Brevity and the law are common, if not intentional, partners. The latest article in Slate discussing the constitutionality of body paint under the purview of the 1st amendment confirms as much. Brian Palmer, the author of the article, discusses the inconsistent application of anti-nudity laws throughout the country over the last two decades. In particular, how it seems that those ensconced in body paint are rarely arrested, and indeed, have been interviewed on live television with no repercussions. However, it seems that officials can take a reactionary stance when body painting proliferates beyond a few protests, as occurred in Federal Way, Washington, in response to body painted baristas.
In a survey of state statutes, it seems that legislators give body painters “a pass” with vague references to nudity, that could be interpreted to shield body painters from prosecution. Interestingly, the federal banning nudity in national parks defines nudity as failure to “cover with a fully opaque covering the genitals, pubic areas, rectal area or female brewast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.” This would seem to exclude an individual clad with body paint from violating the law.
