DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Excellent opinion. Everyone should read it. Page 9 is particularly interesting.
ReplyDeleteOf course, only good looking bared breasts should be allowed. The women with the 200 lb bellies hanging down to their knees should be banned. The guys only want quality displayed.
ReplyDelete7:28. I'm sure you're a real prize!!!🙄
DeleteThis part of the opinion is spot on:
ReplyDeleteOn defendant’s first argument, I find that the evidence Fort Collins has presented about these governmental interests amounts to little more than speculation. For instance, during the hearing defendant called Assistant Police Chief Jerome Schager who testified that topless females in public likely might cause distracted driving and traffic issues that disrupt public order. There are many things that could potentially distract drivers and disrupt traffic, but the constitutional issue is whether there is such a threat to public order that it rises to the level of an important government interest. Frankly, without any significant evidence on this point, I’m skeptical that it does. Rather, it appears that underlying Fort Collins’s belief that topless females
are uniquely disruptive of public order is the same negative stereotype about female breasts that I discuss in more depth later—namely, that society considers female breasts primarily as objects of sexual desire whereas male breasts are not.
Nor has Fort Collins provided any meaningful evidence that the mere sight of a female
breast endangers children. The female breast, after all, is one of the first things a child sees. Of course, those are very young children, but children of any age might come upon a woman breastfeeding a child and see a naked breast. Yet no one suggests that they are harmed by that experience.
And this, too:
I turn next to the City’s second argument, essentially that there are inherent physical differences between male and female breasts. Of course there are. The most obvious difference is that female breasts have the potential to nourish children, whereas male breasts do not.
And also this:
At bottom this ordinance is based upon ipse dixit—the female breast is a sex object
because we say so. That is, the naked female breast is seen as disorderly or dangerous because society, from Renaissance paintings to Victoria’s Secret commercials, has conflated female breasts with genitalia and stereotyped them as such. The irony is that by forcing women to cover up their bodies, society has made naked women’s breasts something to see.
Judge Jackson ain't no dumb bunny!
Stripper poles should be allowed on Boardwalk too !!!
ReplyDeleteA few years ago there WAS one there for awhile !!!
Let Men wear THONGS like the women do > Equality !!!
ReplyDeleteHooters Girls are Legal !!! Good for business
ReplyDeleteThe Antichrist is gathering his people.
ReplyDelete8:00. I hate to break it to you but this is how most men think.
ReplyDeleteand after a while, everyone will be accustomed to seeing them and then won't see them.
ReplyDelete8:00, I TOTALLY agree!
ReplyDeleteThis means nothing for Maryland or any other state. Maybe Colorado but doubt it. Yawn.
ReplyDeleteIt's an excellent decision made by the judge based on law, not conjecture. Good work, Your Honor.
ReplyDeleteHappy days are here again!
ReplyDelete11:12
ReplyDeleteYou spoke to soon.....sorry about that