Brownie leader: "Breasts are not criminal"

[Lilith]

(submitted by gekkogecko)

DAYTONA BEACH, Florida (Reuters) - A demonstration
billed as a topless march to protest anti-nudity laws
has drawn in thousands of curious spectators but only
a handful of marchers.

Organisers had expected 1,000 topless women to march
down Main Street in Daytona Beach and voice their
outrage over the arrest of women who bare their
breasts during spring break events. Local officials
say hundreds of women are carted off to jail each year
for exposing their breasts on the beach, in bars and
on the streets.

But after a federal judge refused to stop police from
arresting female protesters who doffed their tops,
only about 50 women made the march.

And only one, organiser Liz Book, took off her shirt.
Book was immediately arrested and taken to jail,
though a bare-chested man who marched was unmolested.

"I don't ever want to see another woman arrested
because someone showed her breasts," said Book, a
42-year-old Brownie troop leader. "Our breasts are not
criminal."

[bordendazed]

But the American Just-us system says they are...

Can I be excused from the Country now, Mommie?

:)

[thedog]

Would the last enlightened American leaving the country please turn out the lights and bring the flag.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

What is indecent exposure? What is decent exposure?

[gekkogecko]

Indecent exposure is anything *I* think is indecent.

No, I'm not telling.

[naughtyangel]

GG, if I ask really nicely, would you whisper it in my ear? ;)

[CunningLinguist]

You know I think the whole idea of what Americans find indecent is just hypocrisy.

Janet Jackson shows her boobie and now the Reichstag is all in a frenzy. Saying boobie is now verboten and brings a $500,000 fine.

However the fines for companies who dump toxic waste is often ignored and much, much less.

Violence is never censored so it is perfectly OK to show someone getting their brains blown out on the evening news while your kids are eating supper.

[jseal]

CunningLinguist,

Yes. I know that you think that the whole idea of what Americans find indecent is just hypocrisy. I am uncertain why you would think so.

Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks that something is indecent is a hypocrite? If you are suggesting that no behavior is indecent, and that anyone who thinks so is a hypocrite, then I suspect that you will always be a disappointed man. Standards of decency have existed throughout recorded history, exist now, and I daresay will exist long after you have passed into the great perhaps. Perhaps you are suggesting that what most people in this country think is indecent is hypocritical? If so, why? If you accept that this is a representative democracy, and those who write the laws represent the opinions of the majority, then I fail too see the hypocrisy.

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake forced their values upon tens of millions of unsuspecting people who thought they were watching the halftime show of a football game. How many other football games this year included exposing women’s breasts during halftime? Do you honestly think that anyone – other than those who planned this feature – expected what they saw? How about the millions of children whose parents naively though that this football game would also include no nudity. Do the opinions of these millions of people count for nothing? The answer is yes. They count for a lot. They vote. They may not vote – or think – the way you or I would like, but they vote.

Incidentally, in the afternoon of Sunday April 18, 1999 the Reichstag was reopened for use by a liberal democratic government, and has continued to fill that function ever since. Liberals can’t dis the Germans any more, as they stood up to those damn cowboys in America over Iraq. As an interesting aside to this aside, the restoration of the Reichstag was by – you guessed it – a Brit, Sir Norman Foster! Talk about heaping irony on irony!

http://www.bundesbaugesellschaft.de/en/rtg.htm

You are wrong to assert that violence is not censored.

This week I, and 11 other citizens, sent a man to prison for anywhere between 20 to 25 years for attempted murder (.357 Magnum). I believe you are wrong when you say “is perfectly OK to show someone getting their brains blown out on the evening news”. Can you provide examples to substantiate your claim?

More than $2.5 billion - that's $2,500,000,000 - has been spent by private companies over the last 12 years to clean up toxic waste.

In 2000, 2 men were sentenced to 3 and 7 years in the state penitentiary here in Maryland when they were caught dumping commercial paint waste. The trial ruled that they had violated the criminal statutes of Maryland's toxic waste laws. Their convictions were upheld on appeal.

In 2001 (I THINK that was the year) the Supreme Court ruled that the absolute levels of chromium and mercury must be used by the EPA to assess the pollution levels in ground water.

You are wrong to suggest that it is generally considered otherwise.

[lakritze]

Do you suppose all of this anti-sex hypocrisy by the neo-creeps will end in November when JFK is elected president? Certainly not everything that is indecent is considered hypocritical,but we do seem to be battling on the same grounds over and over again. I am not so sure that laws are inacted by how the majority thinks and feels but perhaps by a very loud minority. Jim Crow laws were on the books in this country for quite some time.Didn't De Tocqueville warn about the tyranny of the Majority? As for the president having an influence on which way this country goes culturally and morally.He is in a position to use an awfully big "bully pulpit" and he can choose to support groups that are idealogically similar.After all,Isn't this prez the darling of the religious right?

[jseal]

lakritze,

No president has any influence over hypocrisy.

[lakritze]

Sorry,I was interupted before finishing the above post.

[jseal]

lakritze,

I’ll go so far as to agree that a loud minority does exercise influence disproportionate to the size of their numbers. The Civil Rights legislation comes to mind, as do the laws protecting the environment. Routinely though, little legislation becomes law that is not acceptable to the voters. That is what democracy attempts to achieve, wouldn’t you say?

While I may be wrong, I doubt that the president represents a significant moral influence to the citizens. The best candidate for such a notion would be President Carter, no? But outside of that (unusual) example, would you suggest holding up the infidelities of JFK as a good example for children? Perhaps one would prefer President Clinton as an exemplar of virtue? President Nixon wouldn’t do. While President Ford was a straight arrow, he was tainted by his predecessor. I’m sure you have problems with President Regan. No, on balance, that presidential bully pulpit is probably most effective in influencing politics, not ethics (except possibly in a negative way).

In re the party in power supporting groups that are ideologically similar, I have a hard time identifying one that does not. Can you provide examples to the contrary – where, for example, President Johnson (who brought much Civil Rights legislation to fruition) nominated a racist for high office? Perhaps a list of the Human Rights offenders that Jimmy Carter nominated? If you wish, I’d be happy to research and then list the organizations which received President Clinton’s support. So no, on balance, I’d guess that all presidents tend to favor like minded organizations.

Actually, as a President who has overseen a huge increase in the Federal bureaucracy (traditionally a Democratic prerogative), signed into legislation a farm bill which subsidizes farmers to the tune of $57 billion over the span of a few years (same comment), attempted to hide inefficient American workers behind illegal trade barriers (Down with Free Trade!), and just recently signed a bill prohibiting the outsourcing of Federal contracts (thus guaranteeing that these contracts may not be let to the lowest bidder), I’d say that President Bush is the best Democratic president to ever have been elected on the Republican ticket.

[Loulabelle]

Well obviously breasts are evil, obscene etc and should never be seen by an underaged person - after all their only purpose in life is to....er.....FEED BABIES!

I'm worried babies bottle are going to be considered offensive soon......