Speaking on a purely hypothetical level, let's say I'm at a public park, and the weather is pleasant, and I decide I would be more comfortable if I stripped naked. I'm not harassing anybody, I'm just minding my own business, the way I'm most comfortable. My question is this: is there any Constitutional basis that would justify the restriction of my freedom to do so? Would my choice to disrobe fundamentally threaten the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another? Let's consider these one at a time. Would taking my clothes off threaten anybody's life? No. Would it restrict anybody's liberty? Not unless you define liberty very broadly to include the "liberty" to recreate in parks "free from" the sight of nudity. But if you look closely, this isn't really liberty at all, it's a restriction of liberty. Finally, could stripping nude in a public park negatively affect somebody else's happiness? Certainly. But does it limit their ability to pursue happiness? No. If they're unhappy, they can pick their feet up and go somewhere else.
[description: a man strips nude in a public park]
Now let's turn the tables. If you take away my option to enjoy nude recreation in public parks, are you threatening my life? Of course not. But are you restricting my liberty? Absolutely! I should be the one to control how I dress myself. Obviously, you're limiting my happiness, but are you limiting my ability to pursue happiness? Not in the broadest sense, where even a prisoner digging a hole with a spoon could be considered to be working towards the promise (no matter how unlikely) of a happier state of living - like hope, one can pursue anything with the right mindset, no matter how dire conditions are. The truth is, I can always search for another place to be nude. But if this kind of restriction on my liberty is applied across the board, then that leaves me little recourse. Except to petition the government, I suppose. But at what point does continuously tossing obstacles in my path add up to actively obstructing my pursuit of happiness?
What happens when we weigh these two sides against each other? It's clear that nobody's life is being threatened either by nude recreation or its restriction thereof. On the liberty issue, I don't think there exists a credible argument to refute the fact that preventing people from recreating nude significantly restricts individual liberty, in a way that permitting them to do so does not. Which brings us to the pursuit of happiness, in all its vague and indeterminate glory. I think in either case, avenues exist for a person to pursue happiness. But the way I see it, restricting a person's liberty to recreate nude hampers his pursuit of happiness in a more direct and substantial way than permitting that person to recreate nude would hamper the pursuit of happiness of somebody else who wants to control what other people wear at the park. It comes right back to liberty - if your happiness depends on restricting other people's liberties, then that's a less valid concern than that of the person whose happiness simply depends on having liberty.
[description: a man strips nude in a public park]
Obviously, the world disagrees with me on this point. I think a rational analysis of the facts supports my conclusion that a person should be allowed to recreate nude in a public park if they so choose. The reality is simply that not enough people would care to. To most people, nudism is a foreign concept, and one that's frankly quite scary. The reason, then, that it is restricted to the extent that it is, is simply a matter of habit and popular opinion, and not social justice. But then, that's the way the world works. Justice isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. It's a human concept. We strive towards it, sometimes. But only when it's comfortable and convenient for a majority of the population.
