Women's Rights Outreach

[SamIam]

While researching something related, I came across this:

 645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness. –
    I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm.
    II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
       (a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is less than 16 years of age.
       (b) Such person purposely transmits to a child who is less than 16 years of age, or an individual whom the actor reasonably believes is a child who is less than 16 years of age, an image of himself or herself fornicating, exposing his or her genitals, or performing any other act of gross lewdness.
       (c) Having previously been convicted of an offense under paragraph I, or of an offense that includes the same conduct under any other jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under paragraph I.
    III. A person shall be guilty of a class A felony if having previously been convicted of 2 or more offenses under paragraph II, or a reasonably equivalent statute in another state, the person subsequently commits an offense under this section.

Walking down the street without a shirt on does not violate the statute. Looks like the only thing stopping this is us planning an event.

[EthanLeeVita]

They could still use gross lewdness if they wish I think. From my understanding, gross lewdness would be a subjective thing. Or do they define lewdness elsewhere in the law?

Then again, I could really care less what they law says.

[J’raxis 270145]

There was some discussion in this thread about that RSA.

[tremendoustie]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. How is going topless in a public place positive or productive towards liberty? Isn't it more likely to cause negative reactions -- and become an example to some as to why we need more government control? I suspect such a protest would be highly counterproductive, and become a real albatross around the neck of the movement in keene.

[Sam A. Robrin]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. How is going topless in a public place positive or productive towards liberty? Isn't it more likely to cause negative reactions -- and become an example to some as to why we need more government control? I suspect such a protest would be highly counterproductive, and become a real albatross around the neck of the movement in keene.

Are you being satirical?

[Coconut]

I agree with titty... I mean ttie.

[smeg]

as i said, i'm not against this form of protest because i'm a prude... i would totally do it... if i knew that it served a purpose and made a point.  i just don't see one here, beyond 'we are free to be topless if we so choose'. 

but, in all actuality, i would not choose to be topless.  men sometimes don't think about the more practical functions of girl's clothing... like the fact that your bra is holding up your boobs so your back doesn't hurt, and if you run (or even just walk a little faster than normal) the stupid things won't bounce all over, which hurts AND can knock the wind out of you. 

so, i'm in, if it serves a purpose.  otherwise, i'll stick to being comfy.

[tremendoustie]

Are you being satirical?

Actually no, although on rereading I can see how my language may have sounded that way. I do think it would be a big mistake. Consider how many people will drive by with children, and consider the impact this would have on their opinion of the movement, or willingness to get involved.

The point of this kind of protest is to intentionally break a law by performing a reasonable, moral act, so showing the absurdity of the law. This is why the penny gambling, puppet show, nail painting, etc, were such great ideas.

This is the opposite: Not breaking the law by performing an act which would generally be viewed as outrageous -- and I think it would have the opposite effect.

I agree with titty... I mean ttie.

lol

[WhereAndWhen]

Is that a state law?  There isn't a state law which prohibits public nudity in VT.  However, most towns have laws against it, especially near developed areas.

[Patrick Shields]

The point of this kind of protest is to intentionally break a law by performing a reasonable, moral act, so showing the absurdity of the law. This is why the penny gambling, puppet show, nail painting, etc, were such great ideas.

This is the opposite: Not breaking the law by performing an act which would generally be viewed as outrageous -- and I think it would have the opposite effect.

I consider walking around without clothes on to be a reasonable, moral act. It certainly doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.

It might not have the "public relations" effect you're looking for, but it is certainly not harmful to people, and I don't think it's harmful to the message of consensual interactions in the long run.

[Sam A. Robrin]

most towns have laws against it, especially near developed areas.

Anybody else want that one?

[tremendoustie]

The point of this kind of protest is to intentionally break a law by performing a reasonable, moral act, so showing the absurdity of the law. This is why the penny gambling, puppet show, nail painting, etc, were such great ideas.

This is the opposite: Not breaking the law by performing an act which would generally be viewed as outrageous -- and I think it would have the opposite effect.

I consider walking around without clothes on to be a reasonable, moral act. It certainly doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.

It might not have the "public relations" effect you're looking for, but it is certainly not harmful to people, and I don't think it's harmful to the message of consensual interactions in the long run.

Well, the inherent morality of the issue would be a much more involved discussion. However, the purpose of a protest or civil disobedience is certainly to affect change, and to inform and convince people. Most people would consider penny poker, nail polishing, and puppet shows to be appropriate behavior -- the same is not true of walking around in public topless -- indeed, most would be offended by it, some extremely so. That's why I think the impact would be mainly negative, rather than positive. I am sure foes of liberty would love to cast freedom lovers as libertines.

