vision2020
Re: City Council on Public Nudity
Debbie,
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!! I am quite perturbed by the trend I am
seeing where people are flat out denying the difference between a woman's
chest, and a man's. Where's the pride in that??? I, for one, accept that
my chest is different than a man's, and I embrace that fact. While I do
consider every woman equal to every man, that is not to say that I don't
appreciate the differences between the sexes. Being equal, and having
equal rights, does not mean denying what makes us WOMEN, and/or
pretending we are all exactly the same. I hate to point out the obvious,
but we are different!! We have BREASTS!! And regardless of what some
people may be saying, common sense tells us that they are indeed a sexual
part of our body. Why do people deny that? (why would you want too???)
And when the word *shame* arises, I just cringe. I do not see the link
between wearing a shirt, and feeling ashamed. Unless of course modesty
is now something to be ashamed about?
Tami Stinebaugh
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Debbie Gray wrote:
> For some interesting reading on public nudity and a collection of state
> and local laws in re. to public nudity, see:
> http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu/~brahm/legal.html
>
> If you don't have time, here are some interesting points:
>
> 1. Who has public nudity laws banning the exposure of "genitals, vulva,
> pubis, pubic symphysis, pubic hair, buttocks, natal cleft, perineum, anus,
> anal region or pubic hair region of any person, or any portion of the
> breast at or below the upper edge of the areola thereof of any female
> person" generally excluding those under the age of 10 and those
> breastfeeding?
>
> New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Arizona, Minneapolis Parks and
> Rec, South Carolina, just to name a few. My point is that all the people
> who think this is just some hilarious gaffe in a backwater state are
> probably living under the exact same laws in their own
> states/municipalities.
>
> 2. Breastfeeding is legally seen as a woman's RIGHT. Therefore, laws don't
> 'legalize' breastfeeding while outlawing nudity, they protect the RIGHT to
> breastfeed. New York even includes breastfeeding as a civil right (see the
> La Leche League for further info). Therefore, this shouldn't even be
> included in the discussion of public nudity (though it is good to have
> legal clarification for those officious members of the public).
>
> 3. "There is no federal law against nudity, but _neither is it a
> Constitutionally protected right_. Its legality is therefore determined
> by state and local laws.
>
> ---The U.S. Supreme Court, in _Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc._, 111 S.Ct.
> 2456 (1991) [*09], "concluded that the enforcement of Indiana's public
> indecency law to prevent totally nude dancing does not violate the First
> Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression." Chief Justice Rehnquist
> wrote, "This governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
> expression, since public nudity is the evil the State seeks to prevent,
> whether or not it is combined with expressive activity.""
>
> Therefore, public nudity laws are interpreted as not suppressing the right
> to freedom of speech but rather they are suppressing the behavior
> ofnudity. If you substitute any other 'criminalized' (defined as such by
> laws) behavior for nudity, it helps conceptualize it. Eg. a law against
> murder aims to supress murder, not to supress the freedom of
> expression one could use in killing someone. (yes, I know that is an
> extreme example but i am surprised nobody's tried to argue their right to
> murder someone under the freedom of expression)
>
> 4. Most of the laws include an exemption for 'artistic performance' such
> as a theatre or musical. So perhaps the carwash women might
> claim to be 'performance artists'?
>
> 4. Here's an interesting case which discusses the 'unconstitutional
> gender-based classifaction' and the judge's ruling about the
> differences between men and women in the world of common sense (who cares
> about legislating morality, I'd rather legislate common sense!)
>
> Lee Ann Turner was arrested on September 8, 1983, for sunbathing topless
> at Wirth Lake in Minneapolis. Turner was found guilty and appealed on
> First Amendment grounds of free expression. The appeals court noted that
> the Minnesota Supreme Court held that "nudity is not protected expression,
> but conduct, which the city has a substantial interest in regulating via
> its police power... PB2-21 does not unconstitutionally infringe on
> Turner's right to free speech granted by the United States or Minnesota
> constitutions." [*10]
>
> Turner also claimed that "the ordinance creates an unconstitutional
> gender-based classification," this violating the equal protection clauses
> of the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions. The appeals court concluded:
> "PB2-21 advances a legislate governmental interest in the preservation of
> public decency and order... The female breasts, unlike male breasts,
> constitute an erogenous zone and are commonly associated with sexual
> arousal. Common knowledge tells us that there is a real difference
> between the sexes with respect to breasts, which is reasonably related to
> the preservation of public decorum and morals... There being such a
> difference between the breasts of males and females (however undiscernible
> to the naked eye of some), and that difference having a reasonable
> relationship to the legitimate legislative purpose which it serves, the
> ordinance does not deny equality of rights or impose unequal
> responsibilities on women. Protection of society's norms is a legitimate
> legislative goal. The slight difference in clothing requirements imposed
> on the two sexes is necessary if the legislative purpose is to be
> served... In certain narrow circumstances, a gender classification based
> on clear differences between the sexes is not invidious, and a legislative
> classification realistically based upon those differences is not
> unconstitutional. When men and women are not in fact similarly situated
> in the area covered by the legislation in question, the Equal Protection
> Clause does not mean that the physiological differences between men and
> women must be disregarded. While those differences must never be
> permitted to become a pretext for invidious discrimination, no such
> discrimination is presented by this case. The Constitution surely does
> not require a State to pretend that demonstrable differences between men
> and women do not really exist."
>
> Anyway, that's quite an interesting site (as is: Naturist Action Committee
> at http://nac.oshkosh.net/) and it seems that the city council has come up
> with wording that is very similar to case law across the country. As for
> selective enforcement, I am glad that police officers do have the power of
> discretion. Reaching far back to my criminal justice classes, their is a
> difference between administration and ministration of justice. This allows
> the police to analyze the situation and make decisions on a case by case
> basis. Otherwise, we might as well have robot police who immediately
> ticket or arrest every single offender for every single crime, large or
> small.
>
> Personally, I don't see the 'topless carwash' as a political statement,
> expression of equality, or civics lesson. To me it is simply a few women
> who want to make quick money. The quote in the Spokesman by Daisy (?)
> about what she would have to do if the carwash was shut down? "Job" is all
> she said ...
>
> Debbie
>
> %^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
> Debbie Gray dgray@uidaho.edu http://www.uidaho.edu/~dgray/
> We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to
> have the life that is waiting for us." --Joseph Campbell
> %^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
>
>
Back to TOC