Kentucky's Nudist Society Act

Here's a real blast from the past. A Time magazine article dated July 15, 1966 - when Hector was just a pup - about how Kentucky's nudist society laws were overturned:

When police arrived, Kentucky Farmers Clarence and Benjamin Roe were holding family religious services in their unfenced backyard. Unfortunately, the assembled Roes of all ages and sexes were not wearing clothes. The Greenup Circuit Court fined Clarence and Ben jamin $1,000 apiece for violating Kentucky's Nudist Society Act, which required all nudist colonies to pay an annual license fee of $1,000, register all members, and segregate the premises with a solid masonry wall 20 ft. high. Unreasonable and unconstitutional, ruled Kentucky's highest court as it voided the Roes' convictions and stripped the nudist law from the books. Calling the wall "prohibitive" and the fee excessive, the court scoffed at the law's definition of a nudist as anyone found naked before "persons of the opposite sex, not his husband or wife, at their solicitation or with their consent, for religious or health purposes." Construed literally, ruled the court, the law would penalize even "a female patient who undergoes an examination by a male physician."

Problem is, two years later, they went back and rewrote the law to allow an exemption for medical professionals, and the flawed law has remained on the books in Kentucky ever since.

How does the state of Kentucky define "nudist"? I bet you've always wanted to know that, haven't you? Provider of Rare Services that I am, here's your answer.


Don't you just love the male-centric language of it? And how it fails to define what "any part of his private person" means? And how it leaves no allowances for nude modeling in the arts? This law reads like it was written half a century ago. Oh, wait, it was.

So, to this very day, you still have to have a license to operate a "nudist society" under these insanely vague definitions? That's right. And wait, it gets better: it specifically states that it makes no difference whether nudity is part of your religion or not (and it is part of several religious belief systems), you still have to get a license to take off your clothes in the private company of other like-minded individuals.

And exactly how does one apply for a license to take your damn pants off in the woods? You must petition the local county judge, who can turn you down based on your "character".

It's not at the top of my list of civil rights issues to crusade for, granted; but it is primitive, it is backward, and it is irksome on many levels.

Indian Head Rock

For many years, a rock protruding from the middle of the Ohio River along Greenup County was a popular spot for swimmers and waders to venture out to and have their picture taken. The rock also became well-known for a petroglyph of an oddly simplistic face.

Not everyone agrees on the significance and origin of the face. According to Wikipedia:

It has been theorized that the face was carved by an Native American artist as a petroglyph, a boatman as a river gauge, or was carved by John Book from Portsmouth, Ohio who later fought in the Battle of Shiloh. Other theories include that a band of robbers used it to mark their nearby stash and that a quarry man carved the face with a metal device.

Seeking to preserve the rock from eventual destruction from erosion or defacement, Ohio historian Steve Shaffer took it upon himself to remove the rock from the river and haul it over to Ohio, where it was placed on display.

And then all hell broke loose.

The Greenup County Attorney declared that Shaffer's removal of the rock could be a violation of Kentucky’s Antiquity Act (a Class D felony) and the Army Corps of Engineers also opined that the rock was Kentucky property and its removal violated the Federal Rivers and Harborment Act of 1899. After three years of legal wrangling - which included having the Mayor of Portsmouth, OH dragged before the Grand Jury - the rock is finally being returned to Kentucky. Says the Courier-Journal:

Under an agreed order dismissing a suit filed in federal court, the city of Portsmouth, Ohio, will relinquish control of the rock and permit it to be returned to Kentucky.

The so-called Indian Head Rock will be taken to a Greenup County garage until a permanent home can be found and money can be identified to put it on display for public viewing, Greenup County Judge-Executive Robert Carpenter said in a release from the Kentucky Heritage Council.

Kentucky DuPont Found Negligent

The DuPont controversies never end. From Business First:

A jury in Ashland, Ky., has found E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. grossly negligent for a toxic chemical accident at its Wurtland, KY plant in 2004.

It awarded six plaintiffs a total of about $1.3 million in damages for injuries they suffered as a result of the release and as punishment for DuPont. The punitive damages were calculated at a rate of 10 times the compensatory damages awarded by the jury.

The verdict sets the stage for additional phases of the multiple-stage trial that will consider claims by 173 additional alleged victims. The determination of gross negligence by DuPont and the same punitive damage multiplier will automatically apply to all of the other plaintiffs, so the only issue yet to be decided is the whether and by how much the remaining plaintiffs are to be compensated for injuries.

According to court testimony, a cloud of toxic sulfuric acid was created over a large area of Kentucky as a result of a cracked pipe at the plant. DuPont was sued in 1997 for a similar 1995 accident at the same plant.

According to a report by the Daily Independent newspaper in Ashland, a DuPont spokeswoman said the company would appeal the decision and that its position is that the chemical release was not the cause of the problems alleged by the plaintiffs.

A number of those suing DuPont are police officers, firefighters and other emergency personnel who responded to the scene when the leak occurred.

DuPont has already been in repeated trouble - a long, long list of malfeasance - over poisoning the environment and the population with Chlorofluorocarbons and PFOA. And of course, they're also manufacturers of one of my least favorite substances in the world: plastics.