Watch or what you wish for...
Posted on 01/29/2005 9:19:38 AM PST by Citizen James
SACRAMENTO CA - Picture a gorgeous day. Surf and sand. Perfect time to erase unsightly tan lines, or just enjoy the sun's warmth on your chest.
At least, if you're a guy.
Under a little-known law, it's technically illegal for women to sunbathe topless on California state beaches or in state parks. Worse, some lawyers contend, topless sunbathing could land California women on the state's sex-offender database for life.
So lawyers with the California Bar Association's Conference of Delegates are shopping around for a lawmaker willing to clarify the law, or even take a step toward what they view as gender equality.
It may sound like one of those wacky, only-in-California stories that appeal to television news shows. Indeed, "A Current Affair" and the Fox News Channel are interested.
But backers of "breast equality," spearheaded by Liana Johnsson, a public defender from Ventura County, say there's much more at stake.
The concern is that a woman technically can be busted for indecent exposure for removing her bikini top on state beaches -- although no one has found a specific case.
And a December appeals court decision from Orange County determined that someone who is convicted of indecent exposure must register as a sex offender under California's Megan's Law.
Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said he knows of no topless sunbathers on the Megan's Law database.
Under the law, there must be "lewd" intent for an indecent exposure conviction, which requires someone to register as a sex offender. It does not trigger Internet posting, as happens with more serious criminals.
Nevertheless, Johnsson and others argue, the court's decision opens a disturbing possibility.
Johnsson wants bans on topless sunbathing to go the way of laws prohibiting women from voting or breast-feeding in public.
"My hopes are for equality," Johnsson said. "My bottom-line hope is that we get the last law on the books that's sexual discrimination-based off the books."
Lobbyist Randy Perry of Aaron Read & Associates, who represents the lawyers' group, said there are other concerns beyond whether women have the fundamental right to bare breasts on beaches. If the benchmark of indecent exposure is lewd intent, who defines lewd?
"If a woman's there, putting on suntan lotion, lathering it up, is that lewd?" he asked. Or, what if someone is just offended by the sight of bare breasts? "Is lewdness in the eye of (the) beholder?"
Perry hopes to find a bill author soon. The most likely option is to specifically exempt from Megan's Law topless sunbathers who have done nothing else wrong.
Johnsson's preference would be total legalization. But she knows hers is a long-shot quest that could take time.
"The fact that it's illegal for me to do something that men can do is like a wound. And the fact that you would have to register as a sex offender is like salt in the wound," she said. "Yes, it's OK that they should take the salt out. But it doesn't eliminate the wound."
California's rules on topless sunbathing are scattershot, reports Gocalifornia.com, a travel Web site. The state has several beaches where topless or nude sunbathing is informally allowed.
In liberal Santa Cruz, where shirtless women have been known to protest in the city council chamber, an equality push in the 1970s led to an open mind toward female toplessness on beaches. According to Santa Cruz County law, "nudity" is narrowly defined as being "devoid of opaque covering" below the belt.
California's parks and beaches nix nudity, but a department spokesman said people are almost never cited. "What our rangers do is ask them to cover up," said parks spokesman Joe Rosato. "They get about 100 percent compliance."
Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Temecula Republican who does sunbathe shirtless, is skeptical of the effort unless someone can show him a specific case of a sunbather forced to register as a sex offender.
"It's just a way to try and punch holes in the law," he surmised. "Until we have a real problem that needs to be addressed, we'll leave Megan's Law alone."
Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families is aghast at what he's calling the "Drop Your Top" law. Any changes will just encourage public nudity and ruin family outings, said Thomasson, who usually wears T-shirts at the beach because of his fair skin.
Women, he said, are "repulsed" by overweight shirtless men. Men, however, are fascinated and stimulated by topless women. "This is not freedom for women," he said. "It's basically exposing women and foolish teenage girls to inappropriate treatment at the beach or park."
This move, I agree with.
They're just trying to assert that they're not gay.
Gosh, I wonder why the California Bar Association wants more nekkid wimmin in public?
Wouldn't have anything to do with creating more harrasment civil cases and criminal prosecutions for sex offenses, would it?
You should search...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330514/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1326410/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1326270/posts
I better not.
I think it is a good move. Kids wont have to watch National Geographic films of Africa or the Amazon any longer.
Get it out of their systems. And mine too!
Ooops! Forgot one...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/907987/posts
It used to be illegal for women to vote in public?
Damn!
or = for
"If a woman's there, putting on suntan lotion, lathering it up, is that lewd?" he asked. Or, what if someone is just offended by the sight of bare breasts? "Is lewdness in the eye of (the) beholder?"
C'mon, Randy, you must have a liberal mindset . . . you know that if something offends someone somewhere, then that's grounds to shut it down. Tell me, Randy, are you offended by Christmas?
How many times are we going to post this same story? The Googler-wankers out there find Free Republic when they do a search for, say, 'topless' and click on the link.
This is actually symptomatic of two very large screw-ups.
(1) Defining sex offenses down. Yes, I want to know where the rapists and molesters are. But I don't care about hookers, johns, public urination, nude sunbathing, public sex, or the rest of it. These minor things being called 'sex offenses' just cheapens the term. Moreover it creates a data fog. I.e. too many names with too many BS offenses.
(2) Just let people nude sunbathe if they want. No really, who cares? If you don't like it, move up north. What is it with the anti-nude sunbathing crowd? Is it body shame? Is it some puritanical knee-jerk reaction? Why are we bothering to spend public tax money on stopping nudity? This sounds suspiciously like gubbamint viewpoint subsidization for prigs to me. Grow up. Don't like it? Don't go to the damn beach. I don't like having to see fatties who wouldn't know what the inside of a gym even looks like on the beach (even fully clothed). How about we subsidize my aesthetic viewpoint by banning them? It'll give them more time to spend at the Cracker Barrel.
That post was clearly abuse of the free republic and its patrons........
It violates the laws of decency......
Good grief man I've gone blind.........
;-)
For the first time in my life, I agree with lawyers.
(binoculars at the ready)
In this culture, men are sexually titillated (pun intended) by the sight of naked female breasts. Given that, there's nothing unreasonable about the ban in question. Give way on this point and we'll have full public nudity in no time flat, followed by public sex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.