a
I'd personally prefer it if men were subject to the same obscenity laws as women. Who wants to see some ugly fat football yob or a scummy chav with their shirt off in the summer? Not me that's for sure.
Indiana judges dismiss girl's nipple exposure appeal
A court has ruled that women's nipples do not enjoy freedom of expression under the US Constitution. The case was brought by a 16 year old girl, who was one of three women accused of exposing their breasts to passing traffic on an Indianapolis street last year. She would have faced a misdemeanour charge of public nudity if …
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 14:25 GMT copsewood
the place and context is relevant here
It seems reasonable to me for different places to have different standards determined by local bylaws. I don't want to see either men or women going topless in meetings or premises of my Church. But I don't have any problem with either gender going topless in a park or on a beach on a sunny day.
The fact she was exposing her breasts next to a major road creates a probability of drivers taking their eyes off the wheel, creating a risk of accidents. I suspect some men going topless here could create a similar risk amongst some women or gay motorists, so in this context it seems reasonable for local bylaws to apply equally to both genders. I don't think local bylaws can realistically discriminate against people for being young slim and beautiful or old fat and ugly, and I also can't see any reason why these bylaws need to discriminate based upon gender.
-
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 13:06 GMT Cameron Colley
Pathetic, prudish, moronic "assholes".
It is frightening to me that, in supposedly free countries in a supposedly enlightened time some people still insist on thrusting these narrow-minded outdated and pointless "morals" upon populations.
If a "... substantial portion of Hoosiers who do not wish to be exposed to erogenous zones in public..." then, perhaps, they should look into forcing women to wear head-scarves which cover their neck and ears -- hell, perhaps they should do like those nice guys in Saudi do and force them to wear burkas?
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 14:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Erogenous
Completely agree with you. I assume that the judge is also referring to male and female erogenous zones in the guise of impartiality. Male nipples are erogenous zones too. As are the lips, ears, necks, feet... hell - the entire epidermis could be considered as such. Wrists were a particular favourite of an ex of mine..
The conclusion is that we should all cover up from head to toe.
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 13:06 GMT Richard 81
Weeeeell
It may be considered prudish but breasts are regarded as erotic by the majority of people, and their display might offend those who don't want to see them in public.* From the sounds of the case, the girl knows this. The fact that they are erotic was the reason she was flashing passing cars for thrills, to the enjoyment of some and disgust of others. There's also the fact that it'd be a distraction to drivers, but that's something else to worry about.
*Not by me, I hasten to add.
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 17:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Depends on the country
Seriously, if breasts are considered that dangerous for mrkinins what would happen if someone in the USA puts up the classic M&S "I am not average, I am normal" billboard (they have done a sterling job of wiping any mentioning of that off the web). Or Sophie Dahl Opium ads.
Both have featured very prominently at a roundabout near where I live positioned deliberately so you look at them when looking at merging-in traffic.
And do not even get me started on the subject of Eastern European alcohol adverts (Warning NSFW):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md-6IIzznkg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkbzCB2FCTg&feature=related
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 13:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
title
The judge added, "We conclude that Indiana's public nudity statute furthers the goal of protecting the moral sensibilities of that substantial portion of Hoosiers who do not wish to be exposed to erogenous zones in public."
So that would be the neck, moobs, ears, mouth, fingers, etc, etc, etc.... roll on Burkas in Indiana then.
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 13:12 GMT frank ly
Basic Biology
As far as I'm aware, men do not have 'breasts'. (Where 'breasts' is a euphemism for 'mammary glands'.) Men do have rudimentary nipples but these are non-functional (obviously) and are just a left over due to a missing tidy-up task during foetus finalisation.
So, how can the law, which is supposed to be correct and exact (ha, ha, ha) discuss 'male breasts'?
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 15:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
RE: Basic Biology
>> As far as I'm aware, men do not have 'breasts'. (Where 'breasts' is a euphemism for 'mammary glands'.)
Wrong, men do have breasts but the amount of tissue is very much less than in women due to the effects of hormones. You may also care to look up some basic biology and you'll find that what is commonly referred to a "the breast" is not the only place breast tissue is to be found - it actually extends up to the armpit.
Under the influence of hormones, the male breasts will enlarge into "man boobs", or more correctly gynecomastia.
Also, they are not exclusively non-functional in males either - male lactation is a known condition.
Doesn't anyone watch the documentaries on TV these days ?
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 13:17 GMT jake
TheRightIdiot Judge Cale Bradford ...
... would likely further his education by spending time on any one of many Southern California beaches. I can assure HisIdiotness that the ladies ogle[1] male pecs just as much as the lads ogle[1] the ladies variation on the same ... with a little mixing & matching, of course.
Perhaps we should all go back to Victorian woolen bathing costumes?
Mayhap HisIdiotness's wife/daughter/granddaughter sports a burqa?
[1] There is a reason there is an "ogle" in "google" ... It's called "human nature".
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 13:21 GMT OMGROFLSKATES
But north of the 45 you can!
