Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

[turnandshoot4]

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

AND BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS!

Oh wait. That is something else.

 

[Expat]

So the voters have another plank in the Libertarian's positions.... Topless Teenage Girls.

You might get a certain class of voter with that one... I am not thinking this will help overall though.

 

[rambone]

So the voters have another plank in the Libertarian's positions.... Topless Teenage Girls.

You might get a certain class of voter with that one... I am not thinking this will help overall though.

As far as I can tell, there are just a bunch of people stating their opinions on this board, there are no representatives of the Libertarian party here.

Just like I do not assign your views to be construed as conservative.


A government that can tell women what to wear, can someday tell men what to wear. Some people don't like that level of control. Others cheer for it.

 

[tenring]

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

And don't forget Toronto, Canada. The ladies up there finally got "permission " several years ago to go topless on the streets. For the first couple of weeks, one could see a lot of topless ladies on the streets. After the newness wore off, it would seem they are few and far between, and no one cares if there is one. Bottom line is that it really isn't a big deal, except in some peoples minds.

 

[spearheadersarge]

Apparently, everyone is really hung up on the fact that the boobies are naked. That is not the point I was trying to make. How can we as Americans say it's optional for a man to not wear a shirt and deny a woman the same right based on morality? Isn't a woman allowe the same rights under the Constitution as a man? Shouldn't a woman be allowed to take off her shirt if she is hot and needs some air? I think the situation should be the same. I would rather have a few embarrassing situations of which I could look away than dis-allow a woman her Constitutional rights. Once you discriminate by using morality, anything can and will be used to deny your or some other's own rights for any dubious reason. That was my point. Not the nudity.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

Apparently, everyone is really hung up on the fact that the boobies are naked. That is not the point I was trying to make. How can we as Americans say it's optional for a man to not wear a shirt and deny a woman the same right based on morality? Isn't a woman allowe the same rights under the Constitution as a man? Shouldn't a woman be allowed to take off her shirt if she is hot and needs some air? I think the situation should be the same. I would rather have a few embarrassing situations of which I could look away than dis-allow a woman her Constitutional rights. Once you discriminate by using morality, anything can and will be used to deny your or some other's own rights for any dubious reason. That was my point. Not the nudity.

Expat and Fargo: These two quoted posts explain well what I seem at a loss to do. As I'm reading what you're saying, it sounds like what you object to is the idea that if there is no law to prevent it, it will run rampant and we'll see it (whatever "it" happens to be-in this conversation, "it" happens to be naked female boobs, and I still see no one harmed)

Are you really saying that the only thing keeping our society civil, decent, moral, and upstanding is that there are laws preventing us from seeing an uncovered nipple attached to a person with no "Y" chromosomes, that we as a society as a whole are an uncivilized collection of boorish, immoral, uncouth heathens with no redeeming social graces unless we have punishments in place for violating someone else's morality?

Could someone play with him- or herself in the street if there were no clothing laws? Yes, they could and at worst, it would still only be what has been called "self-abuse" (barring of course the possibility of assault by body fluid)

I see it along the lines that there are presently places right here in America where someone can go to see all the boobies he (or she) wants to see. I refer to strip clubs, of course. Those who do not want to see the boobies simply do not go in those places. Conversely, if I own the local McDonalds and a customer comes into my restaurant, I don't have to call police to eject her, I have merely to either tell her to leave or enforce it myself. Granted, I don't want to be pulling guns on people to make them leave my McDonald's, but instead, we have a situation where a manager often won't even approach someone and ask them, instead they jump straight to calling in the police to deal with it for them.

I don't advocate the anarchy position, but I'm closer to that end of the spectrum than I am to the overbloated, intrusive government we have now that trusts no one to use any sense but instead feels there must be rules placed on adults (who by our most basic founding precepts are the source of its power!) more strict than most adults would place on a five year old. We don't deal with individual situations but instead make onerous laws intended for the lowest common denominator. (consider some of the "silly laws" we all laugh about still being on the law books, like (example, not researched) "it shall be unlawful to fish from the back of a horse in Jackson, Mississippi on Sundays". Now think about that: WHY would there be such a law? Obviously, someone did it and that law was targeted at removing that person from Jackson. Another that my wife told me of: Where she grew up in CA, it was considered to be rape if a woman rode in a car without her shoes on. It wasn't necessarily enforced that way, but again, why would the law make that specification? Either such a law would come from a view of having to protect women (specifically, because they're too weak to protect themselves) or because of a single situation that someone mistakenly decided a law was needed to address, in effect closing the barn door after the horse was gone.)

We don't have to have laws to address every little thing, such as one or even many peoples' morality, and I believe that it is wrong at its core to attempt to legislate morality. You want to define it for yourself, fine. For your own children, also fine, but it is not your place nor that of your representative(s) to define MY morality or anyone else's. It is far better, IMHO, to teach your children much as you might about other behaviors you consider immoral, when (or before) the situation arises, "Well, yes, some people do do that, but I(/we) don't approve or behave that way" or even "Honey, that's not something we do in public, only in private." (such as the little girl at church who suddenly decides she has to inspect her belly button )

I don't understand the idea of using the force of law to enforce your views of proper behavior on everyone, especially for things that are victimless, whether they be issues of nudity, sexuality, or "forbidden" substances. Then again, I don't understand the idea of using the force of law for most things. Today, I think we've just moved so far away from personal responsibility that I think it would take something momentous to move us back the other way.... that or a removal of the controlling influence, to give us time to move back to personally set standards, self-enforced.

No, it's not all about "free love and drugs", as has been suggested. It's about self-government, which begins with the individual.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

BoR,

I understand your point, and even agree with it - up to a point. But if our ideal is "self-government", beginning with the individual, why have we always had laws against murder and thievery? If my morality (or amorality) includes absolutely no regard for the rights of others' life, liberty, etc. why should you have any say in it? Because exercise of my "rights" in that way impinges on yours? At what point does that impingement become actionable by my neighbors? Do we have to go by what I, personally, think about it (it is my action after all) or what my neighbors think about it? Is there a reasonable place to draw the line between personal freedoms and communal relationships?

 

[BigMatt]

I am uncomfortable walking through the mall with my wife and coming across all of those 12-18 year old girls with shorts that don't cover anything. I would certainly be uncomfortable with 16 year olds without tops.

I think that girls shouldn't walk around without their breasts being covered. I also agree that they should be able to. In a perfect world (depending on your definition of perfect) this law could go away and nobody would see any difference because they would have the common decency to cover up. However, we are not in a perfect world and noone has common decency any more.

I am not in favor of women walking around with bare chests. I am also not in favor of women being able to get different hair cuts when they sign up for the military. I am not in favor of what our government calls "equal rights" and "equal opportunity". I am not in favor of government preference given to women/minority owned business.

There are a lot bigger fish to fry when it comes to equal protection than allowing 16 year old girls to go topless.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And don't forget Toronto, Canada. The ladies up there finally got "permission " several years ago to go topless on the streets. For the first couple of weeks, one could see a lot of topless ladies on the streets. After the newness wore off, it would seem they are few and far between, and no one cares if there is one. Bottom line is that it really isn't a big deal, except in some peoples minds.

You forgot the important part. Most of them that did, shouldn't have. The one's you wanted to, didn't.

They're just breasts! You still don't get to touch them without permission! My point is, so what? I mean, are we so far advanced in solving all the other world problems that it's time to fix this issue?

I'm good with community standards dictating that women can, or can't, go topless. It's not that big a deal. It doesn't make me want to move to Toonto or some nudist beach somewhere. YMMV

 

[rambone]

BoR,

I understand your point, and even agree with it - up to a point. But if our ideal is "self-government", beginning with the individual, why have we always had laws against murder and thievery? If my morality (or amorality) includes absolutely no regard for the rights of others' life, liberty, etc. why should you have any say in it? Because exercise of my "rights" in that way impinges on yours? At what point does that impingement become actionable by my neighbors? Do we have to go by what I, personally, think about it (it is my action after all) or what my neighbors think about it? Is there a reasonable place to draw the line between personal freedoms and communal relationships?

Laws [should] exist as punishment for people who actually harm someone else. Thievery and murder clearly harm someone else.

If someone violates another's life, liberty, or property, then they have victimized them, and should face the justice system. But that clearly is not what this thread is about. Nobody's life, liberty, or property is being affected by the way someone dresses.

The line you are asking about is when someone's life, liberty, or property is jeopardized.

 

[rambone]

Expat and Fargo: These two quoted posts explain well what I seem at a loss to do. As I'm reading what you're saying, it sounds like what you object to is the idea that if there is no law to prevent it, it will run rampant and we'll see it (whatever "it" happens to be-in this conversation, "it" happens to be naked female boobs, and I still see no one harmed)

Are you really saying that the only thing keeping our society civil, decent, moral, and upstanding is that there are laws preventing us from seeing an uncovered nipple attached to a person with no "Y" chromosomes, that we as a society as a whole are an uncivilized collection of boorish, immoral, uncouth heathens with no redeeming social graces unless we have punishments in place for violating someone else's morality?

Come on Bill, we all know that the ultimate source of morality and decency in society is the Government. That's why I'm not a Libertarian, because they don't like growing Government in the name of my so-called morals.

 

[Bill of Rights]

BoR,

I understand your point, and even agree with it - up to a point. But if our ideal is "self-government", beginning with the individual, why have we always had laws against murder and thievery? If my morality (or amorality) includes absolutely no regard for the rights of others' life, liberty, etc. why should you have any say in it? Because exercise of my "rights" in that way impinges on yours? At what point does that impingement become actionable by my neighbors? Do we have to go by what I, personally, think about it (it is my action after all) or what my neighbors think about it? Is there a reasonable place to draw the line between personal freedoms and communal relationships?

The example others used long before me which I quoted above is: You have a right to swing your fist in a circle around you. You may do so all day long, whenever and wherever you wish, right up until you walk to a place where swinging that fist will strike some part of me. I'm explaining the "your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" thing not because I think you're ignorant of it but because the possibility exists that you might not have heard it and even more so that others reading might not have.

Tell me this: If a man with a bad case of moobs and perhaps even backboobs was walking down the street without a shirt on, would anyone call a police officer to arrest him? I gotta tell you, I don't want to see that! I won't go so far as to say it offends me (few things do) but it's not something I want to see. By the same token, I don't want to see Rosie O'Donnell at all, let alone in spandex, but there's no law against it even though I'm far from the only person who would say that that falls outside of acceptability in the communal relationships we have.

If you don't like what's on the radio or the TV, change the channel or turn it off. If you don't like what you see out your window, plant some trees, build a fence, or hey, here's an idea, go talk to your neighbor with the bad case of plumber's crack... maybe buy him some long-tailed shirts for Christmas. If you see someone on the street dressed (or not) in a way you don't approve, say, perhaps wearing a shirt with some rude slogan on it or possibly with some inordinate number of piercings, you just deal with it until they are past you. If your children ask later or worse, point them out in their presence, you quietly talk to them about it later.

Murder and thievery affect my life and property. Someone offending my sensibilities might make me wrinkle my lip in disgust or laugh behind their back after they're gone. If I own a restaurant and I've put the sign up that says, "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service, No Kidding!", it's going to apply to everyone, even if I think that the woman standing in front of me at the door has a particularly attractive pair of breasts. If that ticks her off so that she storms off in a huff and I lose the topless female market share, maybe the competing restaurant on the next block will let them in. If not, eventually, they will either put shirts on or they will only dine at home.

I've quoted the "Bill of No Rights" before: "You do not have the right to never be offended." Suppose the topless woman is offended by you looking? (or by you not looking!) Does she have a case against you? I'd think not, in either case. She voided her expectation of privacy by going shirtless in the one instance and has no reasonable expectation that she can demand you look at her in the other.

