California is cracking down on nudity......

[Radical Bucks]

California is banning all public and outside nudity

http://adultbizlaw.com/performers-pr...-sex-offender/



Under Proposition 35, anyone convicted of even a minor crime such as indecent exposure, even decades ago, will now be required to register as a sex offender. And as a register sex offender under Proposition 35, that person will now have to inform law enforcement of any name or alias they use in any online discussion group or social media platform within 24 hours of creating such account...

...Which means if you are a performer or producer, you have to be very aware of the indecent exposure statutes especially if you produce anything outside in public. Sex/nudity in public can be indecent exposure. If caught you could end up as a registered sex offender and be required to tell the police of every screen name and alias you use on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, FOREVER. If Proposition 35 passes you are going to be treated like a child molester. And according to Mr. Lobaco this might even apply to those that were convicted of or even plead guilty to indecent exposure years ago.

[2012]

we need to keep the children safe

[pornlaw]

Nude sunbathing wont get you there but if you are producing anything in public for commercial exploitation then yes and as a producer you can be charged as well...

If...

1.You intentionally exposed your genitals
2.You exposed your genitals in a public area where people were likely to be offended
3.You exposed your genitals with the intent to draw attention to your genitals for the purpose of sexual arousal

Gets you -

Misdemeanor Indecent Exposure Penalties

1.Maximum 6 months in a county jail
2.$1000 fine maximum
3.Lifetime registration as a sex offender

#3 is the killer... and if Prop 35 passes you will have to tell your local PD all of your online aliases (Twitter, FB, GFY, Tumblr ect) and accounts within 24 hrs of creation so you can be tracked and monitored online - forever. There is no expiration to being a registered sex offender in Cali.

If you dont thats another misdemeanor & or felony...

[marcop]

So you're telling me that any of these photos that I shot outdoors in the great state of California could get me and/or the model registered as sex offenders for the rest of our lives?

[Struggle4Bucks]

Home of the brave, land of the registrants...

[ggrrssyydik]

Time to put an extra layer of tint on the ambulance. But then again as of now the only to see in is through the front windshield. I guess I need put a door separating the back.

[marcop]

Originally Posted by ggrrssyydik

Time to put an extra layer of tint on the ambulance. But then again as of now the only to see in is through the front windshield. I guess I need put a door separating the back.

[pornmasta]

3 strikes and you are out !

[Rochard]

Heaven forbid if a sixteen year old boy sees some boobies, but no problem putting Sons Of Anarchy on TV for them to watch.

I never did understand that. Titties bad, brutal killing is perfectly fine.

[Radical Bucks]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Heaven forbid if a sixteen year old boy sees some boobies, but no problem putting Sons Of Anarchy on TV for them to watch.

I never did understand that. Titties bad, brutal killing is perfectly fine.

or send him to war in others counties when he is 18 to die

Rumor is California is going to ban porn all together.

[2012]

[GARY LEE]

It looks like I suddenly remember shooting all my outdoor scenes in the studio with a green screen and then shopping in the background. Don't all of you remember the same thing?

[sandman!]

fuck cali lol

[epitome]

So non-sexual nudity is OK?

No interference with SF law that allows men to walk around fully nude as long as they are not aroused?

[martinsc]

Originally Posted by 2012

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Heaven forbid if a sixteen year old boy sees some boobies, but no problem putting Sons Of Anarchy on TV for them to watch.

I never did understand that. Titties bad, brutal killing is perfectly fine.

Right, and women can breast feed uncovered because they can... I use to see women breast feeding all the time with a blanket over them. Is it that hard to do, or they just want to show off? see my point.

Gov is FUCKED

In NY it is illegal to get any soda larger that 16oz, but a 14 year old girl without parent consent can get the morning after pill at school.....

[pornmasta]

[pimpmaster9000]

the USA is becoming like Iran fast

[dev777]

how's this gonna hold up in places like San Francisco? Forget nudity, I've seen dudes publicly beat off there.

[mopek1]

I looked elsewhere and don't see any mention of proposition 35 and Indecent Exposure.

Proposition 35 refers to Sex Trafficking
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...ery_%282012%29


???

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Heaven forbid if a sixteen year old boy sees some boobies, but no problem putting Sons Of Anarchy on TV for them to watch.

I never did understand that. Titties bad, brutal killing is perfectly fine.

This is America not Europe

[spazlabz]

the cost of public niche content just went up

[ggrrssyydik]

Originally Posted by GARY LEE

It looks like I suddenly remember shooting all my outdoor scenes in the studio with a green screen and then shopping in the background. Don't all of you remember the same thing?

Now that you reminded me, I did ship my ambulance to Eastern Europe and all the shoots were done over there. Theres a small town called Cali look alike looks just like Ca.

[Jman]

Land of the FFFFRRRRREEEEEEE!!!!!


NOT

[MrCain]

Only in the land of the free

[Tom_PM]

When a sex offender list is full of non-criminal, non-sex offending people who are required to register... it's just a worthless list of names.

It's a notion that may have been good but is completely useless in practice and I think most people know that.

Nudity does not equal sex.

Never has, never will.

[CourtneyR]

Originally Posted by dev777

how's this gonna hold up in places like San Francisco? Forget nudity, I've seen dudes publicly beat off there.

especially at Folsom street fair.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Radical Bucks

or send him to war in others counties when he is 18 to die

Rumor is California is going to ban porn all together.

I was seventeen when I joined the Marines.

[Dirty Dane]

[Freaky_Akula]

The police state is taking baby steps.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Pride will be less interesting without penis nobody wanted to see in the first place on full display.

[wehateporn]

The Billionaire backers behind WeHatePorn have been lobbying hard for this

[JP-pornshooter]

i guess if you take a piss on a park tree it could get you same treatment..
was this proposition passed?

[Tofu]

Originally Posted by Sarah_Jayne

Pride will be less interesting without penis nobody wanted to see in the first place on full display.

I was thinking the same thing. No more lesbian titties flopping around, ever so gracefully to the 4x4 sound of house music.

[Robbie]

What about nudist colonies?

Damn...it's hard to believe that just a few years ago California was the most progressive state in the country. I guess the pendulum is swinging back the other way hard.

[RyuLion]

Originally Posted by Jman

Land of the FFFFRRRRREEEEEEE!!!!!


NOT

[mopek1]

I still can't confirm this anywhere. Is it even true?

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by mopek1

I still can't confirm this anywhere. Is it even true?

Here's some of the relevant text from the bill:

Section 290.015 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

290.015. (a) A person who is subject to the Act shall register, or reregister if he or she has previously registered, upon release from incarceration, placement, commitment, or release on probation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 290. This section shall not apply to a person who is incarcerated for less than 30 days if he or she has registered as required by the Act, he or she returns after incarceration to the last registered address, and the annual update of registration that is required to occur within five working days of his or her birthday, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 290.012, did not fall within that incarceration period. The registration shall consist of all of the following:

(1) A statement in writing signed by the person, giving information as shall be required by the Department of Justice and giving the name and address of the person's employer, and the address of the person's place of employment if that is different from the employer's main address.
(2) The fingerprints and a current photograph of the person taken by the registering official.
(3) The license plate number of any vehicle owned by, regularly driven by, or registered in the name of the person.
(4) A list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person.
(5) A list of any and all Internet service providers used by the person.
(6) A statement in writing, signed by the person, acknowledging that the person is required to register and update the information in paragraphs (4) and (5), as required by this chapter.
(4) (7) Notice to the person that, in addition to the requirements of the Act, he or she may have a duty to register in any other state where he or she may relocate.
(5) (8) Copies of adequate proof of residence, which shall be limited to a California driver's license, California identification card, recent rent or utility receipt, printed personalized checks or other recent banking documents showing that person's name and address, or any other information that the registering official believes is reliable. If the person has no residence and no reasonable expectation of obtaining a residence in the foreseeable future, the person shall so advise the registering official and shall sign a statement provided by the registering official stating that fact. Upon presentation of proof of residence to the registering official or a signed statement that the person has no residence, the person shall be allowed to register. If the person claims that he or she has a residence but does not have any proof of residence, he or she shall be allowed to register but shall furnish proof of residence within 30 days of the date he or she is allowed to register.

(b) Within three days thereafter, the registering law enforcement agency or agencies shall forward the statement, fingerprints, photograph, and vehicle license plate number, if any, to the Department of Justice.

(c) (1) If a person fails to register in accordance with subdivision (a) after release, the district attorney in the jurisdiction where the person was to be paroled or to be on probation may request that a warrant be issued for the person's arrest and shall have the authority to prosecute that person pursuant to Section 290.018.

(2) If the person was not on parole or probation at the time of release, the district attorney in the following applicable jurisdiction shall have the authority to prosecute that person pursuant to Section 290.018:

(A) If the person was previously registered, in the jurisdiction in which the person last registered.
(B) If there is no prior registration, but the person indicated on the Department of Justice notice of sex offender registration requirement form where he or she expected to reside, in the jurisdiction where he or she expected to reside.
(C) If neither subparagraph (A) nor (B) applies, in the jurisdiction where the offense subjecting the person to registration pursuant to this Act was committed.

The new provisions that would come into effect if Prop 35 passes are underlined above.

[mopek1]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Here's some of the relevant text from the bill



The new provisions that would come into effect if Prop 35 passes are underlined above.

