Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 14, 2020

The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to "Free the Nipple," refusing to hear an appeal by three women fined by a city in New Hampshire for exposing their breasts in public who argued that banning female but not male toplessness violates the U.S. Constitution.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Interesting reasoning by the NH Supreme Court

#1 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-13 09:30 PM | Reply

Absolutely the correct ruling. Let the local/State government decide what their standards are.

That's the problem with liberalism, wanting to have their point of view enforced EVERYWHERE.

Maybe she can find another state/locality where she can bare her breasts..

#2 | Posted by boaz at 2020-01-14 09:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's the problem with liberalism, wanting to have their point of view enforced EVERYWHERE.
Maybe she can find another state/locality where she can bare her breasts..

POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-01-14 09:27 AM | REPLY

Hey that sounds exactly like you.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-14 09:38 AM | Reply

"That's the problem with liberalism, wanting to have their point of view enforced EVERYWHERE"

You must be a liberal then.

#4 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2020-01-14 09:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Let the local/State government decide what their standards are." The whole point of protections under the constitution is that everyone is treated equally. What if the town said that men can no longer wear red baseball hats because it upsets some liberals? Just because the majority of people in the town agree would not make it right. Remember interracial marriage was legal for almost 20 years before a majority of Americans agreed it should be.

#5 | Posted by THomewood at 2020-01-14 09:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just because the majority of people in the town agree would not make it right.

But dont the people of the town have a right to govern as they see fit? If they think bare breasts are offensive and should not be bared in public, I have no problem with that.

#6 | Posted by boaz at 2020-01-14 09:50 AM | Reply

"What if the town said that men can no longer wear red baseball hats because it upsets some liberals?

#5 | POSTED BY THOMEWOOD"

Then men would no longer wear red baseball caps in that community. There are many places you can't have profanity on a ballcap. There are many places you can. That's the beauty of a non centralized government. If you don't like the place, then move, or don't move there in the first place.

In your example, the community would be shooting itself in the foot because who wants to live somewhere that dictates headwear?

#7 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 09:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Remember that ------- crazy Republican out West who wanted to ban yoga pants?

*I support this on a case-by-case basis...

#8 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-14 09:56 AM | Reply

The whole point of protections under the constitution is that everyone is treated equally.

This has nothing to do with equality. It has to do with community morality and standards. And a community has a right to share their living environments the way they see fit collectively, especially locally..

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2020-01-14 10:10 AM | Reply

This has nothing to do with equality. It has to do with community morality and standards.

The "standards" are applied differently based on gender so it has everything to do with equality.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-14 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Absolutely the correct ruling. Let the local/State government decide what their standards are."

When a local/state government wants to limit other rights we'll see if you still feel the same way. Rights are in the Constitution and supercede all local/state laws. IMHO, I think this ruling was exactly wrong. There really is no valid reason for a woman to have to cover her breasts. Idiotic, parochial decisions like this last for only a few years usually before being overturned. Equality between the sexes is coming, like it or not.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-14 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

From a newspaper article not yet written:

When asked about the recent law prohibiting women to bare their ------- in public Boaz went on to say that, "It has to do with community morality and standards. And a community has a right to share their living environments the way they see fit collectively, especially locally"

Boaz also vocally supported the growing Muslim communities in Michigan and elsehwere that want to broadcast the athan in public and compel women to cover with hijabs in public-- in the name of standards and morality.

It's not "Islamification" or surrendering to creeping Shariah Law" Boaz maintained. "A community has a right to share their living environments the way they see fit collectively, especially locally."

#12 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2020-01-14 10:48 AM | Reply

"The "standards" are applied differently based on gender so it has everything to do with equality.

#10 | POSTED BY JOE"

I see you didn't read the article

#13 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 10:58 AM | Reply

"When a local/state government wants to limit other rights we'll see if you still feel the same way. Rights are in the Constitution and supercede all local/state laws.

POSTED BY DANNI"

Constitutional rights are protected everywhere and always will be. Since the Constitution does not address -------, that is up to the local and state authorities.