The point is not to convince people that every consensual act is appropriate, the point is to convince people that non-consensual acts are inappropriate.

I think roughly speaking, civil disobedience is most effective when the actions of the protester are perceived as most unimpeachable, and the actions taken in response are perceived as most outrageous.

[cxxguy]

as i said, i'm not against this form of protest because i'm a prude... i would totally do it... if i knew that it served a purpose and made a point.  i just don't see one here, beyond 'we are free to be topless if we so choose'.  

The point of this kind of protest is to intentionally break a law by performing a reasonable, moral act, so showing the absurdity of the law. This is why the penny gambling, puppet show, nail painting, etc, were such great ideas.

I'd be willing to bet you guys the following:  if you walk around Keene topless, and don't get arrested, I'll donate $10 to the Liberty organization of your choice.  I'd guess  that if I set up a chip-in, we'd have another 19 guys willing to make the same bet.

Actually, the possibility that you would win is real.  There is an activity called the "nude mile", in Ann Arbor, MI, where a bunch of students run, naked, 1 full mile across campus.  This is clearly illegal under Michigan law, but the law is ignored.  To me, this also makes a good point:  when the act of ignoring a law involves more than a small group, the law is likely to be ignored.  If this is the case, how important can the law be, after all?  Why don't they call in the Army, if it is so important that people should be "protected" from boobies ... soft ... fluffy ... sweaty ... uhhh ... sorry, I'm back ... from public nudity.

[Patrick Shields]

Most people would consider penny poker, nail polishing, and puppet shows to be appropriate behavior -- the same is not true of walking around in public topless -- indeed, most would be offended by it, some extremely so. That's why I think the impact would be mainly negative, rather than positive. I am sure foes of liberty would love to cast freedom lovers as libertines.

The point is not to convince people that every consensual act is appropriate, the point is to convince people that non-consensual acts are inappropriate.

I think roughly speaking, civil disobedience is most effective when the actions of the protester are perceived as most unimpeachable, and the actions taken in response are perceived as most outrageous.

It could be that I am inaccurately predicting people's responses, but it seems to me like people would be more receptive than you're thinking. Keene is a college town, after all. I met a college girl a few months ago who told me of her desire to do a protest like this one, and that was a completely independent instance (she'd never heard of Free Keene.)

This may not be the ideal civil dis, but IMO it's better than nothing!

[tremendoustie]

as i said, i'm not against this form of protest because i'm a prude... i would totally do it... if i knew that it served a purpose and made a point.  i just don't see one here, beyond 'we are free to be topless if we so choose'.  

The point of this kind of protest is to intentionally break a law by performing a reasonable, moral act, so showing the absurdity of the law. This is why the penny gambling, puppet show, nail painting, etc, were such great ideas.

I'd be willing to bet you guys the following:  if you walk around Keene topless, and don't get arrested, I'll donate $10 to the Liberty organization of your choice.  I'd guess  that if I set up a chip-in, we'd have another 19 guys willing to make the same bet.

I bet they would for ...... uh .... liberty, yeah, that's why.

Actually, the possibility that you would win is real.  There is an activity called the "nude mile", in Ann Arbor, MI, where a bunch of students run, naked, 1 full mile across campus.  This is clearly illegal under Michigan law, but the law is ignored.  To me, this also makes a good point:  when the act of ignoring a law involves more than a small group, the law is likely to be ignored.  If this is the case, how important can the law be, after all?

How about demonstrating that regarding a law that actually is harming people on a daily basis? Like say, pot laws, property taxes, income taxes, camera prohibitions, restaurant taxes, currency laws, travel regulations, property inspections, building regulations, labor and business regulations, vehicle inspections, etc, etc?

Also, the legitimacy of rules here is not completely cut and dried. If noise pollution can represent legitimate harm, which it certainly can, why not a parade of naked people in front of your kids? The argument could be made.

Why don't they call in the Army, if it is so important that people should be "protected" from boobies ... soft ... fluffy ... sweaty ... uhhh ... sorry, I'm back ... from public nudity.

And frankly, there's the reason I think this is garnering discussion, not because of any likely effectiveness at getting Keene residents on board for liberty. Let's leave it at the level of titillating conversation, please. I think some here don't fully realize how many people this could drive away.