vision2020
Re: City Council
Great job John Danahy,
I would like to add one:
What is the definition of "is"?
Cheers!
John Harrell
--- John Danahy <JDANAHY@turbonet.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Back to TOC