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 11:00 AM | Reply

But dont the people of the town have a right to govern as they see fit?

Best argument for slavery I've read.

Oh wait. No.

That's not how it works.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-14 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"But dont the people of the town have a right to govern as they see fit?"

Tiny Town by the Dead Milkmen

#16 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2020-01-14 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Best argument for slavery I've read.
Oh wait. No.
That's not how it works.
#15 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK "

Exactly. Slavery is unonstitutional (13th amendment to the Constitution) so no local or state government can enact it.

#17 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-14 11:24 AM | Reply

"But don't the people of the town have a right to govern as they see fit?"

Not in NC, where you claim to be from.

www.citylab.com

#18 | Posted by qcp at 2020-01-14 11:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It has to do with community morality and standards. And a community has a right to share their living environments the way they see fit collectively, especially locally..

POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-01-14 10:10 AM | REPLY

More of that Puritanical bullschit.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-14 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Tiny Town by the Dead Milkmen"

Might as well post this one too.

Right Wing Pigeons by the Dead Milkmen

#20 | Posted by qcp at 2020-01-14 03:20 PM | Reply

That's the problem with liberalism, wanting to have their point of view enforced EVERYWHERE.

Maybe she can find another state/locality where she can bare her breasts..

#2 | Posted by boaz

Yet this same ------- supports rural Virginian yokels marching on the capital to save therrr gunz!

Do you not realize how contradictory your posts are and how convenient your positions always are to ensure your view is supported in the moment?

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-14 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Actually, slavery is legal if convicted.

If the Constitution doesn't mention your right, the 10th rules.

#22 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-14 05:24 PM | Reply

If the Constitution doesn't mention your right, the 10th rules.

#22 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Wrong! The 10th Amendment doesn't override the 14th Amendment. Duh. Also, the Constitution doesn't grant Rights to government it grants powers which are limited. Rights are granted to People.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

So, to sum up, "The People" are granted rights. Government (both Federal and States) are granted powers and assigned responsibilities, while prohibited from violating the rights of the People.

#23 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-01-14 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Idiotic, parochial decisions like this last for only a few years usually before being overturned.
#11 | Posted by danni

It may be an idiotic, parochial decision of a legislative body to enact the ordinance. As a matter of constitutional analysis the court's decision is correct. As for the prospect of the the court's decision being overturned, not likely because the USSC just declined to do so. As the New Hampshire Supreme Court observed, "Neither can we ignore that no court with precedent-setting authority has held such an ordinance unconstitutional." www.scotusblog.com at page 10. The entirety of the equal protection analysis is at pages 3 through 11.

There have been many such cases across the country. Only one, a district court in Colorado, has found such an ordinance "likely" violating equal protection when issuing a preliminary injunction.

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2020-01-14 06:31 PM | Reply

They beg and fight to loose the knobs. Let some hapless mahn glance at um like any red blooded normal man would and watch his life get ruined.

#25 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-01-15 02:15 PM | Reply

"Equality between the sexes is coming, like it or not."

Not anytime soon unless a lot of supreme Court justices die.

#26 | Posted by dibblda at 2020-01-15 04:22 PM | Reply

"So, to sum up, "The People" are granted rights."

Rights are self evident. No one grants them to us.

#27 | Posted by dibblda at 2020-01-15 04:24 PM | Reply

So there is places in the US that outlaw women exposing their breasts? Surprise! There is no such law in Texas. Let the ------- fly free.

#28 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-01-15 09:48 PM | Reply

"So there is places in the US that outlaw women exposing their breasts? Surprise! There is no such law in Texas. Let the ------- fly free.

POSTED BY DOCNJO"

There are no Texas laws, but there are local laws that prevent this. It's easy to get by with completely nude sunbathing on Padre Island as long as one is discreet. I do it all the time. Just go a couple of miles south where there are no families (they stick close to Mustang Island and the pier) and don't helicopter your dick. Cops generally don't make a fuss if common sense is in play

#29 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-15 10:07 PM | Reply

Perhaps this will change if the ERA passes:

www.huffpost.com

OCU

#30 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-16 12:43 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort