Re: Text of Public Nudity Ordinance

[ltrwritr@moscow.com (Mark Rounds)]

Anytime ;-)  As for the guidance to the police force, it is just that,
guidance.  IF the arresting officer decides there is an overiding reason to
cite some one, the WHEREAS portion is just window dressing (pardon the pun).
I would be a whole lot happier to see that phrasiology in the body of the
enforceable code.

As to where or not you have the right to go top free, that isn't for me to
decide, I think we both agree we need an ordinance of some kind to give
local law enforcement the tools they need to close down events like the
topless carwash (I chose the words top free vs topless with a will, ask if
you are unclear).

I do think though that there is compromise that can be reached that moves
the language to a gender neutral stance and is more defined in what the
arresting officer can and can't cite.  I think a compromise along those
lines will satisfy most folks and we can wrangle about something else on
this list serve or maybe just let it lie for a while and go out and enjoy
the summer.

I do not, for a moment believe that you are trying to start a riot and
voicing your opinion is a healthy step towards moving this away from a
polarized issue to a more community oriented one.  Please speak up again
when the urge moves you.  

Mark Rounds

At 08:54 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Tami Stinebaugh wrote:
>Thank you for the clarification.  I honestly was not sure if the portions
>that began with 'WHEREAS' were considered part of the law or not.  It does
>seem to outline what the ordinance intends to do though.  It gives some
>guidance for police officers, in regard to who this ordinance is directed
>toward, and what it is really meant to address.
>
>As for the differences between people, your point is taken:)  However, I
>just disagree with you on what counts as equal treatment.  I do not
>consider it my right to expose my breasts, just because a man can.  I also
>don't consider myself as being treated unfairly.  I understand that there
>are many women who do, I am just not one of them.  There are women on both
>sides of the fence, and I don't always feel that when the words 'womens
>rights' are used (especially in this case), that they represent all women
>and what they consider *equal* treatment.
>
>Tami Stinebaugh (who is not trying to start a riot, just expressing
>another point of view:)
>
>
>On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Mark Rounds wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>