Re: No law for "neked" children

[Pam Palmer <ppalmer@moscow.com>]

Doug Farris-

You may want to look more closely at the language in the ordinance, as it
was printed in the Daily News.  It does not refer to pubescent, except when
referring to female breasts (see below).  So far, I have not seen any "cleft
of the buttocks" and "genitals" exemptions for prepubescent people, so
infants & toddlers seem to be fair game for committing misdemeanors
according to the Council's new ordinance.  Or, as Bob Hoffman stated, "would
that make the parent liable?"  If, on the other hand, the paper has yet to
print the full version of the ordinance, maybe you're correct about
exemptions for infants.

Pam Palmer

Wording of new ordinance:

Section B.  No person shall willfully expose to view or fail to cover
completely and opaquely any portion of such person's anus, cleft of the
buttocks, genitals, and the pubescent or postpubescent female breast on or
in any public place or place open to public view.


On 7/17/02 3:11 PM, "Doug Farris" <heirloom@moscow.com> wrote:

> Dear Bob Hoffmann....
> 
> You said...
> 
> (Note that our new ordinance does not even exempt infants from the law,
> and there is no exemption from changing diapers in public--so would that
> make the parent liable?)
> 
> You need to look up the definition for Prepubescent.  They are the ones
> who are exempt...
> 
> lemeno Doug
>