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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ]

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