Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

[LEaSH]

There are some females that wear far too little considering their...err...proportions.

I don't think anyone hear wants to see (or hear) a big girl come flabbity flarting out the doors of walmart sporting only jorts.

As the db in the Plainfield thread stated, "it's a public safety issue."

 

[gunowner930]

There are some females that wear far too little considering their...err...proportions.

I don't think anyone hear wants to see (or hear) a big girl come flabbity flarting out the doors of walmart sporting only jorts.

As the db in the Plainfield thread stated, "it's a public safety issue."

I'm thinking the same thing. For every nice looking woman that wants to go topless, there will be 2-3 fatties with their breasts hanging below their pantlines.

 

[phylodog]

Not another open carry vs concealed carry thread......

 

[Benny]

I really shouldn't have to explain this to any straight dude. They just AREN'T the same thing.

Joe

I'm straight, but can you explain it to me?



/Devil's advocate...But would still like your explanation.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I understand the idea of constitutional rights at the national and state level and I think I understand the philosophy expressed by the Founding Fathers that if we have to have government, it should be responsive to the desires of the citizens. What I don't understand is the concept that it is somehow wrong for a community to elect representatives, who, presumably write and enact laws representing the community's standards of conduct and propriety. If the community's standards of propriety change, the people can demand that they be changed, or elect new representatives to change the standards. If the "community standards" as expressed in law have not become so onerous that the people have asked for them to change, why would that be wrong?

I don't have anything in particular against lawyers (most of the time), but their whole profession seems to revolve around finding the seams and ravels of written law, splitting hairs down to atoms, and getting others to agree with their contorted logic. For hundreds of years it's been a "community standard" in this nation that women's breasts shouldn't be displayed in public. Relaxation of our attitudes toward sexual conduct in general hasn't seemed to change the strength of those standards, so why the howling over hair-splitting?

Understand me, I don't think I'm close-minded on this, but I'd like to hear the rationale explained.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I understand the idea of constitutional rights at the national and state level and I think I understand the philosophy expressed by the Founding Fathers that if we have to have government, it should be responsive to the desires of the citizens. What I don't understand is the concept that it is somehow wrong for a community to elect representatives, who, presumably write and enact laws representing the community's standards of conduct and propriety. If the community's standards of propriety change, the people can demand that they be changed, or elect new representatives to change the standards. If the "community standards" as expressed in law have not become so onerous that the people have asked for them to change, why would that be wrong?

I don't have anything in particular against lawyers (most of the time), but their whole profession seems to revolve around finding the seams and ravels of written law, splitting hairs down to atoms, and getting others to agree with their contorted logic. For hundreds of years it's been a "community standard" in this nation that women's breasts shouldn't be displayed in public. Relaxation of our attitudes toward sexual conduct in general hasn't seemed to change the strength of those standards, so why the howling over hair-splitting?

Understand me, I don't think I'm close-minded on this, but I'd like to hear the rationale explained.

As to your understanding of Founder's intent, respectfully you're wrong. The Founders created the systems of checks and balances to protect the nation from the tyranny of the majority.

For hundreds of years it was a community standard that slavery was OK. For hundreds of years it was a community standard that marriage was between one man and one woman. For hundreds of years it was a community standard that Christianity was the state religion in 9 of the 13 original colonies. I can keep going on and on. Point is that things change. Some for the better, some for the worse.

OK. Let's crate a fictional city. We'll call it Rightsville. It used to be right of I69. Now, a group of new council members have been elected to a 4 year term. The first thing they did was rename the city to Libbyland to be more inclusive, and have the traffic department build a new road. Now to get there you just keep turning left until you run into it. At their first meeting they vote in favor of the following new community standards:

Automobiles may no longer travel the roads of Libbyland.
Guns may not be possessed in Libbyland.
Churches may no longer be created in Libbyland without a permit.
Meetings of over three people are no longer permitted without prior authorization.
Felons may not enter Libbyland because they are a public safety danger.
Resturaunts may not use salt in Libbyland.
Doctors must operate fee free in Libbyland.
Electricity is available between the hours of 10:00AM and 8:00PM weekdays in Libbyland.
Parks are off limits to humans in Libbyland.
Gas powered lawnmowers and weed wackers may not be operated without a permit, which requires completion of a city-approved training course (which has not been established).
Businesses will pay a user fee of 30% of their revenue to provide essential public services like police, fire and ambulance service to their plant.

Some of these may seem silly, some are unconstitutional. They still require a lawsuit be filed, pursued and defended. Libbyland's defense is that the community has spoken through their elected representatives. In the meantime, all the decent people moved out of Libbyland, and other left minded infividuals moved in, solidifying the majority. Then they started exporting people to live in other communities to make them Libbylands too.

 

[Expat]

Blackhawk, you are not confused. Our Founders had no problem with rules on public conduct as those laws were present at the time and they did not try to get rid of them. They did not have a problem with tax payer supported religion as Virginia did so. They simply did not believe the Federal Government should be involved in this. These sorts of laws and practices would be conducted at the State and local level. If someone thought their State was too restrictive they could move to another State.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No victim, no crime. What's the problem with a boob here or there?

 

[Bill of Rights]

What in the 14th Amendment gives 3 unelected lawyers on the Court of Appeals the authority to overrule the will of the people on this matter?

Are you really suggesting that it is blanketly impermissible for the people to recognize the difference between a breast and a dude's pec?

I really shouldn't have to explain this to any straight dude. They just AREN'T the same thing.

Joe

Address my example if it was turned around and we'll talk, unless you're suggesting that it's blanketly impermissible for the people to recognize that there are far more male than female rapists AND the difference between their respective anatomies in re: applying chastity-ensuring devices.

I'm straight, but can you explain it to me?



/Devil's advocate...But would still like your explanation.

Likewise, I'm completely hetero. The sarcasm above was in answer to yours, Fargo. That seeing female breasts is more sexualized in our culture is undisputed, however, that some people are scandalized by it is not an acceptable reason to me to restrict by law the rights of roughly half of our population

Not another open carry vs concealed carry thread......

And this is why. The comment was hilarious and I thought about it but couldn't find a way to work it into what I was saying. Rep added. The serious side of it, though, is that this is the EXACT same argument given about OC vs CC firearms, how some feel we should not have the right to OC because of how some others view it.


Re-read my example and the following text. I don't want my wife or my daughter showing their bare chests in public, but I don't see a reason for a law to prevent it. To do so (for that matter, to do so with other parts as well, male or female) is indicating that there is something dirty, something shameful or horrible about the uncovered human body, and no matter how someone tries to rationalize that one, it just ain't so.

Slight tangent: When I was growing up, like most boys, I had among my toys the classic bright-red fire truck. Then, at some point, I noticed that the trucks in my hometown were this weird kind of yellowish green color. WTF?? I wondered... Fire trucks are supposed to be red! Now... Does it really matter? If it looks wrong to me, does that keep the truck from doing what it's supposed to do; that is, transport men and equipment expeditiously to a fire scene to extinguish the blaze, or more succinctly, "save lives and property"? Not one bit. It was unusual to me, but over time, I shifted my paradigm and realized that red, "safety green", white, or whatever, the reason for the changes was to help them do a better job by getting them through the intersections because they were seen sooner. The color change from what I thought was normal actually made things better in some ways.

Maybe more people seeing more boobs will "normalize" the experience and women won't be forever having to remind men that they actually have eyes and faces and that it's much more respectful to talk with them to their faces than it is to talk to their chests.

In the final analysis, seeing uncovered breasts is presently out of the ordinary in other than very limited circumstances, but that does not make it wrong. I'm very happy to have an "opposite sex", but this law doesn't even make pretense of "separate but equal": It is unequal and unapologetically so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

As to your understanding of Founder's intent, respectfully you're wrong. The Founders created the systems of checks and balances to protect the nation from the tyranny of the majority.

(Snipped)

\

I respectfully disagree with the entire thrust of your argument, although I do agree with your re-statement of the Founders' intentions toward the federal government. My point is not that "community standards" acceded to the prejudices of the times (re: slavery et al), but that "the community" elected representatives to change those laws once they were perceived to be unjust or outdated. This ability of the community - from the local level outward - to effect changes that reflect their values - where they don't contradict the plainly worded provisions of the federal or state constitutions, is what I believe the Founders intended to be the mechanism to express the people's wishes.

The idea that anyone can pretty much do anything they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want because some lawyer got a judge to agree to a legal theory that posits a "right" that had never existed before, doesn't seem like it has much to do with the ideals expressed by the Founders; it's just another form of tyranny - the tyranny of the minority this time.

 

[PeaShooter]

 

[hornadylnl]

In case you didn't notice, the flasher was 16.

 

[public servant]

Yeah...that kind of puts a damper on the whole party...don't it?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Watch it. You could end up here: National Sex Offender Registry - Family Watchdog

 

[nawainwright]

In case you didn't notice, the flasher was 16.

So, you're saying that we should try to co-opt the local Hooters to try this again?

 

[Fargo]

Address my example if it was turned around and we'll talk, unless you're suggesting that it's blanketly impermissible for the people to recognize that there are far more male than female rapists AND the difference between their respective anatomies in re: applying chastity-ensuring devices.

Your example simply highlights that you have no idea why the 14th Amendment doesn't or does apply here.

Requiring the wearing of a device to inhibit your ability to commit a crime is punitive in nature and actually brings in due process concerns. This is especially so when the act of sexual intercourse is not malum in se.


There is nothing punitive about wearing a shirt; it has nothing to do with stopping you from committing a crime or because you are believed to be likely to commit a crime.

Additionally, your example fails because you could also achieve the same end by making the female victims wear such a device. After all, females are almost always the victims of sexual assaults.

There, I've addressed your example; You now owe me an answer to the question:

What in the 14th Amendment gives 3 unelected lawyers on the Court of Appeals the authority to overrule the will of the people on this matter?

I want to know what clause and what analysis you are using to suggest that 3 unelected lawyers should overrule the will of the people.

I want you to explain to me how we are supposed to buy that those 3 lawyers have just now discovered that words written 150 years ago have a whole new meaning heretofore unknown. I want you to explain to me how we have been so ignorant for 150 years that we couldn't see what was written. It isn't like public nudity laws outlawing toplessness weren't around back then.

I want you to explain to me why you should get to substitute your notion of whats "fair" for the will of the people. I want you to explain to me how you reconcile that with representative republican government.

Likewise, I'm completely hetero. The sarcasm above was in answer to yours, Fargo. That seeing female breasts is more sexualized in our culture is undisputed, however, that some people are scandalized by it is not an acceptable reason to me to restrict by law the rights of roughly half of our population

Ah, so your argument isn't really about equality; it is about whether or not THE PEOPLE should be allowed to decide whether or not "scandalous" activity should be allowed in public. Your use of the word "rights" baffles me. You think there is some sort of natural right to show your breasts in public? You don't think THE PEOPLE have a natural right to govern themselves as they see fit?

Do you really embrace judicial legislation with the oligarchy it entails over representative republican government?

Joe

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In case you didn't notice, the flasher was 16.

Yes, but according to the article she's 18 or 19 now.

Current pics that is

 

[Bill of Rights]

Your example simply highlights that you have no idea why the 14th Amendment doesn't or does apply here.

Requiring the wearing of a device to inhibit your ability to commit a crime is punitive in nature and actually brings in due process concerns. This is especially so when the act of sexual intercourse is not malum in se.


There is nothing punitive about wearing a shirt; it has nothing to do with stopping you from committing a crime or because you are believed to be likely to commit a crime.

Additionally, your example fails because you could also achieve the same end by making the female victims wear such a device. After all, females are almost always the victims of sexual assaults.

There, I've addressed your example; You now owe me an answer to the question:



I want to know what clause and what analysis you are using to suggest that 3 unelected lawyers should overrule the will of the people.

I want you to explain to me how we are supposed to buy that those 3 lawyers have just now discovered that words written 150 years ago have a whole new meaning heretofore unknown. I want you to explain to me how we have been so ignorant for 150 years that we couldn't see what was written. It isn't like public nudity laws outlawing toplessness weren't around back then.

