Since 1978, with the adoption of the Constitution, no appeal to "moral" considerations is possible in our laws. No particular morality prevails over another when it comes to being protected by the laws. The right to nudity is therefore deduced from our Constitution (Art. 1; Arts. 14, 17 and 20; Arts. 138, 139 and 149). And from the European Charter of Human Rights, as expressly stated by the European Court of Human Rights (protected at least by freedom of expression, article 10 of the Charter).

​

"Public morality" was the tool by which discriminations of a moral nature were articulated in a legal manner (under the old regime). Thus, the Circular of July 6, 1957 of the Ministry of the Interior prohibited not only "any manifestation of nudity and impropriety in the same aspect that conflicts with the honesty and good taste traditional to the Spanish people," but also extended the prohibition to "the use of bathing suits that are indecent, such as the so-called two-piece suits for women and briefs for men. The former must have the chest and back covered and the latter sport pants."

​

Under our current Constitution, all morals are of equal rank as long as they do not affect any public good protected by law and therefore no discrimination can be established, so there is no legal impediment to the practice of nudism.

​

Authorized nudist beaches arose as a result of the fact that while this freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution, the old Penal Code was still in force with its article on "public scandal", and in order to try to combine both things, beaches were designated for nudism in an attempt to resolve an impossible contradiction (that something illegal was legal in some areas). Today they no longer make sense, because you cannot "authorize" something that is not and cannot be prohibited. It is no longer correct to speak of "nudist beaches", but at most of "traditional nudist beaches", because in reality they all are, they are all free to use without any limitation as to the use of clothing.