War protestors sue to show breasts

Stammer · **War protestors sue to show breasts -** 11-05-2005, 08:20 PM

[url=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/05/BAGOLFJBB11.DTL&type=printable:ad759]Link To Article[/url:ad759]

[quote:ad759]U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell said the group made no compelling argument that showing their breasts constitutes free speech.

"Being topless is not inherently expressive" speech, Burrell said. The group, Breasts Not Bombs, had scheduled a protest for noon Monday. The California Highway Patrol threatened to arrest anyone who went topless.

Sherry Glaser, a leader of the group, said the protest may take place without bare breasts.

"All we really have is the power of ourselves," she said. "Our bodies bring attention."

Group members, whose protest on the west steps of the Capitol is intended to contrast the "indecent" initiatives backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the November ballot with their "natural and decent" breasts, sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting CHP officers from arresting women who protest topless.

The First Amendment protects their right to protest bare breasted, the group argued. "The very act is a dynamic and fully expressive statement worthy of constitutional protection," their brief asserts.

But Burrell didn't buy that argument.

"Do you think the founding fathers had this in mind when they drafted the First Amendment?" he asked Matthew Kumin, the lawyer representing Breasts Not Bombs.

Lawyers for the state said no previous group has been allowed to protest on Capitol grounds unclothed. Those protesters who have disrobed were ordered to put their clothes on or face arrest.

"It has always been our policy that we do not allow nudity on the Capitol's grounds," said Tom Marshall, a CHP spokesman.

Allowing public nudity on the Capitol grounds would also be disruptive and possibly dangerous, the state argued.

"The state Capitol is a destination for California residents and tourists from around the world. Hundreds of California schoolchildren visit on a daily basis. They often enjoy their lunch on the west steps of the Capitol," the lawyers for the attorney general's office wrote. [/quote:ad759]

Why are Americans so offended by nudity?

Coleman · 11-05-2005, 08:23 PM

i don't think showing your breasts is a decent way to protest.

Stammer · 11-05-2005, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman

i don't think showing your breasts is a decent way to protest.

But why? It's just breats.

Nyck · 11-05-2005, 09:43 PM

fuckin retarded.

Sgt>Stackem · 11-06-2005, 02:25 AM

***WARNING****
***UGLY PEOPLE***

http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/

Stammer · 11-06-2005, 08:44 AM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":44b2c]***WARNING****
***UGLY PEOPLE***

[url="http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/"]http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/[/url][/quote:44b2c]

So by your logic they are physically inferior people and shouldn't be allowed to disrobe themselves in peaceful protest?

Worst and by far most ignorant reason ever given against something in political section to date.

Sgt>Stackem · 11-06-2005, 08:52 AM

[quote=Stammer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt>Stackem":28d3d]***WARNING****
***UGLY PEOPLE***

[url="http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/

http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/[/url]

So by your logic they are physically inferior people and shouldn't be allowed to disrobe themselves in peaceful protest?

Worst and by far most ignorant reason ever given against something in political section to date.[/quote:28d3d]

how did you get t hat?????? You moron, all I said was there are ugly people in the link. Everyone has a right to vote or protest, even Hillary can vote and she is as ugly as it gets.

You R A moron

Stammer · 11-06-2005, 10:10 AM

I'm a moron? Sorry but you said there were ugly people in those photos, so by reasonable assertion I figured you meant it was a good thing they wern't allowed to undress because ugly or inferior people wouldn't be allowed to disrobe. Also if you feel your being misunderstood it wouldn't hurt to put a little more nuance into your posts.

And another thing, what was the point of even posting that link?

Sgt>Stackem · 11-06-2005, 10:55 AM

it was the breasts not bombs parade, call me crazy but I thought that is what this thread was all about. Just for the record I think they are a bunch of nuts. If they wanted to get some attention they would have a couple of hotties in there

"so by reasonable assertion I figured"

Nyck · 11-06-2005, 11:11 AM

I just saw it as a warning that hey,,,your not gonna see hotties protesting here
which was further proven with the 1st lady with a tit growing under her arm pit.

FFS stammer

Stammer · 11-06-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyck

I just saw it as a warning that hey,,,your not gonna see hotties protesting here
which was further proven with the 1st lady with a tit growing under her arm pit.

FFS stammer

What the fuck did I do? I didn't post the fucking link to the pictures.

spank:

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":42a2a]it was the breasts not bombs parade, call me crazy but I thought that is what this thread was all about. Just for the record I think they are a bunch of nuts. If they wanted to get some attention they would have a couple of hotties in there[/quote:42a2a]

What the hell are you talking about? This thread is about the underlying issue of public nudity and why people take offence to things like that. I hoped the article would have acted like a precursor to a large debate out censorship and what the first amendment protects. I guess I expect to much.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":42a2a]"so by reasonable ass ertion I figured"[/quote:42a2a]

Aha! Your so clever.

Nyck · 11-06-2005, 12:48 PM

Im just saying you're assuming too much from stackems post

Stammer · 11-06-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyck

Im just saying you're assuming too much from stackems post

It's easy to assume alot from so little.

Coleman · 11-06-2005, 01:31 PM

[quote=Stammer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt>Stackem":fb8e6]***WARNING****
***UGLY PEOPLE***

[url="http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/

http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/[/url]

So by your logic they are physically inferior people and shouldn't be allowed to disrobe themselves in peaceful protest?

Worst and by far most ignorant reason ever given against something in political section to date.[/quote:fb8e6]all he did was contribute to the thread by posting a link that added to the thread's discussion. No where did he say, "The people are ugly, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to protest."

He did the right thing by doing a warning. Technically, he shouldn't have posted it since there was nudity, but i don't think anyone will want to wack off to those pics.

TGB! · 11-06-2005, 02:02 PM

[quote:f6df1]I hoped the article would have acted like a precursor to a large debate out censorship and what the first amendment protects. I guess I expect to much.[/quote:f6df1]

There is no CENSORSHIP going on here. These people would violate public decency codes. Period. End of story. YOU may not be offended by public displays of nudity, but others would be. Our state capital is right next to a park, where every Sunday families are out and about. Sorry but Im not going to begrudge Sam and Sue Public for getting offended if they and their kids stumble upon some flabby taffied Berkely nude protestors.

Youll notice that so RIVETING are their anti-war arguments, that they have to resort to disrobing to get their message across.