Federal Court Rules: Women's Boobs Are Not Free Speech
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, much like Clay Travis (see HERO: Clay Travis on CNN Says “I believe in the First Amendment and Boobs.” Yes, Really!) I'm a free speech absolutist and really, really love boobs. Like, it goes God, boobs, and writing for LwC. Depending on the situation, God sometimes comes in second. Ok, God usually comes in second.
On the other hand, and this may be a broad generalization about broads, but the womyn (not a typo, don't @ at me) who protest topless are generally not people you ever want to see topless. It's like going to a nude beach: better in concept than in practice. It's also mostly naked dudes who have bigger boobs than any lady. Or dairy cow. That's the rumor, at least.
Either way, there's now a court case saying a public display of the female breasts is indecent. Though not male breasts, because everyday sexism.
The case (Tagami v. City of Chicago) stems from the 2014 ticketing of Sonoko Tagami, who took to the Chicago streets with only opaque body paint over her bare breasts to celebrate "GoTopless Day" that year. Tagami was issued a $100 citation for violating the city's ban on public indecency, which prohibits the public display of female breasts and of all bare butts and genitals. After losing her challenge to the citation, Tagami filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.Tagami's suit argued that banning women from going topless in public while allowing men to do so is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as well as her First Amendment rights. Neither the district nor appeals court agreed, dismissing Tagami's claims.
Yeah, probably not what the Founding Father's had in mind. "Right to swing the mammaries" in public likely didn't make it into any of the constitutional drafts. As glorious as that might have been.
In a November 8 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held 2–1 that the city's rules don't violate women's constitutional rights. "Chicago's public-nudity ordinance regulates conduct, not speech," wrote Judges Diane Sykes and Frank Easterbrook for the majority. And while "some forms of expressive conduct get First Amendment protection," this doesn't apply unless the conduct is inherently expressive.
What about this, though? Is this a First or Second Amendment issue:
I'm using this gif just because, boobs.
I guess this is a matter for the lawyers to fight over.
Until they come for the girls at the Jiggy Room. Then, expect riots in the streets. Topless riots.
From women you may actually want to see naked. Unless it's during the lunch shift.
Perhaps "indecent exposure" should apply to those men whose mammaries sweep the ground. It seems a little indecent when men jog about town, their fluffy areolas dancing freely, like pom-poms at the homecoming game. Gimme a G. Gimme an R. Gimmie an O. Gimme an S... While men's nips are purely for decoration (or so it seems) doesn't mean gentlemen sporting bodacious man boobs shouldn't cover those bros up. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should, guys. Take a look in a mirror. Assess yourself honestly. Or find an infant, see if it latches on.
There's your sign.
