In the last post, one of the headlines read, “Legislators Behind N.H. ‘Nipple Bill’ Warn of Societal Decline.” On the pretense of shielding families and children from the sight of nipples, particularly on NH beaches, the legislators proposed making such exposure a misdemeanor. Further, it was suggested that upon a second offense the individual be listed in the state’s sex offender registry. Several lawmakers held that if women wanted to display their breasts in public, they should allow men to grab them. At a public hearing supporters of the bill suggested that allowing toplessness on beaches would lead to women going topless at public libraries and Little League games. In yet more specious reasoning, some women argued that since men and women were equal and men need not wear tops, women should not be required to either. This whole issue originated in a case brought forward in one town. Interestingly enough, while a judge dismissed the case, he said the First Amendment did not protect female toplessness as a symbolic expression.
Fast forward to this past week: “N.H. House Rejects ‘Nipple Bill.’” The House ruled against making it a crime for women to expose their breasts or nipples in public. Although there were still multiple arguments of how such exposure would lead to moral decline, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee warned that passing the bill would lead to acts of civil disobedience and costly law suits.
Comic relief: a report said that “In a state with an average temperature of only 46 degrees, the risk of rampant nudity seems rather low.”
Dorothy C. Judd © 2016
Next Post: Mon., March 21st