Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Baring Breasts In Public Not Free Speech
10/30/07

Posted on 10/31/2007 4:32:02 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/10/30/baring_breasts/

Sorry, rule is link only.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: breasts; court; freespeech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 10/31/2007 4:32:03 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/10/30/baring_breasts/


2 posted on 10/31/2007 4:32:18 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Booo. ;-)


3 posted on 10/31/2007 4:34:04 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Rule is also picture must accompany posting.


4 posted on 10/31/2007 4:34:44 AM PDT by GOPmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Geez, anyone who ever visited a strip club could have told you that.


5 posted on 10/31/2007 4:35:54 AM PDT by Dahoser (America's great untapped alternative energy source: The Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Dahoser

Damn, I am so relieved.


7 posted on 10/31/2007 4:37:11 AM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

I don’t know. I think it says a LOT.


8 posted on 10/31/2007 4:40:33 AM PDT by wolfcreek (The Status Quo Sucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
Bowling Green Police Officer Matthew Kielman arrived and requested that the women put their shirts back on

I suppose officer Keilman is the titular head of the Bowling Green decency league.

9 posted on 10/31/2007 4:44:58 AM PDT by Vaquero (" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Yeah, you have to give tips.


10 posted on 10/31/2007 4:46:07 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackHood55

I will if you will.


11 posted on 10/31/2007 4:51:46 AM PDT by Shimmer (Purrrrrr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
UMMM, not in Texas.

See here.

From the article - about halfway down the page.

In Texas, an associate writes as follows:

Texas state law does not criminalize female breasts uncovered in public. Various Texas cities have ordinances prohibiting the public display of bare female breasts, but in the instances where those local measures have been specifically challenged, they have been struck down.

In the early 1970s, an enlightened Austin city council removed from its ordinances any mention of female breasts that are bared in public. The justification was gender equality. It wasn't that they specifically allowed it; rather, they stopped specifically disallowing it. The distinction is significant.

In Austin today, women can be topfree in public legally, but few choose to do so. An uninformed public and uninformed public servants often make the experience an unpleasant one for women who are bare chested in public.


12 posted on 10/31/2007 4:58:19 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (I've been too busy for FR this weekend, because I did the things I refuse to let the invaders do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Well! This just ruined my day. Thanks for nothing.


13 posted on 10/31/2007 4:58:28 AM PDT by engrpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

I don’t see how this cannot be free speech if Hustler is free speech, and topless bars are free speech. Also, why stop at the breasts?


14 posted on 10/31/2007 5:00:45 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I’m sorry, but I don’t get how going topless is a free speech issue. I am an attorney, but apparently a naive one (certainly not a constitutional scholar or practitioner). My concept of “speech” is the conveying of an idea or concept through some sort of medium. Obviously, verbal (spoken or written words) communication is speech, but merely yelling unintelligible sounds is not, because nothing is being conveyed. What does going topless convey? That one has breasts? Or that one is attractive, or (see Helen Thomas photo above) is aging and repulsive?

I occasionally ask young people who are multi-pierced, tattooed, or “uniquely” dressed, why they present themselves as they do. The most common response (ignoring the f*&^ you and “because I want to” responses) is “I am expressing myself.” Fair enough, but what is it that is being expressed? Maybe I am just getting old (50 on Saturday), but I don’t get it. I guess that is just one more thing I don’t get...


15 posted on 10/31/2007 5:10:14 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

Yep, I’m a lawyer too. Basically, they’ve clothed what would be illegal conduct in the mantle of speech, and that apparently gives it a protected status, per our Supreme Court. Logically, if you kill someone and publish photos of the crime in a magazine, it’s protected free speech.


16 posted on 10/31/2007 5:13:40 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

It is sign language (or speech).


17 posted on 10/31/2007 5:14:45 AM PDT by myuhaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

This thread is of no value without pictures.


18 posted on 10/31/2007 5:18:46 AM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll. <br> "What happens if neutrinos have mass?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
In the early 1970s, an enlightened Austin city council . . . . .

Interesting description of one of the most liberal cities in Texas. No bias here.

19 posted on 10/31/2007 5:19:34 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

women bearing their breasts in public isn’t free speech????
even if they say “Boingie boingie boingie”????
I’m deeply saddened. (snif!)

I understand that if you twist the knobs just right, you can find Kenneth’s frequency!


20 posted on 10/31/2007 5:22:46 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441; Brilliant

Sometimes you lawyers crack me up. You have missed the salient point in this discussion. It is very clear that if they are attractive breasts it is no problem. Unfortunately it is usually females who possess very unattractive breasts who choose to bare them in public. That would then come under ordnances relating to public nuisance or camera abuse as the situation may be. This also should be considered with ordinances relating to spandex abuse at Wal-Mart.:-)


21 posted on 10/31/2007 5:23:04 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Illegal Immigration, a Clear and Present Danger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“Also, why stop at the breasts?”