I still don't see where it says that being charged for Indecent Exposure (flashing in public, sunbathing nude with genitals showing) results in one being the equivalent of a sex offender?

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Nude sunbathing wont get you there but if you are producing anything in public for commercial exploitation then yes and as a producer you can be charged as well...

If...

1.You intentionally exposed your genitals
2.You exposed your genitals in a public area where people were likely to be offended
3.You exposed your genitals with the intent to draw attention to your genitals for the purpose of sexual arousal

So for the charge to stick the prosecution has to prove all three of those conditions were met? i think artistic nudes like the ones Marcop posted would not meet those conditions.

incredible, of all states that it would be California which passes a law that Puritanical and backwards - i'd expect it in a red Bible Belt state.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Man oh man what we would ever do without a government?

We'd probably get together and make one.

You think the govt. is bad...you should see the power-hungry baby Hitlers that run my Home Owners Association.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Mutt

incredible, of all states that it would be California which passes a law that Puritanical and backwards - i'd expect it in a red Bible Belt state.

From what has been happening in California the last few years...I think it IS the new bible belt.

When I lived in South Carolina...I could go to an all nude club and get drunk as hell.

In Los Angeles...I can't even get a beer in a topless club.

[Sly]

If "liberal" means creating as many laws as possible about the most inane activities… then yes… California is extremely liberal.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by mopek1

I still don't see where it says that being charged for Indecent Exposure (flashing in public, sunbathing nude with genitals showing) results in one being the equivalent of a sex offender?

You probably aren't going to find that in the text of the Proposition; you are likely to find it in statutory definitions elsewhere in the California penal code, and/or by examination of relevant California case law in this area of jurisprudence.

I'm not going to take the time to document it definitively for you here in this thread; I'm not your personal law clerk. ;-)

What I will say is that in this thread, you have one attorney licensed to practice in the state of California (pornlaw, aka Michael Fattorosi) telling you that certain crimes that none of us would consider "sex crimes" can trigger the requirement to register as a sex offender in California, and me, a layman who is reasonably well-informed on this subject (a function of having covered legal matters as a freelance journalist for quite some time) telling you the same thing.

So, you have two choices; you can take our word for it, or you can confirm it for yourself by conducting the research firsthand. If you go the research for yourself route, keep in mind that this sort of thing depends not only on statutory law, but on case law, as well.

These things vary greatly, state by state, but here's a little gem from the Arizona Department of Public Safety's "sex offender FAQ" (see: http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Sex_Offender/Questions/) that supports what I've already told you:

Can non-sexual offenses require sex offender registration/notification?

Yes, judges have the authority to court order sex offender registration if there was a finding of sexual motivation.

I hope that helps to address your skepticism. If not... enjoy your research!

[CHMOD]

Nudity is indeed the most important issue that the USA is currently having.

[mopek1]

Originally Posted by Quentin

You probably aren't going to find that in the text of the Proposition; you are likely to find it in statutory definitions elsewhere in the California penal code, and/or by examination of relevant California case law in this area of jurisprudence.

I'm not going to take the time to document it definitively for you here in this thread; I'm not your personal law clerk. ;-)

What I will say is that in this thread, you have one attorney licensed to practice in the state of California (pornlaw, aka Michael Fattorosi) telling you that certain crimes that none of us would consider "sex crimes" can trigger the requirement to register as a sex offender in California, and me, a layman who is reasonably well-informed on this subject (a function of having covered legal matters as a freelance journalist for quite some time) telling you the same thing.

So, you have two choices; you can take our word for it, or you can confirm it for yourself by conducting the research firsthand. If you go the research for yourself route, keep in mind that this sort of thing depends not only on statutory law, but on case law, as well.

These things vary greatly, state by state, but here's a little gem from the Arizona Department of Public Safety's "sex offender FAQ" (see: http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Sex_Offender/Questions/) that supports what I've already told you:



I hope that helps to address your skepticism. If not... enjoy your research!

Thanks for all that. I'll take your word for it.

I wish they could somehow separate indecent exposure into two categories.

1- All the fun stuff we've talked about (boob flashing, parades etc...)
2- Sick people (Going to a daycare for example and flashing your genitals at the kids).

Thanks for the input in this thread.

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Man oh man what we would ever do without a government?

Answer: FREEDOM!!

Oh no that's scary ahh

Somalia basically does not have a government, things seem to be going really well there! I understand you're a pathetic troll looking for replies but seriously.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Somalia basically does not have a government, things seem to be going really well there! I understand you're a pathetic troll looking for replies but seriously.

He just wants to be a pirate.

[baddog]

Pretty sure exposing yourself has always resulted in you having to register as a sex offender.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

That doesn't even make sense

Nothing makes sense to you; so not surprised.