Re: City Council

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

Thank you Pam for your listing the various ordinances.  Perhaps someone with
more legal expertise than I can answer a few questions I have.

Why can the city council declare the nipple and areolas of females indecent
but not males?

When does a female become "mature"?

If it becomes unlawful to show the contour of nipple and areola, does this
also mean through swim suits, t-shirts (dry or wet), sports bras etc?

Will the city council require the MPD to have an officer at the pool every
day to make sure above is cited when it happens?

To what extent is the term "southern hemisphere" defined?

If someone were to spill water on a female and the contour then shows, who
gets cited?

How much will it cost the city to litigate this action and where does the
council think the funds will come from?
         (Assume through the US Supreme Court)

John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Palmer" <ppalmer@moscow.com>
To: "John Guyer" <johnguy@moscow.com>; "'Vision2020'"
<vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: City Council


> Visionaries-
>
> It is my understanding, and perhaps Councilman Guyer can confirm this,
that
> the Moscow City Council will discuss several proposed nudity ordinances on
> July 1st, at their next Monday night council meeting.  Peg Hamlett, the
only
> councilmember likely to speak against such an ordinance, will not be in
town
> for the July 1st meeting (the Council had advance notification of her
> attendance at an annual conference).  In addition, both Mayor Marshall
> Comstock and City Supervisor Gary Riedner are out of town this week (at
the
> Association of Idaho Cities conference), which makes it difficult for
> citizens to have conversations with either of them about this issue.
>
> I understand that three versions of an ordinance are being prepared for
the
> City Council to consider.  I do not know the specific language in each
> version, but a rough summary follows:
>
> #1 It would be unlawful for women to expose their nipples and areolas,
> except for breastfeeding mothers.
>
> #2 The same as the first version, except that it would also be unlawful to
> show the contours of the nipples and areolas.  (This means the "pasties"
> used to cover the areolas would have to be made out of a stiffer
material.)
>
> #3 It would be unlawful for women to expose their nipples, areolas or the
> "southern hemisphere" of the breast, again except for breastfeeding
mothers.
>
> As a former City Council member who spent way too much time discussing
such
> an ordinance the first time around, I implore City Council not to jump
into
> a knee-jerk ordinance, but rather to step back and consider the longer
term
> picture of Moscow life.
>
> We've already dealt with the nudity ordinance.  It hasn't presented a
> problem until the convertible carwash opened up.  If the current issue is
> that a business is profiting from sexual exploitation of female bodies,
why
> not look at model ordinances around the country that focus on "Sexually
> Oriented Businesses" (otherwise known as SOB ordinances).  It seems that
> this is an area that would make more sense for the future of Moscow.
>
> Pam Palmer
>