Amanda Bouldin Makes Headlines Defending Topless Freedom Against Prudish Male State Reps

State Rep Amanda Bouldin, UBER Customer

State Representative Amanda Bouldin, Founder of Shire Sharing

What started as a rude facebook post on Tuesday by a supposedly “A+” rated state rep named Josh Moore, became a media firestorm of support for Free State Project early mover and “A+” rated Manchester state rep Amanda Bouldin, who defended topless freedom against Moore’s attacks. Bouldin is also known for creating Shire Sharing, a charity that feeds hundreds of NH families in need each year at Thanksgiving.

Despite being highly rated by the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, Moore is the co-sponsor of discriminatory, anti-freedom legislation, HB-1525FN that would criminalize female toplessness across New Hampshire. On Tuesday, Bouldin took to her Facebook page with a response, pointing out that all the sponsors of the proposal are male republicans, calling them out on their hypocrisy, in that they claim to supposedly support smaller government, but in this case they are advocating for its expansion.

In response, Moore comments:

“I’ll see you on the house floor. I have obviously have more respect for a women and her innocence and decency than than women who are support public nudity.” – State Representative Josh Moore

State Representative Josh Moore

State Representative Josh Moore

He later added, then deleted:

“Who doesn’t support a mothers right to feed? Don’t give me the liberal talking points Amanda. If it’s a woman’s natural inclination to pull her nipple out in public and you support that, than you should have no problem with a mans to stare at it and grab it. After all, it’s ALL relative and natural, right?” – State Representative Josh Moore

Does Moore really believe that a woman going topless justifies a man committing assault and grabbing it? It’s hysteria like this that needs to end. They are breasts. Men and women both have them – it’s a basic human liberty to be as clothed as one wishes on your own, or public property.

Moore and his cohort, state representative Al Baldasaro were subsequently eviscerated on Amanda’s facebook thread, by countless libertarians. During the process, Baldasaro weighed in with another rude quip:

“No disrespect, but your nipple would be the last one I would want to see. You want to turn our family beach’s into a pervert show.” – State Representative Al Baldasaro

(All spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors by Moore and Baldasaro were left intact.)

Somewhere along the line, Slate published a piece featuring Moore and Baldasaro’s ridiculous support of oppressing topless freedom. That then led to several more major websites picking up the story. Here’s a quick rundown:

Thanks to the prudish state reps who just helped skyrocket Bouldin’s name into the publicity stratosphere! Here’s a bunch more of the coverage she received today.

Here’s the NECN piece:

The articles have had tens-of-thousands of shares and countless comments. Stay tuned here to Free Keene to see how this awful legislation fares once it gets heard by the state house committee to which it is assigned. It will be open for public comment, and I plan to be there to capture it on video. With these prudish state reps promoting the bill, the hearing should be quite ridiculous.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. Obviously he does not belong in politics and should be on the streets. This is totally unacceptable for anyone grabbing a body part is a crime. If

  2. Interesting. I’ve never heard of her but I find there are more problems to be worked on then women walking around shirtless.

  3. .Running other peoples lives for them always sounds suspicious to me.

  4. @Jumping Jacks: I agree that there are far more pressing problems. Unfortunately, your buddies Moore (the would-be molester) and Baldasaro, among a few other malcontents, disagree. They seem to think that the law needs to be changed to criminalize a currently-legal activity.

    But what’s “interesting” is your claim that you’ve never heard of Bouldin. She authored the life-saving naloxone bills that you irrationally rand about and, as mentioned in this very article (lest you claim you could not have realized it was the same individual) created Shire Sharing, the charity you have attacked for the dastardly act of feeding the hungry. So, since you’ve posted attacks against her and the things she’s worked on in response to quite a number of other articles here, how is it that you can claim never to have heard of her? Are you lying? Or are you just so lacking in mental capacity that you cannot recall simple facts after a scant few days pass?