As we saw last week in the NYPost, it must be legal for a person to walk naked thru the streets of NYC.

Nudity per se isn’t an issue, and quite frankly, I don’t think that most people object to nudity once they get used to the experience.

The problem is when lewd behavior starts, and when lewd displays and behaviors are cover by “Free Speech” provisions. Nudity per se isn’t lewd, but one can be lewd w/o exposing anything illegal.


22 posted on 10/31/2007 5:27:25 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: NCLaw441

I agree with you. Have you ever wondered why all of these people who want to be unique look so much alike?


24 posted on 10/31/2007 5:34:47 AM PDT by dearolddad (Opinions are like rectums: everybody has one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: camle

hehehehe


25 posted on 10/31/2007 5:36:02 AM PDT by Archon of the East (Universal Executive Power of the Law of Nature)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: reagan_fanatic

OMG if you look this disgusting why would you WANT to bare them? GOOD GRIEF!


27 posted on 10/31/2007 5:38:01 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

its always the ugly ones...


28 posted on 10/31/2007 5:39:29 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
This actress is clearly aching to express her deepest thoughts.


29 posted on 10/31/2007 5:41:41 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Kill the terrorists, secure the borders, and give me back my freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Hmmm ... I guess the coors people came up with that blue mountain idea after rejecting the first concept. Twin peaks inspiration!


30 posted on 10/31/2007 5:41:56 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPmember
Rule is also picture must accompany posting.

I have a feeling that any woman who's going to get pinched by the cops for whipping 'em out in public ain't the type of woman you want to see topless in the first place. The hot ones get a pass; the pigs get tossed in the pokey.

31 posted on 10/31/2007 5:42:44 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Interesting description of one of the most liberal cities in Texas. No bias here.

The Austin Silly Council is hellbent on destroying any personal choice for its citizens. They are getting serious about having a rail system that takes up existing roads so people are forced to ride that instead of driving to and from work.

I live in the one remaining, mostly Conservative area, of Travis county. I'm glad I only have a couple of years before I retire and don't have to venture into this hellhole, except on rare occasions.

32 posted on 10/31/2007 5:48:19 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (I've been too busy for FR this weekend, because I did the things I refuse to let the invaders do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
I searched but could only find Code Pink topless pics:)
33 posted on 10/31/2007 5:52:57 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

If it IS free speech, then I can think of a couple of women I’d like to hear shouting.


34 posted on 10/31/2007 5:54:09 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

Happy birthday


35 posted on 10/31/2007 5:56:17 AM PDT by Shimmer (Purrrrrr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
Dear moderator who saw fit to delete my last post:

I never imagined that I'd see the day when pictures of shirtless men would become off limits on FreeRepublic.

Was it Topless Teddy or Massive-Mammaried Michael Moore who was too much for your sensitive eyes this morning?
36 posted on 10/31/2007 5:58:42 AM PDT by GOPmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido; Dr. Eckleburg

JERRY: (Looking toward beach) Oh this is interesting.

ELAINE: What?

JERRY: Jane’s topless. (They all look)

KRAMER: Yo yo ma.

JERRY: Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

ELAINE: Nice rack. (Carol and Michael inside open back door)

CAROL: Come on, you guys. You can come and see the bay-bee!

JERRY: Oh, in a minute, Carol.

KRAMER: We’re gonna be right there.

JERRY: This is weird wild stuff. George hasn’t even seen her yet.

ELAINE: Why do you think we’re getting the sneak preview?

KRAMER: Maybe she’s trying to create a buzz.

ELAINE: What?

KRAMER: You know, get some good word of mouth goin’.

JERRY: Oh, here she comes. (They pretend to not have watched as Jane enters)

JANE: I’m thirsty. Anyone want a drink?

(Jerry, Elaine and Kramer are shocked)

JERRY: No thanks.

ELAINE: I’m good.

KRAMER: Deh-deh-deh-deh- (Jane exits) All right, show’s over. I’m goin’ to the beach.


37 posted on 10/31/2007 5:59:38 AM PDT by Gamecock (Gamecock: Declared anathema by the Council of Trent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

hey we got rules around here...and rules is rules!


38 posted on 10/31/2007 6:00:59 AM PDT by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myuhaul

Yes. Sign Language is speech.

