Location, Location, Location

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.

Postby Stormy » Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:27 pm

The event is above the radar now. The only way to change things is try to find a similar experience at a much smaller event, or change society. Or, I hate to say it, make it an adults-only event - the local sherriffs get a lot of play out "protecting the children".


Yes it would seem that making the event adult only might get the sherriffs to lighten up and stop censoring art and behavior. I wouldn't have a problem with this.

However, the thousands of parents who attend might. I think most of us have heard in one medium or other, oppose the adult only idea. Also the organizers have come out very publicly with stand the BM is a family friendly event. I wonder that they will ever change their minds on this.

I'm not that emotionally invested in the issue. I am no longer part of an adult theme camp. I don't create large art installations for the playa. I don't participate in behavior that's likely to get much notice from LE. However, I am saddened that the event is becoming more and more like a corporate theme park. Unavoidable I guess as the numbers grow.

If we continue on the same path, the event will become less and less about diverse expression. That I have no doubt of. I am curious what people are willing to do to slow down that process. Fortunately I am in an area that has lots of regional events. Not everyone in the world is so fortunate. Ideally I would like others to have an experience similar to the ones I've had years ago. Perhaps I'm a dreamer.
Be the change you seek in the world.
User avatar
Stormy
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby stuart » Mon Aug 09, 2004 4:52 pm

the fucking "rave act"


not sure if this is applicable on tribal land

also, I do not think it would survive a supreme court case. Wouldn't the org, with it's inklings of political activism and resources, have a great opportunity here?
User avatar
stuart
 
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Postby Stormy » Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:20 pm

stuart wrote:
the fucking "rave act"


not sure if this is applicable on tribal land

also, I do not think it would survive a supreme court case. Wouldn't the org, with it's inklings of political activism and resources, have a great opportunity here?


Good point. While treaties very from territory to territory, I think one thing seemed consistant. Tribes have their own law enforcement and courts. The federal government can only intervene for one of "Seven Big Crimes". For example, murder is considered a big crime, but drug possession is not according to the treaty.
Be the change you seek in the world.
User avatar
Stormy
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Los Angeles

chill out, Captain

Postby waltsnipe » Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:47 am

Keep it civil, Captain. No need to get your panties in a wad. This thread raises as interesting question for discussion, and we don't need flames or hysterics as we do it.

As for the suggestion of moving to private land, it's my understanding that the one Burn year in the mid-90s that was held on private land was a real bad experience for BM org. I'll let folks who were around then fill in the details, but evidently there was so much price gouging for needed services that one staffer had to mortgage her house to come up with last-minute cash for the event to take place at all. Would all private land be that way? Hard to say. There are laws pretty much everywhere that require X amount of law enforcement to be hired to be onsite once a gathering gets to a certain size. So I don't think it would be possible to have it on private land and keep the cops out. Even if you could, that might not be a good idea.....unfortunately, when you get into the 30,000+ range of crowd size, even at Burning Man, there's going to be some assholes out there that you would want the cops to deal with. As for the Texas suggestion, I've lived there all my life and I can attest that you don't want to even THINK about having Texas cops anywhere near something like Burning Man. I'm astounded that they haven't done a full head-knocking on Burning Flipside in Austin.......I hope that never happens, but it sure seems likely.

All in all, the playa may be the best place in the country to do it. Would you go to one in Mexico? I sure wouldn't......I have no desire to spend even a little time in a Mexican prison. Canada? Maybe.....I don't know enough to say. Australian outback? Very cool, but a long way off (and Australia has a pretty conservative government, too).

