Word "Opaque" maybe more of a problem: silver bullet: death to ORDINANCE

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Garrett et. al.

The night the nudity ordinance was passed and we were gathered outside on 
third street I was discussing how the wording of the ordinance technically 
made illegal a topless women standing looking out a picture window in her 
own home that was clearly visible from the street.  I considered a protest 
that such a women could stage by using spotlights to make her blatantly 
visible from inside her own home especially at night from the street.  This 
would no doubt be noticed eventually and complaints would be issued similar 
to the complaints over the topless car wash.  Would the police then ticket 
or arrest this women for this nudity in her own home?  It would be 
interesting to find out.

I think it is highly unlikely the police in Moscow will ever ticket or 
arrest a women for being topless in her own home, though the staged protest 
I outlined might force this.  Then a battle over the wording "place open to 
public view" might take place.  But it would not overturn the overall spirit 
of the ordinance dealing with clear cut public total exposure of female 
breasts in clearly defined public places.  They could just rewrite the 
ordinance to more clearly define what is allowed on private property, etc.

I think the use of the word "opaque," which means "impenetrable to light" is 
very problematic in this ordinance.  Many garments women wear allow some 
"light to penetrate."  Some very tasteful (in my opinion) fashions allow the 
outline of the breast to be seen vaguely through the garment.  Technically 
the ordinance criminalizes this type of clothing.
But again I doubt Moscow police will ticket or arrest any women who has some 
covering that mostly covers her breast, even if it does allow some light to 
pass through.  So without an arrest it might be hard to challenge the 
ordinance over the word "opaque."  And then again they could just rewrite 
the ordinance to define more clearly how much light a garment can allow to 
pass to be legal.

We need a Clarence Darrow to come fight the battle to allow women the right 
to be perfectly topless in public places and not just fight over technical 
issues regarding wordings that do not really challenge the overall intent of 
the ordinance.

Another solution is to have a public area, (a park, etc.) in Moscow that is 
defined as "clothing optional" or swim times at the public pool that are 
"clothing optional."  Then people who wish to not worry about clothing can 
have their rights to be nude in public protected, and people who do not wish 
to see nude people can avoid the places or times where "clothing optional" 
use is ocurring.  I'm dreaming!

Ted

>From: "Garrett Clevenger" <onewildearth@hotmail.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: the silver bullet: death to ORDINANCE NO. 2002 - 13
>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:43:44 -0700
>




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com