I wish to make comments on the article “Beach bum Babylon” (8/26) written by Mitchell Kuga. The article is well written, though a couple of points were left out that need to be mentioned, and a couple of comments by those quoted need response.

Mitchell states after his correct observation that nudity is illegal at designated state park beaches that “It’s a bit of a mystery as to why nude beaches haven’t been officially accepted in Hawaii.” The reason in short is religion. It is due to the large Mormon presence in Hawaii as well as large numbers of conservative fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. These are the same groups that recently mobilized against gay rights. Same reason Hawaii has no state lottery.

Another example: the Hawaii State Public Library System uses an internet filtering company called 8e6.com to filter websites patrons can view. 8e6 has close connections with a conservative family-values religious organization. They consider websites about nude beaches, including political activism for nude beaches, to be “pornography/adult content.” This is improper and unlawful censorship of free political speech.

Mitchell states, when discussing non-state park beaches in Hawaii, “However, outside of these state-managed areas, things get a little murky.” Mitchell is referring to the obscenity law in Hawaii. I must clarify that there is nothing “murky” about state law on the subject. In 1998 nudists at Polo Beach were arrested by the Honolulu Police Dept. and brought before First Circuit Court were they were convicted of violating HRS 707-734. They secured the help of three lady attorneys and appealed. On September 29, 2000 the Hawaii State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the convictions for nudity were improper and the convictions of the lower court were reversed. The cases were HI v. Kalama and HI v. Milford, (case numbers 22457 and 22489) Naturists in Hawaii will be celebrating the ninth anniversary of that decision very shortly.

In brief, the court ruled that police cannot go looking for nudists, as they did in that case. Neither can lifeguards. A private citizen needs to make a complaint. Then, the person making the complaint, and eventually the prosecutor, need to prove that the sunbather intended to affront and alarm (offend). There is no crime if the sunbather is not intending in his or her state of mind to offend by their nudity. This ruling means any law enforcement officer in Hawaii who arrested, ticketed, harassed or intimidated any nudist at a non-state park beach since September 29, 2000 acted unlawfully and opened himself or herself and their agency to lawsuit. A unanimous state supreme court decision in this state or any other state is anything but “murky”.

“Denny” mentions, referring to the beach below Diamond Head, that “Even though it’s already been beaten in court, it just isn’t worth it to get into that kind of trouble.” The issue here is Diamond Head State Monument has the same legal standing as a state park, so nudity is, unfortunately, illegal there. However, naturists, as nudists prefer to be called, must always feel it is worth it to stand up for their rights. It is only “trouble” in Hawaii at a state park beach.

Outrageous is the improper comment by lifeguard spokesman Bill Goding regarding complaints about topless female sunbathers. Regarding them, he says “It’s not illegal, but obviously if we have a complaint, we would say something to the individual because of kids or whatever.” What is that supposed to mean? Goding just correctly acknowledges topless sunbathing is legal, therefore, he or his lifeguards cannot “say something”. You cannot tell someone to stop doing something that is legal! Ditto for simple, non-lewd, nude sunbathing. Moreover, lifeguards in Hawaii are not law enforcement officers and have no authority at all to comment on what sunbathers are wearing. I urge any female sunbather to file a formal complaint against the City and County of Honolulu, and a lawsuit if necessary, if a lifeguard or police officer tells you to put on a top and you don’t want to.

Since state law as interpreted by the state supreme court already allows non-lewd nudity and topless bathing, it would be logical for state and county tourism agencies to state this in their literature, which they presently do not. Hawaii is in competition with other sun destinations for tourists. The state government is short-sighted in refusing to designate official nude beaches out of the numerous stretches of sand here. Respectable national polls like a Roper Poll in 2006 show consistently high public approval by Americans of clearly signposted clothing-optional beaches. This signage allows beach goers to make a choice as to whether to go to that beach or avoid it.

The Roper poll asked: “Do you believe that people who enjoy nude sunbathing should be able to do so without interference from local officials as long as they do so at a beach that is accepted for that purpose?” The results of the poll were 74 percent responding “yes,” 24 percent responding “no,” with 2 percent refusing to answer.

There are more than enough beaches for everyone on all the islands for some to be officially clothing-optional.

Richard Spacer
President, Kauai Naturists

---