Ocean City, Maryland – (June 15, 2017): The Worcester County State’s Attorney has received a letter of advice from the Office of the Attorney General about the application of Maryland’s indecent exposure law. The letter, which was requested when the Worcester County State’s Attorney’s Office received a request from a woman who believed it was her constitutional right to be bare-chested on Ocean City’s beach, states that “it is our view that Maryland courts would hold that prohibiting women from exposing their breast in public while allowing men to do so under the same circumstances does not violate the federal or State Constitution.
Ocean City officials, who passed an emergency ordinance on Saturday, June 10, to prevent female toplessness in public areas, were delighted about the letter. “We are pleased to see the Attorney General’s Office has advised that prohibiting topless women sunbathing is not a violation of equal protection,” commented Mayor Rick Meehan. “We have a responsibility to protect the rights of thousands of families who visit our beach and Boardwalk each summer season, and the letter of advice agreed with our position.”
Also satisfied with the advice was Worcester County States Attorney Beau Oglesby. “The Office of The Attorney General has provided me with a well-reasoned and comprehensive analysis of this legal question,” commented Oglesby. “This issue has statewide implications and unfortunately has created division and unrest in our community during our busiest time of the year. Individuals on both sides hold passionate and sincere beliefs in their positions. However, having reviewed and considered the Advice Letter, I agree with its conclusions. My Office will continue to work with the Ocean City Police Department and the Town of Ocean City as this issue develops further.”
The advice letter mentions numerous court findings where the constitutionality of indecency statutes applied to topless women, but not men, on the grounds that there are “real physical differences” between men and women. Further, it noted (United States v. Biocic) “the important government interest is the widely recognized one of protecting the moral sensibilities of that substantial segment of society that still does not want to be exposed willy-nilly to public displays of various portions of their fellow citizens’ anatomies that traditionally in this society have been regarded as erogenous zones. These still include (whether justifiably or not in the eyes of all) the female, but not the male, breast.
20 comments:
What right of the public is being abridged by seeing breasts?
Continued sinking of morals in this country orchestrated by the dumbocrats and their loony base
I dont want my 7 yo son seeing your saggy T.Ts go to a PRIVATE BEACH.
If this passed i would be looking for a typical lib sbowflake and walk back and fourth with my B.lls out.
I'm surprised Brian Frosh could take time off from suing the President to deal with us plebeians.
503 you lost. Move on
The crazies already got a pass from Obama to peek at little girls in the bathroom. What's the problem? Not enough boobs there to lust over?
If we follow Maryland's indecent exposure law most females should be arrested law states:
Maryland cases describe the main elements of indecent exposure as:
The willful and intentional exposure of one’s private parts (genitals, buttocks, or female breasts)
In a public place and
In the presence of others.
The definition of a buttocks is either of the two round fleshy parts that form the lower rear area of a human trunk.
Most every female has a portion of their buttock out. Is that indecent?
The definition of breast: either of the two soft, protruding organs on the upper front of a woman's body that secrete milk after pregnancy.
Again most women expose some portion of their breast in a bikini and some in every day dress attire. Is that indecent.
By Maryland law it is indecent exposure. But over time that is the new norm and is not seen as illegal.
Also if a female identifies with a male and has had breast reduced or small breast naturally is she legally able to go topless? Who would or should question the identity of the person. Either way it is discrimination against the female gender.
Born heres only like their relative's breasts.
Happy Advice Letter has finally been received!
Just another grandstanding attempt to destroy our society; another attempt to force the will of the minority on the majority.
Yep like transgenders.
Thongs should not be allowed either would you like your grand kids or children to see some girl or gay guys Ass ?
Transgenders will next be wanting to flaunt there junk.
incorrect.
Jim and Jake would.
And I'm sure the transgenders will win, that's the way our f-up country is
No one has lost yet. If officials keep stirring the pot and beat this subject to death, I'm sure eventually a large group of women will get together, go on the beach (with plenty of photographers) and bare their breast.
THEN what will officials do?
Answer - NOTHING!
Stop discussing it and it will go away. To include the young ladies lawsuit!
FYI -- Maryland courts have often disregarded AG's opinions -- "just another attorney"
It is not an "opinion" -- this appears at the end:
ADVICE OF COUNSEL
NOT AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
and the letter concludes as follows:
"While we conclude that the Court of Appeals would uphold the application of Maryland's indecency laws against female toplessness, we also know that'þublic morals
are not static in this realm." Biocic,928 F.2d at 116 n.4. And when public sensibilities begin to change, they can change quickly. We also recognize that what is seen as "indecent" can depend on context. Law enforcement officials may consider that context when exercising their enforcement discretion and thus are best positioned to ensure that Maryland's indecency laws are applied no more broadly than public sensibilities require. See Id. at II7 (Murnaghan, J. concurring)."
Post a Comment