I want you to explain to me why you should get to substitute your notion of whats "fair" for the will of the people. I want you to explain to me how you reconcile that with representative republican government.



Ah, so your argument isn't really about equality; it is about whether or not THE PEOPLE should be allowed to decide whether or not "scandalous" activity should be allowed in public. Your use of the word "rights" baffles me. You think there is some sort of natural right to show your breasts in public? You don't think THE PEOPLE have a natural right to govern themselves as they see fit?

Do you really embrace judicial legislation with the oligarchy it entails over representative republican government?

Joe

Thank you. The crime in question for this young lady was committed the moment she removed her shirt and was unclothed under it. That public nudity is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, as is rape, is less relevant, I think. It almost sounds like you're making the argument that because her crime was a misdemeanor, it's OK to require her to wear a garment that prevents her from committing it, but because rape is a felony, we cannot require people to be placed in some garment or item to prevent it before it happens. Yes, women could be required to wear devices also, but in the given example, they were not. Likewise, men could be required not to be topless, but are not. You say there is nothing punitive about wearing a shirt. True, unless you are overly warm and would be far more comfortable without it. In such a situation, I would choose not to remove my shirt because I'm so pale I would cause blindness for the surrounding states in the direction the reflection would be directed but that would be my choice. It would not be someone else's based solely on her gender.

As for your question about the 14A, how are those three unelected lawyers selected? Is it similar to the process for a SCOTUS Justice? (I really don't know, but I think it might be relevant.) As to the specific clause of the 14A, I could base it either on privileges or immunities, on the prohibition of denial of liberty without due process, or on equal protection.
The law as written provides the privilege of not having opaquely-covered nipples to males only.
Liberty could be defined as the ownership of your own life; if you own it, do you not have the right to define if and how it is or is not displayed?
Equal protection can be addressed, as above, by the fact that a male who is without an opaque covering on his nipples is protected from prosecution while a female in the same situation is not.

Your argument about the time between the writing of the words and the discovery of right or wrong is doubly fallacious as well; It was about 75 years before slavery was ended with the writing and ratification of the 13th Amendment, after the "3/5 compromise", longer than that that slavery had been an institution. What about miscegeny laws? Were the "activist judges" legislating from the bench when they ruled that any man and any woman not related by blood could marry, irrespective of the color of their skin? For that matter, the 2A was ratified in 1791 and it took until 2008 for it to be held as applicable in the federal territory of DC and until this year to be recognized as "incorporated" against the several states. Were those things OK prior to those rulings? Those nine lawyers weren't elected either. Further, those public nudity laws in place in 1868, when the 14A was ratified, let alone the ones in place in 1789, would have found a woman in shorts and a halter top to be indecent as well, moreso if she was in public. I won't even comment on the mannequin displays in the front window of Victoria's Secret at the mall.

I think you misread my example. I was saying that people being scandalized by a person's choice to wear or not wear a shirt should NOT define whether or not they should be lawfully unrestricted in the act of doing so. By comparison, I used the example of the open vs. concealed carry of a firearm: Some people are similarly scandalized by that act. Should it, therefore, be criminalized because some feel that it should not be allowed? (not that I want to see them if they're either IWB or OWB, let alone SOB! )

Do I agree with judicial oligarchy? As such, no. I do believe that if laws are unConstitutional or if they are found to be unequally applied (aka discriminatory), the powers held by the Judicial branch to check and balance those of the Executive or Legislative branches should not be considered invalid solely on the basis of opinion, even widely held opinion.
Isn't that what the basis of judicial review is all about?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Two other points: You asked if I thought there was some natural right for a woman to show her breasts in public.

I would answer that 1) yes, there is a right for a person, male or female, to not be unduly restricted by his/her government and 2) according to the 9A, rights are essentially limited only by how they might harm others. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

Does a woman's choice to opaquely cover (or not) her nipples at all times adversely affect you?

I also never saw an answer from you in re: the display of any of the parts of the body specified in that statute being in some way dirty, shameful, or horrible. Do you think that it is so?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Expat]

I think there was some joking in this thread by some of the guys. Let me get this straight to the libertarian way of thinking, the requirement that people wear clothes in public places is unduly burdensome?