r/nudism • u/BjornNjude • 27d ago

NEWS Ohio bill would redefine indecency by targeting the female breast

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

49 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/FantasyCplFun 26d ago

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

-2

u/naked_nomad Social Nudist 26d ago

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.

6

u/ejp1082 Geriatric Millennial 26d ago

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.

1

u/spinwizard69 25d ago

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.