Just my two cents,

WaltSnipe
waltsnipe
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:43 pm

Re: chill out, Captain

Postby Stormy » Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:56 pm

waltsnipe wrote: As for the suggestion of moving to private land, it's my understanding that the one Burn year in the mid-90s that was held on private land was a real bad experience for BM org. I'll let folks who were around then fill in the details, but evidently there was so much price gouging for needed services that one staffer had to mortgage her house to come up with last-minute cash for the event to take place at all. Would all private land be that way? Hard to say. There are laws pretty much everywhere that require X amount of law enforcement to be hired to be onsite once a gathering gets to a certain size. So I don't think it would be possible to have it on private land and keep the cops out. Even if you could, that might not be a good idea.....unfortunately, when you get into the 30,000+ range of crowd size, even at Burning Man, there's going to be some assholes out there that you would want the cops to deal with. As for the Texas suggestion, I've lived there all my life and I can attest that you don't want to even THINK about having Texas cops anywhere near something like Burning Man. I'm astounded that they haven't done a full head-knocking on Burning Flipside in Austin.......I hope that never happens, but it sure seems likely.

All in all, the playa may be the best place in the country to do it. Would you go to one in Mexico? I sure wouldn't......I have no desire to spend even a little time in a Mexican prison. Canada? Maybe.....I don't know enough to say. Australian outback? Very cool, but a long way off (and Australia has a pretty conservative government, too).


Now that's what I'm talking about! Good points here. I really have to agree about the cops, too. When you get that many people it's easier to have cops than say private security.

If it were my event, as in I was hosting it, I'd cap the number of people allowed in. Though I guess that would mean letting go of radical inclusion.
Be the change you seek in the world.
User avatar
Stormy
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Interested bystander » Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:43 am

I'm surprised no one contradicted Captain Goddammit's assertion that nudity is not legal on the playa but only tolerated by the kinder and gentler LEOs that attend BM. For the Captain's edification there is no federal law against being naked, that's why there is nudity on the playa, not some special dispensation by the powers that be. If there was a federal law against nudity you can be sure it would be cover up or pay up. This applies to all federal land, that's why the nude beaches at Lake Tahoe are on US Forest Service land rather than California or Nevada property.

As far as his assertion that fewer LEOs are attending, I don't have any figures but anecdotally I see more and more members of the law enforcement community with each passing burn I attend.

The year of the Jiffy Lube incident I was unable to attend due to problems with my finances. However, even though I would probably not have cared for the Jiffy Lube sign nor gone out of my way to see it, I was outraged that they were made to take it down. I would have been one of those in the protest march to the man because of it. This and similar events are an outrageous offense to the spirit of the event and whether I approve of the art, or a LEO approves of the art, should make no difference.

I don't see the event ever being moved, it's the best place for it and it has become too big of a cash cow for the feds. I would like to see a return to free expression though.

Here's an idea to discuss, why do the LEOs have to drive around in cars? It can't be to chase down bad guys, if I wanted to run from police in a car all I would have to do is run between tents and they would either have to get out and chase me or run over innocent people. I think that LEOs policing the event should be required to ride bikes just like the rest of the populace. Every major city has bike patrols. Bring on the LEOs just put them naked on bikes.
Interested bystander
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: Reno, Nevada

Postby Tancorix » Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:58 am

Sarcastic reply: Their donuts last longer in air conditioned cars.
Realistic reply: They need the squad cars to carry their gear which for some includes medical items. They function as first responders in some cases and that's a lot of gear to hoof or pedal around. Also in case anyone does break the law, the back seat serves as the paddy wagon. If you were a LEO and had to haul someone tweaked out on who knows what that steel cage between you and the backseat is your best friend. Also the squad car radios consume more power and have the required range for communications that the handheld units sometimes don't.

In short, I'd like to see a few more bike patrols especially on burn night but having all the cops on foot would be potentially dangerous. In short you can chalk this idea up as one that will never happen. Plus if you put them on foot considering the footprint of BRC, they might feel they need more LEO's to provide adequate coverage...which means more chance at interaction and possible problems. Keep them inside their air conditioned cars, let them cruise slowly, and stay out of our way.
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Postby waltsnipe » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:20 am

Yep. If it were my event, I would also cap ticket sales at about 25,000.......that is the population that feels right to me on the playa. More than that and it starts to feel crowded later in the week. Cracking down on vehicles may help that, though. As long as we're pontificating, if it were my event I would also not sell any gate tickets and would close the gate midweek. Wouldn't let any minors in, either (we're one ambitious prosecutor away from getting shut down, in my opinion, as long as kids are allowed in).
waltsnipe
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:43 pm

Postby Stormy » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:54 am

I'd love to see some cops on bikes too. Bet you'd get some sexy looking guys and gals, or they'd at least have great calves!
Be the change you seek in the world.
User avatar
Stormy
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Stormy » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:59 am

waltsnipe wrote: As long as we're pontificating, if it were my event I would also not sell any gate tickets and would close the gate midweek.


