to the whole thing.

I'm curious, aren't there nudist parades elsewhere (I think I've heard of them)? Why doesn't this group go through the same procedures they do (if they exist)?

[Funka Genocide]

well then he misinterpreted my point.

I wasn't saying that it's likely these people would freak out and start beast-fucking everyone in arms reach, I was saying that the remote possibility exists, and while that possibility always exists, the perception of that possibility is exacerbated by the fact that you've got a ton of naked people marching around.

This sort of dovetails with my statements on the responsibilities of law enforcement being determined mainly by worst case scenarios.

Also the crux of this entire issue is public perception and cultural mores. Like personally (as I've all ready stated) if a bunch of yahoos want to go trouserless I don't care, I don't care to see it either but whatever I can look away. But we're not dealing with individual perceptions in this issue, so stating them as fact is, from my perspective, moot.

[MasterOfMagic]

I think that's pretty reasonable. Considering the precedent, though, the cops should have simple had a presence, making certain nothing out of the ordinary went down rather than simply arresting people for doing what they've done for years.

[Funka Genocide]

Well the fact that this has gone on for years is kind of odd though. I mean if its been against the law and the law simply hasn't been enforced that kind of sends an inaccurate message that its ok with the system.

Really what you have here is an escalation of magnitude forcing officials to act. Like if it would have been kept low key they probably could have gotten away with it, but since it has a larger stage its kind of hard to keep under the radar, and I assume accountability is a big part of being a law enforcement official.

One could of course also point towards the tail end of a severe trend towards conservatism in national politics as a motivating factor.

Although I will agree that arresting them as sex offenders seems wrong and only tenuously legal at best. They aren't doing anything sexual in nature and as such they should only be arrested for public indecency (which I hope isn't a sex-offender worthy crime.)

I also feel this way about people who are arrested for having consensual sex in public, it should only be treated as a misdemeanor, but then you bring into it a lot of really hard to determine factors (children watching, religious beliefs etc.) and it might also be classified as a form of sexual assault. So I mean really, this is a much more complex issue than just "let the nudists have their fun, they're not hurting anyone!" and it feels sort of weird for me to be the sensitive one on an issue for a change.

[MasterOfMagic]

Well the fact that this has gone on for years is kind of odd though. I mean if its been against the law and the law simply hasn't been enforced that kind of sends an inaccurate message that its ok with the system.

I agree, and that's why I don't think they should have made such a sudden switch this year.

Anyway, it seems they did exactly as you suggested:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8336308.stm
Local reports say with up to 4,000 people taking part in Halloween revelry, a handful of individuals did take part in the run, but that when police caught up with them they were sufficiently clothed as to be "within the law".

[Funka Genocide]

wow they even used some of the same terminology I did.

well there you go. Nudists help support my assumption that I'm not a complete idiot.

[MasterOfMagic]

Although I will agree that arresting them as sex offenders seems wrong and only tenuously legal at best. They aren't doing anything sexual in nature and as such they should only be arrested for public indecency (which I hope isn't a sex-offender worthy crime.)
Also worthy of note is that public indecency apparently does get you registered as a sex-offender.

Just in case you were planning anything.

[Funka Genocide]

damn dude that's harsh.

looks like I'll need to install some curtains in the beamer.

[POS Industries]

your definition of being a perv is going up to children and masturbating in their faces.
So.... You're saying I should probably stop doing that, then?

Welp, there goes my sunday night routine.