Re: Text of Public Nudity Ordinance

[ltrwritr@moscow.com (Mark Rounds)]

Ms. Stinebaugh

If you are referring to the portion of the law that reads 

"WHEREAS, the Council does not desire to regulate breast cleavage as
exposed by some articles of women's clothing including a dress, blouse,
shirt, leotard, costume, bathing suit, or other such apparel."

A legal friend told me (and she is one I trust) that this is not a binding
portion of the law.  paragraphs that begin with "WHEREAS" merely describe
the intent of the body.  It is not the part of the code that actaully tells
the police, prosecutors what they can chage people with.  If a citation is
written, this portion does not play, although a good lawyer will make sure
it gets mentioned a lot.  There is a bunch of case law out there that
supports this.

I don't disagree with the concept of an ordinance on this subject, I just
think they could have done a better job word smithing it so that treatment
is equal under the law and that the amount of selective enforcement is
limited.  

Before the wags start, yes, I know men and women are different, I have been
happily married to one for 24 years come September and we have three
wonderful children.  But Asians, Caucasians, Blacks, Hispanics to name just
a few are all very different too and I revel in it.  They have brought us
great cusines, marvelous poetry, and on a more personal note, dedicated men
and women that I had the distinct pleasure of serving with as an Air Force
Officer.  But because they are different does not mean they don't derserve
equal treatment under the law and we could do it in this case with careful
wording.

As to why I, a man, am focused on this issue, as a younger man I wasn't as
attentive to this kind of thing as I should have been.  I was a product of
my times but it is still no excuse.  Consider this penance for being a jerk
at 22 ;-)

Mark Rounds


At 04:08 PM 7/23/2002 -0700, Tami Stinebaugh wrote:
>so, If I am reading this right, doesn't the ordinance actually allow
>for bikinis?  And isn't the toddler issue addressed in section D?  And
>breastfeeding seemed to be addressed as well.  The ordinance seemed to
>cover more bases than people have given it credit for.   Unless, of
>course, I am reading it wrong.
>
>Tami Stinebaugh
>
>On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, bill london wrote:
>
>> For purposes of an email sample vote or referendum on the new nudity
>> ordinance, a copy of the text was requested.
>> Here is the text, both attached and below.
>> BL
>> -----
>> ORDINANCE NO. 2002 - 13
>>
>> AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE
>> OF IDAHO; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF MOSCOW CITY CODE 10-1-16;
>> PROHIBITING THE EXPOSURE TO PUBLIC VIEW OF CERTAIN PARTS OF THE HUMAN
>> BODY; PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE BE DEEMED
>> SEVERABLE; AND PROVIDING FOR THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IN FULL FORCE AND
>> EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ITS PASSAGE, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION ACCORDING
>> TO LAW.
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council deems that it is in the public interest to regulate
>> the public exposure of certain parts of the human body; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that in Moscow there is a distinct,
>> legally recognized difference in our current society regarding the
>> public reaction to the exhibition of the pubescent and postpubescent
>> male and pubescent and postpubescent female breast; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, many cities across the United States (including Detroit,
>> Michigan; Boston, Massachusetts; Houston, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Los
>> Angeles, California, and the City of New York, New York) have determined
>> that there are unwanted secondary effects related to public display of
>> female breasts; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council believes that it is the Moscow community standard
>> to require the coverage of the portions of the body described herein;
>> and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council wishes to prevent assaults on individual privacy
>> and intrusion upon those who do not wish to be exposed to parts of the
>> human body usually understood and accepted in this community to be
>> private and listed herein; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council believes it should allow for the breastfeeding of
>> babies in public; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that the City should not limit willful
>> exposure of certain body parts in non-public areas and should respect a
>> person's choice to do so; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Ordinance that the portion of the
>> breast which should be covered is that which exposes no part of the
>> nipple,  the entire areola, and the area contiguous to the areola
>> including the cleft between the breast and the body below the areola
>> which extends upward toward the arm or underarm; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the community's best interest to
>> pass this Ordinance in an effort to fairly balance a person's right of
>> self-expression, the sense of appropriateness, and style of dress with
>> the wishes of other members of the community regarding community mores
>> and standards of acceptable behavior in the City of Moscow, Idaho; and
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Council does not desire to regulate breast cleavage as
>> exposed by some articles of women's clothing including a dress, blouse,
>> shirt, leotard, costume, bathing suit, or other such apparel.
>>
>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
>> MOSCOW, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS:
>>
>> SECTION 1:    That Moscow City Code Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 16 be,
>> and the same is hereby amended as follows:
>>
>> Sec. 1-16. Public Nudity.
>>
>> A.  Definitions:
>> 1. Pubescent or postpubescent female breast.  This shall include the
>> entire breast once a female begins puberty and continuing throughout her
>> adult life, but shall not include any portion of breast cleavage.
>> 2. Breast cleavage. The middle depression or furrow between pubescent or
>> postpubescent female breasts.  The nipple, the entire areola, and the
>> area contiguous to the areola including the cleft between the breast and
>> the body below the areola which extends upward toward the arm or
>> underarm is not considered cleavage.
>> 3. Opaque.  Material which is not transparent or translucent.  Body
>> paint, body dyes, tattoos, liquid latex whether wet or dried, and
>> similar substances shall not be considered opaque covering.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> C. Exposure of any portion of a female's breast while she is in the act
>> of breastfeeding a baby is not a violation of this Section.
>>
>> D. This Section shall not apply to a person who is prepubescent.
>>
>> SECTION 2:  SEVERABILITY.  Provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed
>> severable and the invalidity of any provision of this Ordinance shall
>> not affect the validity of remaining provisions.  The remaining sections
>> of Title 10 shall remain in full force and effect.
>>
>> SECTION 3: EFFECT ON OTHER ORDINANCES
>> Where the definitions contained in this Ordinance are in conflict with
>> relevant portions of the City of Moscow, Idaho, Municipal Code, the
>> definition contained within those portions of the Moscow Municipal Code
>> will be unaffected until such time, if any, as they are amended to be
>> consistent with this Ordinance.
>>
>> SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE.  This Ordinance shall be effective upon its
>> passage, approval, and publication according to law.
>>
>> PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 15th day of
>> July, 2002.
>>
>>
>>       ___/s/_________________________________
>>       Marshall H. Comstock, Mayor
>>
>> ATTEST:
>>
>>
>> /s/_______________________________
>> Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
>>
>>
>> SUMMARY ORDINANCE PUBLISHED: July 16, 2002
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ordinance\PublicNudity (rev 7-15-02)\pm
>>
>>
>
>
>