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/853959--topless-in-guelph-legal-and-loving-it
The Ontario Court of Appeals made it legal for women to be shirt-free in 1996 when it overturned a charge against Gwen Jacob, a University of Guelph student who was arrested for being topless in public.
Crinklaw and Webb say women may have won the legal freedom to be topless in public, but they don’t have the social freedom. They want their event to help desensitize the masses to the female breast.
Paris because Britney isnt an option for a follow-up to her Beaver making an appearance!
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 14:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Erogenous zones?
So, mens nipples aren't erogenous zones? I think that you'll find that they most definitely are, and so should be barred from public appearances. Or, the ladies should be able to get theirs out. Fairs fair after all.
Now.
Having said that.
Legally, I think you should have the right to do it. But really, there's a time and a place for all things, and perhaps a little more personal responsibility is called for in this case.
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 15:39 GMT JaitcH
Narrow minded Old Farts. Canada says different, eh!
Get this IN 1996 an Ontario Court said that bare women's breast are not breaking the law!
Good old square Ontario, Canada! (see: < http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/News-opinion-and-commentary/Topless-in-Ontario-women-exercise-the-right-to-expose-their-breasts.html >.)
Other interesting citations can be found: < http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=mhg&rls=en&&sa=X&ei=UpGYTLf2HIfuvQPut5ncDA&ved=0CBIQBSgA&q=bare+breasted+girl+in+ontario+lawful&spell=1 >.
-
-
-
Wednesday 29th September 2010 10:59 GMT Christopher E. Stith
Actually in 44 states it is illegal to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave an establishment.
It is also protected by law on Federal property. Indiana happens to be one state where it is specifically legal to breastfeed in public.
Seriously, people, look this shit up before posting blindly in the dark. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14389 has US breastfeeding laws by state and territory.
This case was about exposing the nipples completely as a means of expression, which has little to do with breastfeeding.
-
-
-
Tuesday 21st September 2010 23:36 GMT John H Woods
On a related note...
... I was in a cafe once where a woman was breastfeeding. I overheard some people tutting and muttering, and shortly afterwards they called over a waitress. They loudly whispered their complaint and the waitress said "I am sure the manager will be able to assist". The manager came out and sympathetically listened to their wibble - I was just about to add my $0.02 when he signalled to the waitress - who whipped away their half-eaten meals - and asked them to leave: 'I'm afraid I don't allow offensive behaviour in my cafe, please don't come back'. The rest of us cheered!
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 00:09 GMT me n u
why bother with any morality at all....
Let's just have one big world-wide orgy and be done with it all. Now that pregnancies can be aborted, what's the hold up? After all, we all know that God doesn't really exist, there's no heaven or hell or Satan, so let's do it, cause it feels good.
What's with the baby stepping our way into what we all want? Let's just get laid all day long, every day. To hell with family, marriage and kids. You bang mine and I'll do yours! We can start with a block party, then go city wide and finally end with the whole world boinking in unison.
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 07:39 GMT Chris Peschke
Wait a sec...
"The case was brought by a 16 year old girl..."
Regardless of all the morality nonsense (I'm from Indiana and enjoy a nice tit or two), this girl is underage. What if someone snapped a pic, is it child porn even if she did it in public under her own free will? What about the street cameras that may have caught the event? Would those have to be destroyed?
For me, the fact that she's underage is an immediate no-no. In front of traffic is also a no-no as said before it can cause a driver to take his/her eyes off of the road. People have to look at fender benders they see all the time, imagine driving pass a pair of exposed jugs.... madness would ensue!
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 07:45 GMT Sean Nevin
Another issue here
My real concern is that this ruling appears to circumvent one of the primary motivations of the constitution; which is namely, to protect the Minority from the Majority.
"In the end, (the girl) would have us declare by judicial fiat that the public display of fully-uncovered female breasts is no different than the public display of male breasts, when the citizens of Indiana, speaking through their elected representatives, say otherwise."
It shouldn't matter who they elect or what they want. You can't vote out Free Speech or Equal rights. Protection from "the tyranny of the majority" was envisioned early on for the constitution, as argued in the Federalist papers.
-
Wednesday 22nd September 2010 07:51 GMT Morpho Devilpepper
Heroes in their own minds
It's not a coincidence that the people most likely to fight for their freedom of expression are not justice crusaders lamenting the government's ill treatment of downtrodden victims. No, instead it's a bunch of idiot children who demand their right to act up and get away with it. And they are coddled, encouraged, perhaps even inspired by feckless lawyers who drool at the thought of yet another asinine, yet very public and hotly debated, freedom-of-speech case. If someone went back in time and enlightened the early American congressmen regarding the most likely future use of the freedom of expression, they would crumple the Bill of Rights and start over.
-
Tuesday 28th September 2010 11:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Distracting traffic...
If I was the plod...
I wouldn't have done her for indecent exposure but I WOULD have nicked her for distracting traffic - and it's a charge that wouldn't need to be appealed up to higher courts.
Not that I mind seeing jubs on the street, just that there's a time and place for it.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