I wish they didn't sell tickets at the Box Office but some people want to pay cash and they can charge really high priced tickets to offset the cheaper ones. They stop Thursday night, perhaps rolling that back a day or two would help.

As for closing the Gate, some people need to get in and out for various reasons. Some of them good reasons. :)
Be the change you seek in the world.
User avatar
Stormy
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby waltsnipe » Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:27 am

I was more thinking that there wouldnt' be any new arrivals in after a certain point. Ticket stub people could still take the Tortoise into Gerlach and back. It just seems like we'd cut down on the yahoo factor if the city was full of those willing to make the commitment for the full week. I know some jobs don't allow for that, but....

Are we there yet? (hell, I guess we're getting pretty damn close),

waltsnipe
waltsnipe
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:43 pm

Postby nym » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:21 am

i'm pretty sure nudity is prohibited by nevada law.
nym
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 10:11 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

moving?

Postby swampdog » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:57 am

I really don't think there's any alternative within the US where the same level of scrutiny won't come to bear eventually. Other than branching into smaller and smaller locals (which could be a very nice solution). Otherwise - Mexico? You can get pretty wild there, and it might be nice to be in a place where we could be engaged in supporting poor people. Downside - when the cops get nasty there they get REALLY nasty.
User avatar
swampdog
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Bellingham WA
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: Rising Arms Pub

ask and you shall receive...

Postby Simply Joel » Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am

nym wrote:i'm pretty sure nudity is prohibited by nevada law.


nudity is Nevada as defined by law below.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs%2D201.html

NRS 201.261 “Nudity” defined. “Nudity” means:

1. The showing of the human female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion of the areola and nipple;

2. The showing of the human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof; or

3. The depiction of the human male genitals in a discernible turgid state whether or not covered.

(Added to NRS by 1969, 513; A 1999, 1360)
Simply Joel
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln

a little more information...

Postby Simply Joel » Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:23 am

LEWDNESS AND INDECENT EXPOSURE

NRS 201.210 Open or gross lewdness; penalty.

1. A person who commits any act of open or gross lewdness is guilty:

(a) For the first offense, of a gross misdemeanor.

(b) For any subsequent offense, of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

2. For the purposes of this section, the breast feeding of a child by the mother of the child does not constitute an act of open or gross lewdness.

[Part 1911 C&P § 195; A 1921, 112; NCL § 10142]—(NRS A 1963, 63; 1965, 1465; 1967, 476; 1973, 95, 255, 1406; 1977, 866; 1979, 1429; 1983, 206; 1991, 1008; 1995, 127, 1199, 1327; 1997, 2501, 3188)



NRS 201.220 Indecent or obscene exposure; penalty.

1. A person who makes any open and indecent or obscene exposure of his person, or of the person of another, is guilty:

(a) For the first offense, of a gross misdemeanor.

(b) For any subsequent offense, of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

2. For the purposes of this section, the breast feeding of a child by the mother of the child does not constitute an act of open and indecent or obscene exposure of her body.

[Part 1911 C&P § 195; A 1921, 112; NCL § 10142]—(NRS A 1965, 1465; 1967, 476; 1973, 96, 255, 1406; 1977, 867; 1979, 1429; 1983, 206; 1991, 1008; 1995, 127, 1200, 1327; 1997, 2501, 3189)



NRS 201.190 Commission of certain sexual acts in public: Definition; penalty. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 200.366 and 201.230, a person of full age who commits anal intercourse, cunnilingus or fellatio in public is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

[1911 C&P § 194; A 1951, 524]—(NRS A 1963, 62; 1967, 475; 1973, 95, 254; 1977, 866, 1632; 1993, 515; 1995, 1198)
Simply Joel
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln

Postby Interested bystander » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:34 pm

The cites from the NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes for those not in the know) are fun and interesting, however, they do not apply in this situation. Federal law is what applies on federal land. Burning Man is held on land managed by the US Bureau of Land Management and comes under federal jurisdiction. Nudity in and of itself is not illegal on federal land.

