RE: ordinance

["Dale Courtney" <dmcourtn@moscow.com>]

Tom Hansen writes:

> The first portion of the ordinance, "Any person who willfully and
lewdly 
> exposes their breast(s) . . . ", requires that such an act must be
willful AND 
> lewd.  It begs (and responds to) the question "What is lewd?" by
adding two 
> more self-defined adjectives (indecent or offensive).  What is
indecent or 
> offensive to one person may not be indecent or offensive to another.

Something like personal preference between chocolate and vanilla ice
cream? 

The exact same argument and comparison is made by those arguing for
"intergenerational intimacy" (aka, pedophilia). 
 
> This ordinance goes on to eliminate that possibility by
> stating " . . . where there is present another person or persons who 
> are offended or annoyed thereby is guilty of a misdemeanor."  
> What this apparently states is that ANYBODY who feels offended, or
even 
> slightly annoyed, by such activity (by anyone) may report it to the
Moscow 
> Police Department.

Laws that regulate exposure of female, but not male breasts, have
withstood a variety of challenges in recent years. Courts have rejected
arguments that such laws violate the equal protection clause of the U.S.
Constitution or equal rights amendments of state constitutions. 

A majority of challenges to breast regulations claim such laws violate
the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal
protection. The courts have rejected the argument saying female breasts
are different than male breasts because they are generally understood to
be "private areas." Funny, it seems as if "the enlightened" in Moscow
cannot tell the difference between male and female breasts.

In 1978, a court upheld the arrest of five topless sunbathers on a lewd
conduct law saying it was up to lawmakers to define what was lewd. 

In 1998, the U.S. Second Circuit Court upheld New York City's adult
establishment zoning ordinance saying "numerous courts have recognized
that the societal impacts associated with female toplessness are
legitimate bases for regulation." 

Several U.S. cities have studied the issue and determined that bare
female breasts cause crime. 

Moscow's new public nudity ordinance relies on that argument, citing
such studies in Detroit, Mich., Boston, Houston and Los Angeles. 

But liberals aren't interested in studies or reports, rather to further
their own agenda -- the "adrogenizing" the American people. 
 
> I give this ordinance until the end of the summer.  By then it will be
near 
> impossible to distinguish between Moscow and any other Pennsylvania
Amish 
> community.  Maybe we can punish these evil doers with a good old
fashioned 
> stoning.

ROTFL! If you think having women keeping their tops on in July will lead
to stoning in August, then it is *you* who are stoned.  Inhale deeply of
some fresh mountain air and count to 10. 

Dale Courtney
Moscow, ID