Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

[Bill of Rights]

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?

Let me answer your question with one of my own. With the exception of Rosie O'Donnell and the like, can you think of a reason why there needs to be a law criminalizing the failure to wear clothing in public?

Originally, it was to keep warm that we chose to start doing so. Over time, (think Victorian-Era) the human body was considered something to be ashamed to allow anyone to see. Admittedly, there are some people for whom there is little I would not do to avoid the sight of their nakedness, however if I choose not to look, why should I prevent you from doing so? Why should the individual who chooses to reveal him- or herself face legal charges for his/her choice? Who is harmed?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Expat]

I am not a libertarian. I believe in such things as public morality and decency. I won't tell you what my Mom says about answering a question with question.

 

[HandK]

I look at like this!

 

[Expat]

I am not a libertarian. I believe in such things as public morality and decency. I won't tell you what my Mom says about answering a question with question.

Didn't get to finish my post. The wife was ready to go... standing there over me... every 10 seconds repeating... let's go.... let's go....

Going by your logic, we could not stop some pervert from exposing his genitals out in public. Can, the person manipulate their genitals while exposing them? Can they perform simulated sex acts? Where do you draw the line? I guess if you are a libertarian, no where. The coarsening of our society has been getting worse with each passing year. So you may get your wish soon. Unfortunately for many in our society they will always go as far as the rules will allow. We hear people all the time say in response to "why did you do that", "because I can".

And to not be accused of failing to answer your question. I think it damages society as a whole. Once no top is acceptable, then why a bottom. If okay for women, why not for men. IF okay to expose why not okay to touch myself.

 

[Fargo]

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.

There is nothing punitive about requiring wearing a shirt because the requirement of wearing one is not being done as a punishment for some tendency to commit another criminal act. That exposing female nipples is illegal has nothing to do with trying to stop those females from some future criminal act and everything to do with the standards our society has deemed acceptable in public.

Wearing a rape restraint device is nothing like that. It is a punitive measure aimed at deterring future criminal conduct.

Your example and the public nudity law are like apples and oranges.

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.

So you believe in inventing wholly new meanings for words in the constitution; wholly independent of their meaning at the time of ratification?

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.

Your analysis is very lacking on legal argument/history and heavy on the end justifying the means. Alot of the 14th amendment rulings were completely valid, particularly where new laws were enacted or dealing with existing laws which actually did violate equal protection. This is NOT such a case. There is a legal reason the Ct. of Appeals ruled against your way of thinking and it isn't because it hates boobies. It is because it actually followed the law you wanted it to usurp.

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! )

OC shouldn't be criminal, but if it were I wouldn't be trying to bootstrap it into an amendment that has nothing to do with it so I could get my precious "judges" to overrule the will of the people. I would work to change the law through (wait for it, its a shocker) the legislative branch*.

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?

I agree with you about unconstitutional laws, but where are you getting this power of the judiciary to correct discriminatory action per se? It isn't the role of the judiciary in this country to impose its standards of fairness; that is oligarchy.

Particularly, why do you think it should impose YOUR standard of "equality" or "fairness" or "non-discrimination"? Why should your or their OPINION matter more than mine and that of the rest of the voters?

Joe

*This is assuming arguendo that there is no other relevant constitutional provision, while in reality there is.

 

[ocsdor]

I'd find it less offensive if the women went shirtless and the men covered up.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Society determines what is normal and "decent"

If it were legal to be naked tomorrow, you wouldn't expect to see everyone in your office come to work in their birthday suite.

de-criminalizing something just means that no one goes to jail or gets a ticket.

Once again, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's free from consequence. If you want to be naked all the time, you'll find very few places welcoming you as a customer or a guest.

It's a self correcting problem, if you even want to define it as a problem. If I see a body part, I note it and move on with my business.

 

[steve666]

I can think of all kinds of quippy things to say. There was a very troubling statement in the article, which was "The appeals court said the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives." Does that mean the Appeals Court believes that all laws are just because the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives? Seems like a very strange thing to say.

I wholeheartedly agree. IMHO anything passed by the crooks in the statehouse is suspect!!! And I do believe that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander (or vice versa).