Rhetorical Critics will tell you that anything is “speech” if the purpose is to convey a message. That includes things like architecture, art, clothing, or no clothing. Certainly women who go topless are attempting to convey a message. Trying to figure out what that message is can be problematic. The next question is “is this protected speech”. My take is that the Founders were protecting political speech. So unless these women are running for office on a platform of [insert joke here] it’s not constitutionally protected speech. IMHO


39 posted on 10/31/2007 6:21:20 AM PDT by Emrys (Fashion says "Me, too." Style says, "Only me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

No, its not free speech.

Its is however a nice surprise once in a while to us guys.....(chuckle)

Once saw a very pretty, and busty red head do this for the benefit of a work gang heading back inside the justice center in downtown Cincinnati. Every driver sitting at that red light honked and waved, and asked her to do it again.

She didn’t, but sure did have a happy smile from all the attention.


40 posted on 10/31/2007 6:23:46 AM PDT by Badeye ('Ron Paul joined 88 Democrats.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPmember

41 posted on 10/31/2007 6:42:19 AM PDT by F-117A (Mr. Bush, have someone read UN Resolution 1244 to you!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Bare breasts get New York woman $29,000 -
UPI.com
June 18, 2007
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu9T6hShHB_kA_x9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhc2pudDdqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01BUDAwMl83NARsA1dTMQ—/SIG=13e02rr30/EXP=1193924474/**http%3a//www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/06/18/bare_breasts_get_new_york_woman_29000/9929/

... settlement also marked the second time the change in state law has cost the city. ...


42 posted on 10/31/2007 6:44:01 AM PDT by flowerplough (La Tolteca in Rehoboth, Delaware: They probably cater Fiesta Night in Heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: flowerplough
From that link:

“A New York appeals court ruled in 1992 that women should be legally allowed to bare their chests just as men are.”

That reminds me of an incident that happened on our jogging trail at the facility I work at before 9/11. Our camp used to be open 24/7 to local civilians who wanted to use the trail. The women liked the added security of running on a lit trail any time of the day and have the camp security guards as visible deterrents to any possible assaults.

One weekend, a woman decide to jog on the trail topless. One of the guards saw her and politely told her to replace her top. The woman said, “If men can run topless, so can I”. So the guard called HER supervisor on the radio. By the time he got there, the woman had already put her top back on. He later quipped, “The one day we have a topless female jogger, and Kathy was the only one to see her topless”.

43 posted on 10/31/2007 7:14:36 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (I've been too busy for FR this weekend, because I did the things I refuse to let the invaders do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Good, now use the same ruling to ban low-riding pants.


44 posted on 10/31/2007 7:15:17 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
I’m sorry, but I don’t get how going topless is a free speech issue.

Remember the Supreme Court case a few years ago involving a nudie bar in Indiana? Majority opinion said something along the line of "50,000 nude folks in the Hoosier Dome may be sending a message but it's not protected by the US Constitution."

45 posted on 10/31/2007 7:27:46 AM PDT by Martin Tell ("It is the right, good old way you are in: keep in it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Emrys

You posted, in part: Certainly women who go topless are attempting to convey a message. Trying to figure out what that message is can be problematic.
***

That is where I don’t get it. Speech means communication, doesn’t it? If the message can’t be discerned, how is that speech? This is the same problem I have with flag burning as speech. What does burning the American flag mean? “I hate America?... I hate the current administration?... I hate Congress?... I hate the American way of life?... etc., etc.” If the expression is devoid of any real meaning discernable to the average “listener” how is that speech in any real way?

As for seeing women topless, I find it hard (no pun intended) to object, as long is the woman is not my wife or daughter. If the woman is unattractive one can look away. As the comedian Ron White says: Once you seen one woman’s [breasts] you pretty much want to see them all.


46 posted on 10/31/2007 7:29:35 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer

Thanks for that... you are the first, although early.


47 posted on 10/31/2007 7:41:01 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

I wasn’t sure if you meant this coming Saturday or last Saturday. And early is better than not at all! :)


48 posted on 10/31/2007 7:45:56 AM PDT by Shimmer (happy birthday to youuuuuuuu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

...as long is the woman is not one’s wife or daughter, or Ann Coulter.

In a recent FR thread about Ann showing another side of herself, I mentioned that I’d like to see her backside. Admin/mod/Sunday-school-teacher seems to have deleted my words.


49 posted on 10/31/2007 7:48:49 AM PDT by flowerplough (La Tolteca in Rehoboth, Delaware: They probably cater Fiesta Night in Heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: F-117A
So, my post of the Massachusetts Manatee gets deleted by the mods, but yours is allowed? I clearly detect a conspiracy here.

Now, where did I leave that aluminum foil hat?
50 posted on 10/31/2007 7:57:17 AM PDT by GOPmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson