Re: City Council on Public Nudity

["Mike Finkbiner" <mike_l_f@hotmail.com>]

Debbie Gray <dgray@uidaho.edu>  said -

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.

<SNIP>

Debbie -

New York may still have that law on the books, but it has been modified by 
the state courts.

In 1992 New York State's highest court, in deciding that the state could not 
force women to cover their breasts, stated -

"[Defendants] contend that to the extent that many in our society may regard 
the uncovered female breast with a prurient interest that is not similarly 
aroused by the male equivalent …, that perception cannot serve as a 
justification for differential treatment because it is itself a suspect 
cultural artifact rooted in centuries of prejudice and bias toward women."

"… the concept of "public sensibility" itself, when used in these contexts, 
may be nothing more than a reflection of commonly held preconceptions and 
biases. One of the most important purposes to be served by the equal 
protection clause is to ensure that "public sensibilities" grounded in 
prejudice and unexamined stereotypes do not become enshrined as part of the 
official policy of government…The mere fact that the statute's aim is the 
protection of "public sensibilities" is not sufficient to satisfy the 
state's burden of showing an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for a 
classification that expressly discriminates on the basis of sex."

THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RAMONA SANTORELLI AND MARY LOU SCHLOSS, 
APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
        80 N.Y.2d 875, 600 N.E.2d 232, 587 N.Y.S.2d 601 (1992).
         July 7, 1992

In another interesting case, the US Supreme Court in 1996, United States vs. 
Virginia (the VMI case) also ruled that gender-based distinctions must have 
an ``exceedingly persuasive justification''.

It's hard to say what would happen at the Federal level if a case went that 
far.  I suspect the major problem has been that most people aren't willing 
to take the time, energy and money to fight this to the highest levels.

There have also been interesting developments to the north.  See 
http://www.tera.ca/ for details, but essentially, the Canadian courts have 
been ruling for several years that mere exposure of the female breast was 
not illegal.

For instance two years ago the BC Supreme Court in  Maple Ridge v. Meyer,
(2000 BCSC 902, Date: 20000608, Docket No.: A972072)
in overturning Linda Meyers conviction for going topfree at a local pool 
stated - among a lot of other legalese "

"[57] I do not find in the evidence support for the view that the parks 
could not operate in orderly fashion if a female were to bare her breasts 
... "

There have been similar cases in Ontario and across Canada.  See the tera 
web site for more info.  Of course they have a shorter summer than we do, so 
it might not be as much of a problem.

<G>

It's an interesting world, isn't it?

- Mike



Mike Finkbiner
mike_l_f@hotmail.com


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx