Skip to comments.Court: Baring Breasts In Public Not Free Speech
Posted on 10/31/2007 4:32:02 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
Sorry, rule is link only.
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.:-)
“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.
I agree with you. Have you ever wondered why all of these people who want to be unique look so much alike?
OMG if you look this disgusting why would you WANT to bare them? GOOD GRIEF!
its always the ugly ones...
Hmmm ... I guess the coors people came up with that blue mountain idea after rejecting the first concept. Twin peaks inspiration!
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.
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.
If it IS free speech, then I can think of a couple of women I’d like to hear shouting.
JERRY: (Looking toward beach) Oh this is interesting.
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.
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.
hey we got rules around here...and rules is rules!
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
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.