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.
Rule is also picture must accompany posting.
Geez, anyone who ever visited a strip club could have told you that.
Damn, I am so relieved.
I don’t know. I think it says a LOT.
I suppose officer Keilman is the titular head of the Bowling Green decency league.
Yeah, you have to give tips.
I will if you will.
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.
Well! This just ruined my day. Thanks for nothing.
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?
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...
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.
It is sign language (or speech).
This thread is of no value without pictures.
Interesting description of one of the most liberal cities in Texas. No bias here.
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!
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.
Bare breasts get New York woman $29,000 -
June 18, 2007
... settlement also marked the second time the change in state law has cost the city. ...
“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”.
Good, now use the same ruling to ban low-riding pants.
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."
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.
Thanks for that... you are the first, although early.
I wasn’t sure if you meant this coming Saturday or last Saturday. And early is better than not at all! :)
...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.