vision2020
Re: Argonaut editorial
Garrett writes-
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?" . . .
Garrett, in your book, what is "lewd"? And why is your definition worth
recruiting the police to force it upon the women of Moscow who might
disagree with it?
Ben Merkle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
To: <benmerkle@moscow.com>
Cc: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Argonaut editorial
> 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
>
Back to TOC