Re: Argonaut editorial

["Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>]

Yes, I think having a lewd behavior law, such as in Pullman and other towns, 
would be more appropriate.  The question becomes, "what is lewd?", but still 
seems less sweeping than being cited merely because of appearance.
One of the roots for believing someone has a "right" to not be exposed to a 
topfree women is related to the belief that someone does not want to be 
exposed to someone who appears different.  That can range from a person from 
a different race to a person with a nose, lip and eye ring.  Some people are 
uncomfortable being around the above people.  That doesn't mean you restrict 
people from different races or people with a different style than you.  If 
they directly hurt you, you than restrict that behaviour.  Therefore, having 
a lewd behaviour law is not much different than having a noise ordinance.
This law is clearly discriminatory and is unacceptable.
I have yet to understand how a women minding her own business, who chooses 
to feel the sun and wind upon her bare chest threatens you.  I'm sorry if it 
does, but you need to modify your behaviour if it bothers you.  Turn away 
and don't look.  But don't pass a lawthat is unconstitutional, is a waste of 
money to defend in court and frankly just isn't neccesary.  This is even 
more relavent to our particular law, which prevents a women from showing any 
portion of her breast in public view.
Garrett Clevenger


>From: "ben merkle" <benmerkle@moscow.com>
>To: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
>CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Argonaut editorial
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:19:02 -0700
>
>Garrett,
>If it is only the intention that makes something a public problem, are you
>saying that you would be more comfortable with the Moscow PD running around
>town measuring "intentions" rather than cleavage?
>Ben Merkle
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
>To: <ddouglas@pacsim.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:17 PM
>Subject: RE: Argonaut editorial
>
>
> > David:
> >
> > The women advertised the carwash as "XXX"   It was advertised, in my 
>mind,
> > to imply sexuality.   A women baring her chest in not necesarily sexual.
>It
> > is the context that is.
> > We currently have no sexually oriented business  laws in Moscow.  You
>could
> > operate a topfree carwash in your backyard if it were private.
> > Garrett Clevenger
> >
> >
> > >From: "David Douglas" <ddouglas@pacsim.com>
> > >To: "'Muscovites for Equal Rights'"
> > ><idahomer@hotmail.com>,<vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >Subject: RE: Argonaut editorial
> > >Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:49:43 -0700
> > >
> > >Garrett:
> > >
> > >Some opponents of the ordinance say that topless issue, as such, is not
> > >about sex, and you say:
> > >
> > >                 snip: I don't see how breasts can be viewed as a 
>threat
> > >like
> > >some people keep insisting.  snip
> > >
> > >Given that how can you suggest:
> > >
> > >snip:
> > >                  Regarding the carwash, it seems the best way to 
>address
> > >that would be to
> > >                  write a law restricting sexually oriented businesses.
> > >snip
> > >
> > >If it's ok to go topless and ok to wash cars, and being topless is not
>(as
> > >such) a sexual issue, or a threat, then why exactly would you suggest 
>we
> > >restrict such carwashes?  Do non-sexual breasts become sexual when
>washing
> > >cars?  Wouldn't topless women have rights too, vis-à-vis non-sexual
> > >businesses.
> > >
> > >Further, if being topless is ok, why is to ok stop *any* otherwise 
>lawful
> > >behavior, such as waiting tables or dancing, while topless? The use of
> > >zoning, nuisance, and lewdness laws (while perhaps necessary in their 
>own
> > >place) to stop such endeavors seems to me to be a more intrusive and
> > >arbitrary use of government power, given the fact that toplessness 
>itself
> > >would be ok.
> > >
> > >I have to wonder if  the council took the approach you suggest whether
> > >people would be up in arms at the arbitrary regulation of an otherwise
> > >non-sexual business.  I think it would be more consistent of MER, after
> > >getting rid of this ordinance, to lobby for the *removal* of such
> > >restrictions on such non-sexually oriented topless businesses.
> > >
> > >I'm not arguing one way or the other on the city's right, or
> > >responsibility,
> > >to restrict such businesses. But  I see no consistency in your 
>suggestion
> > >to
> > >restrict such public topless businesses, as sexual, while otherwise
>arguing
> > >for public toplessness.
> > >
> > >
> > >David Douglas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com