A topless worth 29,000$!

[demoleft]

The woman, Manhattan artist, was arrested while going on a topless stroll in 2005. Now Jill Coccaro has accepted a $29,000 settlement from the city.

From the CBS/AP source:

"Jill Coccaro, 27, was charged briefly with indecent exposure despite a 1992 state appeals court ruling that concluded women had the right to be topless if men were allowed to take off their shirts.
Coccaro, who now goes by the name Phoenix Feeley, bared her breasts on August 4, 2005 for an art-show promotion to cool off."

The source: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_168083332.html

It's the most highly valued topless I've ever heard of. Except models' and actresses' well paid ones, obviously...

[Radio_Lady]

1. Damn! I know they'd PAY ME to get off the streets of NYC if I went topless!

I'd like the money, but I couldn't stand the stares...

[Lyric]

2. Cases like this are extremely important

It *is* discriminatory to say that men can walk around topless (at beaches, pools, front lawns, wherever) but that women have to cover up. It's not just discriminatory, it's flat-out unconstitutional (the 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, and arresting a woman for being topless while letting a man do so legally is NOT equal treatment).

This is one of the phantoms that groups like Confused Women for Amerikkka likes to throw up whenever the Equal Rights Amendment is on the table. *sarcasm on* Oh, the horror! Women and men held to exactly the same standards! Oh, whatever will BECOME of us! *sarcasm off*

Seriously. Our society needs to rid itself of these ridiculous and unfair laws about topless nudity. The only function they serve is to keep women subjugated as "second-class" citizens. Either toplessness is okay for everyone, or it's illegal for everyone. The constitution does NOT allow us to pick and choose who has to follow which laws, or to create laws meant solely for one class of people.

:rant:

[northzax]

3. but be careful

lest you open the breatfeeding can of worms again. that means no food or drink means no food or drink, which would ban breastfeeding in a lot of places it is currently allowed. can't have different standards now.

just predicting what's coming...

[Lyric]

4. This isn't about breastfeeding, it's about equality.

I'm sure there's a constitutional argument to be made regarding breastfeeding, and goodness knows that I support the right to breastfeed whenever, wherever, however. But this is about a blatant violation of our Constitution that We The People have tolerated for FAR too long. The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment states (and I quote):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine, of course)

I fail to see how anyone could possibly interpret that as meaning anything else. It very obviously states that all people within the jurisdiction of the government MUST be treated equally under the law. It doesn't say "men", it doesn't even say "citizens". It says PEOPLE. Period.

[northzax]

7. which means, obviously

if I cannot eat on the train, neither can an infant, right? since we are both people, we both get equal protection under the law. Am I wrong?

[Lyric]

8. There's a button above that says "Post"

If you want a debate about breastfeeding, that's something you're welcome to click, so you can create your own. I'm not debating breastfeeding, which is only one small aspect of the larger issue. I am expressing my frustration and discontent about the following things:

1. Women's breasts are unfairly classified as "sexual organs", while mens breasts are not. This is the basis for most laws banning female toplessness, and it's hogwash. The *only* function of a man's breasts and nipples is for sexual pleasure. Women's breasts actually have a nonsexual function. If we're using sexual function as the basis for law, a better argument exists for making *men* cover up than women. It's true that not all men feel sexual pleasure from breast stimulation, but not all women do either (contrary to popular assumptions). As for the argument that female breasts are sexually arousing to males...firstly, it's degrading and oppressive to base the rights of women on the sexual responses of men. Secondly, if bare breasts were commonplace rather than taboo (as we see in various indigenous tribes in Africa, South America, and Asia) seeing them wouldn't be nearly as arousing. The "forbidden" aspect is a large part of what makes them arousing.

2. The 14th Amendment clearly states that we are all to be treated equally under the law. How is it equal to arrest a woman for wearing no shirt, but allow such behavior from men? It's blatantly unfair, and frankly, it pisses me off. I'd like to be able to swim and sunbathe topless in public. Why am I at risk of arrest if I do so? Because the sight of a breast might send some man into a frenzy of arousal? And this is supposed to be proper justification for denying me equality under the law? Gimme a break. My ability to exercise my constitutional rights should not be dependent upon whether or not some strange man gets a stiffy at an inopportune moment.

[Connonym]

13. Amen to that

That glaring inequity has bugged me for a long time. I find hairy sweaty manboobs offensive to my delicate sensibilities but they're still allowed to flop them around in front of me. I wish someone would reintroduce the idea of the ERA.

[ThomCat]

5. We need to get to the point where women can

comfortably go topless anyplace men can.

And women need to be able to do this WITHOUT men assuming this is permission to harass, assault or rape the women. How long will it take for society to eventually outgrow the prudishness we've inhereted from organized religion?

[Lyric]

6. What bothers me most, Thom, is when the "morals" inherited

from religion are allowed to manifest in our laws and codes as unconstitutional discrimination. That's a much broader issue, of course, encompassing GLBT rights, women's rights, and minority rights. It wasn't all that long ago that the Biblical story of Ham was used to justify slavery.

There are many, many wrongs that need to be righted here in the so-called "land of the free".

[ThomCat]

11. True. But as long as people insist that this is a

Christian nation we're going to always have people pushing their morality into our laws. :(

[Orsino]

9. "To cool off."

"Coccaro...bared her breasts on August 4, 2005 for an art-show promotion to cool off."

I feel bad for suspecting that the phrase "to cool off" was spurious. Perhaps it's so, but it also sounds like a needless excuse. The appellate court ruling is clear.

[pitohui]

10. well good for her, she's entitled to it

sorry but the 1992 ruling was VERY well publicized and if even such as i down in louisiana knew that new york had equalized the laws on going shirtless the local LEOS should have known and she should not have exposed to the embarrassment and risk of arrest

$29K is not an unfair pay off for a false arrest

good for her and i hope she enjoys it in good health if anything is left after taxes and lawyers which is actually pretty unlikely-- you don't do these lawsuits for the $$$ because you're not the one who ends up w. the money, you do it to bring awareness

[Drum]

12. At the moment, this is CNN's poll topic

http://www.cnn.com/

Equality is winning 2:1!