Maybe that doesn't make sense to too many people. I can't see how it could not make sense, but that's why I enjoy these discussions... Other points of view make me examine my own. So far, I've found it sound, despite some very good points made.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[shibumiseeker]

<deleted for brevity>

Maybe that doesn't make sense to too many people. I can't see how it could not make sense, but that's why I enjoy these discussions... Other points of view make me examine my own. So far, I've found it sound, despite some very good points made.

Blessings,
Bill

I was going to write something in response, but this post, most of which I deleted because it's right up there, summed it up almost word for word for me.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

That's why they have the Lake in the Wood nudie club in Valpo...so all shapes and sizes can run around nekkie.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Come on Bill, we all know that the ultimate source of morality and decency in society is the Government. That's why I'm not a Libertarian, because they don't like growing Government in the name of my so-called morals.

You say that with apparent sarcasm, rambone, but there have been some comments in here that have made me wonder if indeed some people think that morality and decency exist only because of laws. Personally, I think that immorality and indecency exist because of the increase in the number of laws... Each generation fights the norms and mores that its predecessor has laid out. At one time, women did NOT wear pants, nor was it considered proper for a lady to allow so much as her ankle to be seen. We got to the 1960s and suddenly, the poodle skirt of the 1950s gave way to the miniskirt that, any shorter, would have been a belt.

Then there's the obvious joke:

that has a grain of truth to it; much as parents today would insist that their daughters not wear thongs and such, so would parents of earlier generations have insisted that their daughters not wear such scandalous creations... Example: the bikini, so named after Bikini Atoll, where a famous test of the atomic bomb was done, the connection being to the fashion explosion that the tiny garment caused.

I think that if all of the public nudity laws were repealed, yes, we would see a temporary (pardon the pun) "brief" spike in the number of people who chose to revel in the new-found freedom, then the tendency toward the mean would have people putting their clothes back on and life would return to normal. Heck, the fashion industry might even see an increased demand for more "coverage".

I just can't see a reason for a law punishing someone for not wearing a shirt solely because she happens to be a woman.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[shibumiseeker]

I just can't see a reason for a law punishing someone for not wearing a shirt solely because she happens to be a woman.

Blessings,
Bill

Depends on whether you view women as property or equal citizens.

 

[rambone]

Government is so moral and loving. It will even pick out the outfit you should wear tomorrow.

 

[darinb]

Sounds like imature kids showing off in the first place. Why else would they run around topless and expose themselves? To me that is just not acceptable behavior for children. I am sorry but my 5 year old even understands that you shouldnt go barechested no matter if its a man or woman. Our morals are disapearing just like our clothes nowadays, just my opinion.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The example others used long before me which I quoted above is: You have a right to swing your fist in a circle around you. You may do so all day long, whenever and wherever you wish, right up until you walk to a place where swinging that fist will strike some part of me. I'm explaining the "your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" thing not because I think you're ignorant of it but because the possibility exists that you might not have heard it and even more so that others reading might not have.

(Snipped - I got this part and agree with you for the sake of argument)



Murder and thievery affect my life and property.



Maybe that doesn't make sense to too many people. I can't see how it could not make sense, but that's why I enjoy these discussions... Other points of view make me examine my own. So far, I've found it sound, despite some very good points made.

Blessings,
Bill

Getting away from other examples to the specific one I wanted you to address; not to nitpik; just to see if there is a connection to "community standards" [Hypothetical Sociopath speaking now] So okay, murder and thievery affect your life and property if they happen to you or yours. If I leave you alone, why should you care what I do to the guy on the next block?

 

[dross]

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.

I lived in Europe in the late eighties. Billboards showing topless women were common. At public swimming pools, women who didn't wear tops outnumbered women who did. In Greece, at the beach, I saw very few tops.

Prohibiting a woman from going shirtless but not a man is the exact same principle as requiring women to wear bhurkas. The difference is only in degree.