Editing Indecent exposure (section)

== North America ==

=== Canada ===

In Canada, s.173 of the ''Criminal Code''<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.part-v.html |title=Criminal Code of Canada, 1985, Part V, Sexual Offences |publisher=Efc.ca |access-date=2013-03-14 |archive-date=15 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130415121251/http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.part-v.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> prohibits "indecent acts".<ref>Part 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code provides, in part – Indecent acts – 173. (1) Every one who wilfully does an indecent act (a) in a public place in the presence of one or more persons...is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.</ref> There is no statutory definition in the Code of what constitutes an indecent act, other than the exposure of the genitals and/or female nipples for a sexual purpose to anyone under 16 years of age. Thus, the decision of what states of undress are "indecent", and thereby unlawful, is left to judges. Judges have held, for example, that [[nude sunbathing]] is not indecent.<ref>''R. v. Beaupré'', 1971, British Columbia Supreme Court. Held: "the phrase 'indecent act' connotes something more active, with greater moral turpitude than the mere state of being nude in a public place."</ref> Also, [[streaking]] is similarly not regarded as indecent.<ref>''R v Springer'', 1975, Saskatchewan District Court</ref><ref>''R v Niman'', 1974, Ontario Provincial Court</ref> Section 174 prohibits nudity if it offends "against public decency or order" and in view of the public. The courts have found that nude swimming is not offensive under this definition.<ref>''R. v. Benolkin'', 1977, Saskatchewan Court of the Queen's Bench. It was found that "It cannot be an offence to swim in the nude at a lonely place in Canada in summer. That is part of the pleasure of summer in Canada, particularly to young males. If somebody comes along unexpectedly or if the swimmer misjudged the loneliness of the place the act cannot suddenly become criminal".</ref>

[[Toplessness]] is also not an indecent act under s.173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in [[Guelph, Ontario]], while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent.<ref name="QueenvsJacob">{{Cite web| url = http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/1996canlii1119/1996canlii1119.html | title = Judgment C12668, R. vs. Jacob | date = 1996-12-09 | publisher = Province of Ontario Court of Appeal | access-date = 2009-02-16}}</ref> The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offense.<ref>[http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?language=en&searchTitle=1996+CanLII+1119+%28ON+CA%29&origin=%2Fen%2Fon%2Fonca%2Fdoc%2F1996%2F1996canlii1119%2F1996canlii1119.html&path=/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2000/2000bcsc902/2000bcsc902.html District of Maple Ridge v. Meyer, 2000 BCSC 902 (CanLII)]. See esp. para [49] and [55].</ref> Since then, it is legal for a female to walk topless in public anywhere in Ontario, Canada.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/08/28/topless_in_guelph_it_started_out_as_a_shy_event.html|title=Topless in Guelph: It started out as a shy event|newspaper=Toronto Star|author=Amy Dempsey|date=28 August 2010|quote=It’s been nearly 20 years since Gwen Jacob took a history-making topless jaunt through downtown Guelph. It’s been 15 years since charges against her were overturned in a case that gave Ontarian woman the legal right to be topless in public — a right previously exclusive to men.}}</ref>

=== United States ===

{{main article|Indecent exposure in the United States}}

The laws governing indecent exposure in the United States vary according to location. In most states, [[public nudity]] is illegal. However, in some states, it is only illegal if it is accompanied by an intent to shock, arouse, or offend other persons. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Most states exempt [[breastfeeding]] mothers from prosecution.{{cn|date=November 2024}}

The phenomenon widely known as [[exhibitionism|flashing]], involving a woman exposing bare nipples by suddenly pulling up her shirt and [[bra]], is public exposure and is therefore defined by statute in many states of the United States as prohibited criminal behavior.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes2.html#criminal_code |title=Criminal Code |date= 14 April 2008|work=Topical Index: State Statutes 2 |publisher=Cornell University Law School |access-date=2010-09-14}}
</ref>