Court Says Yes To Breasts
“In what might just be one of the most important legal decision in Florida’s history — almost certainly more important than the ones that gave George Bush the presidency in 2000 — a court has upheld a woman’s right to mount political protests by exposing her breasts. Elizabeth Book was arrested for baring her breasts in 2004, under a law that banned acts of indecency in public, including women going topless The law she was protesting against, of course, was the same anti-toplessness law under which she was arrested. While the court made no judgement on the rights or wrongs of the law against women showing their breasts, it did decide that if women were showing their breasts as part of a legitimate political protest against laws banning women from showing their breasts, then they were allowed to show their breasts. In reaching that decision, it upheld an earlier ruling from a county court that also agreed with the breast-baring. Book’s attorney heralded the topless ruling a victory for his client, who claimed that the laws were unfair as men were allowed to walk around topless, while women were not.” — Metro.co.uk (UK)
Dirty Old Men everywhere will laud this ruling for all the “wrong” reasons. They’ll sign up for the Topfree Equal Rights Association not because they’re concerned with equal rights but because they like the idea of (female) tops being freed from clothes. Who cares, the Dirty Old Men will think, about civil liberties and political protest? Just bring on the boobs.
But if you think about it, there is something rather strange about the notion that baring a body part deserves First Amendment protection. Apparently Ms. Book’s breast-baring constitutes, in the court’s opinion, a form of free speech. It’s a peculiar sort of sign language, though. What do breasts say exactly? “Here we are!” It’s noteworthy that Ms. Book exposed her breasts only in order to protest the law preventing her from exposing them. The point was to earn the right for the breasts to say about the only thing they can. “Here we are!” In that sense, breast-baring is a very limited form of “speech.”
The rejoinder to this is that breasts can possess a wide range of symbolic values — everything from the obvious (maternity) to the abstract (freedom itself). But then you have to wonder why baring the breasts should mean anything at all. Why does going topless in a Breasts Not Bombs demonstration have the least bit of political, not to mention semantic, value? (And look who else attended the rally: Mr. Dicks Not Death.) Is everybody really so uptight that the sight of a boob can inspire a political revelation?
It is sad something as natural as breasts, can cause so much wasted time and tax payer money. I loathe what religion has done to make the body so naughty.
Amazing two mounds of fat [which mine are fab by the way] and a source to feed the babies of the world, yet people say it is “bad”.
No wonder so many hate themselves these days, because everything they were taught about sexuality and life was to be ashamed of who they are not proud of the “essence of life”
Yay for the win, now I think I am going to show My ta ta’s to some stranger. [laughs]
Mistress V
a women should be able to breast feed her baby in public it is wrong to expect mothers to let their babies go hungery just so as not to offend some religious (arseh***) prude.
this win only covers women baring their breasts for the purposes of political protest.
because it somehow comes under America’s free speech laws.
Funny thing, protesting. Aside from the fact that majority of boob bearing protesters are doing it for some kind of shock value, this shock fast becomes diverted from shock at whatever they are angry about, to shock at delfated, droopy sad excuses for breasts, that are horrifying.
I have always thought it unfair and sexist for woman to have two areas considered sexual and men have only one.
I have seen some completely flat chested women, and men with horrendous man boobs. I see no reason to legislate chests.
Interesting. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this isn’t really a freedom of speech issue – but a question of equal rights. Men can bare their breasts with immunity. Where then is the constitutional basis for saying that women can not? How about a flat chested woman, whose breasts are no different than a man’s? Just as gay marriage has made progress in some states on the theory that it is an “equal protection under the law” issue, this topic may as well.
I think you’re all idiots. Breasts aren’t elbows or ankles. Men love breasts. They start to get us sexually excited. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to walk around topless just for the hell of it either, male or female. If that is your thing, they have beaches and what not for that sort of thing.
I think it is rediculous that you people think its because of the “religious arse prude” that going topless is illegal. Next time you ladies get turned on by flabby man boobs, post another comment. It has nothing to do with the body being “naughty”, but the fact that we don’t want to be walking around with a constant hard on. For one, its uncomfortable hiding them in our pants, and two, it can actually be a danger to our health to have one lasting more than four hours!
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Mouth to Mouth