Friedman — Volume 61, Issue 1

Public nudity law reflects cultural taboos against exposing the naked human body, particularly genitalia, yet the prohibition is more nuanced than commonly understood. Friedman and Grossman examine the history and current state of public indecency statutes, noting that cultural attitudes toward nudity have substantially changed since nineteenth-century norms. The taboo against exposing the naked body has deep historical roots in Western society, though not uniformly applied across cultures and time periods. Modern public indecency laws typically prohibit exposure with intent to arouse sexual desire, a narrower restriction than blanket nudity bans. The article illustrates through examples like John Brennan's airport nudity protest that law reflects complex distinctions between indecent exposure and protected expression. Cultural shifts increasingly permit exposure in certain contexts—such as body painting performances or artistic expression—while maintaining restrictions on sexual exposure. The article explores mandatory privacy as fundamental to Anglo-American legal traditions, examining what bodies and body parts people must keep hidden. Understanding public nudity law requires recognizing cultural meaning of exposure and legal boundaries between protected expression and indecent exposure.

Topics: First Amendment · Criminal Procedure

Keywords: public indecency · nudity · first amendment · privacy · criminal law · cultural taboos · constitutional protection