 

[spearheadersarge]

The crux of this debate is wether the young female's Constituionally garanteed right to life, liberty, and the pursiut of happiness was violated by this state imposed law. It is no different than allowing homosexuals the right to serve in the military. The same issue is at stake at both. Being military, I DO NOT want to serve with openly gay soldiers. It's not that I'm a homophobe, I just believe that it is wrong personally, just like gay marriage. Do I think it is wrong to deny life liberty and happiness, absolutely! Do I think that gays can serve honorably, yes. I know some who have. Do I think that women (girls) should be able to go around topless? I see no harm in it. I have been in Europe where naked breasts are the norm in public even on tv commercials. It is no big deal. Just like underage kids can drink alcohol in Europe. Where we go wrong is in putting so much emphasis on it that it's taboo. Over time it would work itself out. Sure there would be the usual machinations over the extreme ends of the discussions. Bottom line, the Constitution should prevail in both cases, much to the detriment of my personal prevailing attitudes. The Constitution rules!

 

[Expat]

Do I think that women (girls) should be able to go around topless? I see no harm in it. I have been in Europe where naked breasts are the norm in public even on tv commercials. !

So when you walk the streets of Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, most females are topless... Things have apparently changed drastically recently.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The crux of this debate is wether the young female's Constituionally garanteed right to life, liberty, and the pursiut of happiness was violated by this state imposed law. It is no different than allowing homosexuals the right to serve in the military. The same issue is at stake at both. Being military, I DO NOT want to serve with openly gay soldiers. It's not that I'm a homophobe, I just believe that it is wrong personally, just like gay marriage. Do I think it is wrong to deny life liberty and happiness, absolutely! Do I think that gays can serve honorably, yes. I know some who have. Do I think that women (girls) should be able to go around topless? I see no harm in it. I have been in Europe where naked breasts are the norm in public even on tv commercials. It is no big deal. Just like underage kids can drink alcohol in Europe. Where we go wrong is in putting so much emphasis on it that it's taboo. Over time it would work itself out. Sure there would be the usual machinations over the extreme ends of the discussions. Bottom line, the Constitution should prevail in both cases, much to the detriment of my personal prevailing attitudes. The Constitution rules!

If we don't want to be bound by the legal issues pertaining to the 1st & 2nd Amendments that separate us from the Europeans, why would you feel that we should be bound by their notions of propriety?

 

[turnandshoot4]

Society determines what is normal and "decent"

If it were legal to be naked tomorrow, you wouldn't expect to see everyone in your office come to work in their birthday suite.

de-criminalizing something just means that no one goes to jail or gets a ticket.

Once again, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's free from consequence. If you want to be naked all the time, you'll find very few places welcoming you as a customer or a guest.

So when you walk the streets of Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, most females are topless... Things have apparently changed drastically recently.

You can turn on the T.V. or go to the beach and find people topless or even naked. I believe your answer was given by ATOmonkey

 

[Expat]

You can turn on the T.V. or go to the beach and find people topless or even naked. I believe your answer was given by ATOmonkey

In ATOMonkey's post that you pasted... the contention that I was addressing was that nudity is the norm everywhere in public in Europe. I know some of the countries have nude or topless beaches. I was not aware that is was the norm everywhere you go in Europe.

 

[rambone]

I am not a libertarian. I believe in such things as public morality and decency.

Stop!! You made me shoot chocolate milk out my nose!!!

 

[spearheadersarge]

I wasn't saying we should conform, I merely stated that they have public nudity in some parts of Europe and its fine. I believe it is applicable in the shirts vs. skins argument and constitional rights as we were discussing.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I wasn't saying we should conform, I merely stated that they have public nudity in some parts of Europe and its fine. I believe it is applicable in the shirts vs. skins argument and constitional rights as we were discussing.

And I'm saying why should we look to Europe, Africa, or anywhere else for justification for our cultural norms?

 

[Expat]

And I'm saying why should we look to Europe, Africa, or anywhere else for justification for our cultural norms?

Because they are such successful societies

 

[turnandshoot4]

And boobies have so much to do with success.

 

[ATOMonkey]

LOLZ!!! This thread cracks me up. People are talking like a nipple here or there would be the end of the world, but simulated sex on broadcast TV, clevage down to your belly-button, and shorts that show more than they cover are just peachy. Not to mention the barely there bathing suites most women wear on the beach. Honestly, what's the appreciable difference between a string bikini and a naked woman?

What about all the see through tops out there? Does that harken the downfall of society?

 

[rambone]

BY ALL OF YOUR CRAZY LOGIC, THERE COULD BE ORGIES IN THE STREETS AND SWAT TEAMS WOULD BE POWERLESS TO COME AND STOMP THEM OUT LIKE THEY WERE ON FIRE