Nipple ban

I suppose everyone has heard of the new NC GOP legislation that has passed the house and awaits a senate vote. It's a bill to provide criminal penalties if a woman shows her breast/nipples in public. The first offense is punishable by up to 6 months in prison. A first offense DWI is a max of 24 hours in jail ... and a 2nd and 3rd is still more lenient than this potential punishment.

There are exceptions for breastfeeding mothers and ladies working in strip clubs. Apparently, this all came about when some women bared their breasts in political protest over some other absurdity shoveled on to women by hairy, old hypocritical GOP bigots. What could that be?

Lets see ... the choices are so many it's hard to know ... trans-vaginal wanding ... treating women on birth control/hormone therapy as harlots ... dismantling Planned Parenthood ... lowering unemployment benefits ... planning to tax food at 4X the current rate (among other things) so corporations and the rich can skate on state income taxes? Maybe it was a protest against opposing the Affordable Care Act ... since women are often treated 2nd class in that area as well. Maybe it was protesting Burr's vote against renewing the Violence Against Women Act ... like so many other Republicans did. I wonder why Republicans, men and women, hate other women so much?

I guess Republicans see no problem with women working in a strip joint, likely unhappily showing their stuff for money. But, if you show your TaTa's to protest misogyny, that's a crime. The old North State is very, very sick. New signs will be needed at NC highway welcome stations: WELCOME TO NORTH CAROLINA. FASTEN SEAT BELTS. $1000 FINE FOR LITTERING. SIX MONTHS IN JAIL FOR SHOWING YOUR TATAS. GOOBERNOR PAT BRAINDEAD.

Comments

Here's a link

Nip this

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

Look over there

If women can fight in combat then they should be able to show their breasts in public! And I think it is an excellent way to make a political protest. I cannot think of many issues that the sight of a woman's breasts would not make me join her side.

I myself am taking a lawn chair and sitting in the frozen foods

section of the Harris-Teeter to monitor the situation. Public duty and all that! Citizens Arrest! wink-wink!

In related news, I hear the Goobernor is considering proposing a "concealed carry" permit. For only $150, including background check and grope by a GOP legislator, a woman can get a license to carry her tatas everywhere but bars, schools,and churches, hospitals, etc. Part of the new tax plan...raisng $millions so Pope won't have to pay income taxes.

Stan Bozarth

Further exceptions

I think that women who have paid all that money for breast augmentation should be allowed to freely exhibit their enhancements. After all the trouble and expense they go through they should not be penalized! There is a doctor down east who does excellent work. Those familiar with his work say that he is not a surgeon, he is an artist. The GOP needs to concentrate on something else, anything else. I really haven't heard anyone complaining about this issue at all.

Of course it could be that the professionals fear a loss in trade if the amateurs are exposing themselves for free. In that case we could give the professionals some type subsidy like we do cotton growers.

NC Taliban

If you drop your top in protest, it becomes a 1st amendment issue, and presumably gets around this latest Sharia fatwa. That won't help if you just want an even tan at the beach, though.

Nipples

Another perfect imperfection from the Puritanical Misogynist Sexually Repressed Party.

David Esmay

Not actually true

Stan, you may want to revise your posting above. "A first offense DWI is a max of 24 hours in jail ... and a 2nd and 3rd is still more lenient than this potential punishment." is not actually true. Unless I'm mistaken 24 months > 6 months.

Here are the statutes in question, I'll allow your readers to draw their own conclusions

DWI sentencing statute - http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/C...

Indecent Exposure as defined by the "nipple ban" is a Class 2 misdemeanor, Misdemeanor sentencing statute - http://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/G...

This comment is not intended as a defense of the underlying bill, but I believe you lose credibility by misleading your readers about sentencing.

Poor logic

Indecent Exposure as defined by the "nipple ban" is a Class 2 misdemeanor

The subject under discussion is about a new proposed law, not a current statute:

Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14‑202.1.

Poor statutory interpretation

First, you're conflating two different sections of the statute. Second, it's not a new proposed law, it's a revision of the current Indecent Exposure statute to included nipples. Third, your comment in no way renders the original posting true or accurate, 2nd or subsequent DUI's are punishable by more than 6 months in jail.

A Class H Felony

carries a maximum sentence of 25 months. While DWI adjudication can vary widely according to aggravating/mitigating factors, it's entirely possible that one nipple slip can get you more time than a 3rd DWI. In other words, Stan's initial claim may not be absolutely right, but it's not demonstrably wrong, either.

What's even more interesting about our little argument is that, considering you've espoused Libertarian principles elsewhere (yes, I've read your stuff), you refuse to even acknowledge that General Assembly Republicans are trying to (vastly) increase the government punishment for something as mundane as a woman lifting her shirt. A true Libertarian would be freaking out over such a heinous assault on personal liberty, but instead you choose to argue semantics.

I'm not just busting your balls for the sheer entertainment of it, although it is entertaining. The thing is, R's in the General Assembly aren't going to listen to us commies, but they might listen to you. If you had something to say, that is.

Again

You're still conflating sections (a) & (a1) - the statute does not classify section (a) violators as guilty of a felony, only a Class 2 misdemeanor. Section (a) is the section which would apply to those arrested at topless rallies in Asheville and elsewhere in NC, not section (a1).

Lest it need be repeated, my comments are not intended to defend the underlying change in the Indecent Exposure statute, but to clarify the inaccuracies in the original post and subsequent comments. Not only is the original post misleading, but your classification of this as a new statute is also demonstrably wrong.

You may be right

It looks like the only thing added was (a2) the nipple part:

(a) Unless the conduct is punishable under subsection (a1) of this section, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

(a1) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14‑202.1.

(a2) For the purposes of this section, the term "private parts" means external organs of sex and of excretion, including the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast.

But unless I'm mistaken, (a2) applies to both (a) and (a1). I also don't think it's crystal clear that (a1) couldn't/wouldn't be used for the Asheville march thing, or even a sunbathing accident. That "for the purpose of" could be judged differently by different people.