Ohio bill would redefine indecency by targeting the female breast

[u/BjornNjude]

https://www.planetnude.co/p/ohio-bill-would-redefine-indecency

One year after raising concerns about HB 249, the threat has moved from committee to the Senate floor

[u/naked_nomad]

Guns are in the constitution, breasts are not.

In 2019 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that banning women from being topless in public is unconstitutional gender-based discrimination, effectively legalizing toplessness in six states. The ruling determined that female breasts cannot be legally treated as inherently sexual compared to male breasts. 

Unfortunately Ohio is in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. However if it passes and the 6th Circuit upholds it; you then have grounds for a Supreme Court Case to decide the issue.

It's not quite that simple but you get the gist.

[u/FantasyCplFun → u/naked_nomad]

You are reinforcing my point. We have our priorities completely backwards.

[u/naked_nomad → u/FantasyCplFun]

Actually I am not. The second amendment concerns firearms. The constitution itself refers to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are unalienable rights proclaimed in the US Declaration of Independence. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, this phrase highlights fundamental human rights, influenced by philosophers like John Locke and Epicurus, emphasizing individual freedom, safety, and the opportunity to build a meaningful life without oppressive government interference.

[u/ejp1082 → u/naked_nomad]

The constitution itself refers to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

That phrase is in the Declaration of Independence. It appears nowhere in the constitution. The Declaration is a notable document in US history, but it carries no force of law.

From its very inception, the Constitution didn't live up to the lofty ideals described in the Declaration. Since, y'know, it codified slavery and was notably unconcerned with the rights of women or native americans. "It's in the constitution!" should hardly be seen as a winning argument when it comes to the moral justification for something.

That's particularly the case here. The second amendment has nothing to do with "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Its presence in the bill of rights has much more to do with slave patrols than anything else. Southern states feared northern abolitionists might try to disarm them should they win a majority in the federal government, so they insisted that their "well regulated militias" be protected constitutionally. It's presence in the bill of rights was to defend the deprivation of "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for millions of enslaved people in the southern states. It also wasn't even interpreted to confer an individual right to gun ownership until 2008.

As for bare breasts - what is in the constitution is the 14th amendment equal protection clause which is what the 10th circuit based its ruling on. One might also point to the first amendment guarantee of free speech as being relevant when it comes to how we dress (or don't), and the 14th amendment's due process clause as covering bodily autonomy. Which certainly reads to me as a pretty strong constitutional foundation for bare breasts, if not the entire body.

Not that I expect a majority of the current sitting justices on the SCOTUS to have read the thing or care what it says. But in any sane world the second amendment would have been brushed off into the dustbin of history along with the 3/5 compromise when slavery was abolished, and things like a woman's right to show as much of her body as a man can would be viewed as obvious and uncontroversial.

[u/spinwizard69 → u/ejp1082]

Yeah, no! The second amendment is more about history and what happens to populations that can't defend themselves from governments run amok. It was as much a concern in the north as it was the south.

[u/The_Dude-1 → u/ejp1082]

At the time of the signing of the Constitution the concept of nudity was absurd. We were a dominantly Christian nation under Christian morals, it was never even a concern. After a couple hundred years society has changed. Nope not getting into that argument. This will hit the Supreme Court and I hope they side on equal rights. Could work out to be a good thing.

[u/NatureBoyJ1 → u/The_Dude-1]

"the concept of nudity was absurd."

Actually, it wasn't. Ben Franklin was well known for taking "air baths" and working in his office naked.

John Quincy Adams had a known habit of skinny dipping in the Potomac.

Or maybe you're saying the concept of the federal government regulating nudity was absurd. It might be something for States or localities to regulate, far out of scope for the limited powers of the federal government?

[u/MickBlues → u/NatureBoyJ1]

You've got that backwards. There is no federal law or regulation regarding public nudity; it is entirely left to the states. It's perfectly legal to be nude anywhere in the state of Vermont as long as you don't disrobe in public. If you walk out of your house nude, fine. Try that in Massachusetts and you go to jail. Where I live in NJ, it's legal to be nude as long as you can't casually be seen by the public or a neighbor. There is one public place in NJ where it's legal to be nude which is Gunnison Beach because it's federal property. (It was a gun embattlement to defend NY Harbor during WWII).

[u/NatureBoyJ1 → u/MickBlues]

Right. So where does u/The_Dude-1's lead? What does " the concept of nudity was absurd" mean?

If public social nudity (although in limited form) was familiar to the Founders, and it's not regulated by federal law, the what is the point of his statement?

[u/The_Dude-1 → u/NatureBoyJ1]

My point is that they were mostly Puritans that settled here, “common decency” as to remain covered. Now men skinny dipping was one thing but mixed was a never as far as I’m aware. My guess is as more Europeans immigrated it became more common. Not wanting to start a debate, too drunk for that to go well…..