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!
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.