If you go to one of the nude beaches at Lake Tahoe you are on land managed by the US Forest Service. If you get naked on the beach at Tahoe City or Kings Beach you will be arrested because the land there is California land and public nudity is against the law in California. If you get naked at Sand Harbor or Zephyr Cove you will be arrested because that is Nevada land and public nudity is against the law in Nevada.

Now there is a difference between public nudity and lewd conduct and the latter can get you in hot water even on federal land.

It's sometimes fun to cite statutes but jurisdiction often means as much as the statute itself.
Interested bystander
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: Reno, Nevada

Postby atossab » Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:56 pm

As regards Mexico: last week the San Diego Tribune reported that two of Mexico's MOST WANTED criminals were found after many years of search. Where? They were already incarcerated. Yikes! If no one can find the most wanted in prison for many years, imagine our fates....

I'll just be careful on the playa, thanks.
atossab
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:33 am
Location: San Diego

Postby Simply Joel » Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:55 pm

Interested bystander wrote:The cites from the NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes for those not in the know) are fun and interesting, however, they do not apply in this situation. Federal law is what applies on federal land. Burning Man is held on land managed by the US Bureau of Land Management and comes under federal jurisdiction. Nudity in and of itself is not illegal on federal land.

If you go to one of the nude beaches at Lake Tahoe you are on land managed by the US Forest Service. If you get naked on the beach at Tahoe City or Kings Beach you will be arrested because the land there is California land and public nudity is against the law in California. If you get naked at Sand Harbor or Zephyr Cove you will be arrested because that is Nevada land and public nudity is against the law in Nevada.

Now there is a difference between public nudity and lewd conduct and the latter can get you in hot water even on federal land.

It's sometimes fun to cite statutes but jurisdiction often means as much as the statute itself.


No shit dickwad...
Please refer to the statement below.... I responded to it...
I swear... some people's children.

nym wrote:i'm pretty sure nudity is prohibited by nevada law.
Simply Joel
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln

Postby Badger » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:20 pm

Wouldn't the org, with it's inklings of political activism and resources, have a great opportunity here?


Re: the Rave Act (or what's now known as the Son of Rave Act). Maybe, but there'd be a lot to lose if the case went in favor of the government.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby Badger » Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:22 pm

As far as his assertion that fewer LEOs are attending, I don't have any figures but anecdotally I see more and more members of the law enforcement community with each passing burn I attend.


Perception and perception only.

Last year the collective number of LEO personnel was almost 50% less than in 2002.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby nipples » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:04 pm

Innocent Bystander is not a dick-wad. There are no dick-wads, and you, sir, (also) are no dick wad.

That said, I do rise only to his remark that "If there was a federal law against nudity you can be sure it would be cover up or pay up."

That suggests bribability, and that I do doubt and am thankful for.

(insert get-out-of-jail-free card here, please)
User avatar
nipples
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:22 am

Postby Interested bystander » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:52 pm

When I said "cover up or pay up" I meant as in fines. People can be arrested for being naked in the woods but they are usually just told to get dressed and given a citation.
Interested bystander
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: Reno, Nevada

Postby Gothalot » Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:58 am

Captain Goddammit wrote:
Stormy wrote:Just out of curiousity, when was your first Burn?


Just out of curiosity my ass, you're looking for a way to discredit me, so you can say I don't know how it used to be. But it was the 2000 burn, to answer the question. No, I wasn't there in the early days.

Hmmm Yes Stormy that WAS a BLATENT flame there. Yer busted![b]

I'm just stirred up because you seem to be bitching about not being granted diplomatic immunity while at Burning Man. That's not realistic.


Burning Man realistic? I think it is a DESIRE to be free of all bonds not her expectations Hmmm.[b]

-Translater
User avatar
Gothalot
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Previous

Return to Politics & Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tatonka and 3 guests