  5. (in a television newscasters voice) …and in other news today, Governor Maggie Hassan suggested a “bi-partisan solution” to the nipple controversy by allowing one female nipple to be displayed.

    Thanks Government!!!

  6. I say these fuckin whores put some clothes on, and if Amanda intends to be taken seriously as a state rep, she should come up with a better argument than “muh soginy”

  7. Flint – I have no clue as to what you are talking about. How are those people my “buddies”? Did I say I agree with them? Did I say I hang out with them? You’re issues are not my issues. I prefer to live in 2016. If these women want to run around topless, I’m sure there are nude beaches around. It’s a ridiculous argument wasting tax payer money and time. Just like you.

  8. @Jumping Jacks: Saying that someone else has “no clue” after you just declared that you’ve never heard of someone about whom you’ve written multiple complaints is kind of ridiculous.

    It’s currently the law in NH that women can be topless anywhere a man can be topless. Neither is nudity, so there would be no reason for it to take place at a nude beach. (incidentally, you repeatedly prove that you are not actually in NH, and know nothing about NH, since pretty much everyone in NH knows that there are not actually any publicly-accessible nude beaches here)

    Since it’s currently the law that toplessness is legal for one sex anywhere it’s legal for the other sex, the only ones who could even possibly be “wasting tax payer money and time” would be the ones who are actually, you know… doing so, by attempting to change that law. Leaving the law alone would, by definition, cost no money and no time. Those seeking to change the law have already caused the State to spend money and time in the process of converting their proposal into an actual bill, and intend to continue doing so.

  9. The right of men to stare at it and grab it? Okay… staring is fine. You can’t expect to be invisible while going topless in public, and people are going to stare. Don’t like it? Then don’t do it. But grabbing? No freakin’ way! That crosses a line and violates the rights of another!

  10. Amazing that this topic is what gets 1000s of shares. Of course No concern about debt and economic collapse ?? Who cares about nipples !!! I guess I am a financial nerd
    Although I must say For some reason seems to be it’s always the fatter and uglier ones who want to show their tits.

  11. Flint – Again you have failed to converse intelligently. There are nudity laws in New Hampshire.

    New Hampshire Naturist and Anti Nudity Laws:

    * § 645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness.

    I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm.

    I suggest you study a lot harder then you have.

  12. @Jumping Jacks: Seriously… the word “intelligent” should never even come out of your mouth. You aren’t merely failing to grasp what others are posting, right here, but are failing to recall things which have already been discussed, elsewhere. Like your apparent lack of recollection of Bouldin, among many other issues.

    Anyway – as has already been discussed many times – RSA645:1 does not apply to toplessness, since nipples are not genitalia. Hence why these psycho legislators want to change it. You do recall that this article is about a bill they submitted to seek a change, right?

    This is pretty basic reading comprehension. Who is seeking a change? The ones who want the law left alone, or the ones who want it changed? I’m pretty sure that any three-year-old could figure this out. “Mary Smith wants things to stay the way they are, but Billy Bob wants things changed. Who wants things changed?” This is “See Spot Run” level, here… and you’re failing at it.

  13. So much for “Live free or die”!!!

  14. @Miss KarenLyn: NH has one of the largest legislatures in the world. Despite having a fairly small population. The NH House has 400 members. There are always a few nutcases among the rest. Being a legislator in NH is no big deal. Moore was elected by 4800 votes and, as far as I was able to tell, this is his first term. After his despicable behavior, it’s probably his last term. NH changes legislators faster than the parents of a newborn change diapers, and for much the same reason in many cases.

  15. Why is it only the fat, ugly and unattractive women who want to bare their breasts? Where are all the hot chicks that want to do this?

  16. Having small children being able to see a women’s bare breasts on a public beach violates the rights of parents … but other people’s rights don’t matter to freetards when they want to do something.

  17. Having people living in your community that think the laws do not apply to them and they are free to do as they please, regardless if they violate the rights of others, sounds suspicious to me.

  18. @Eddie: Presumably, running away from you. Toplessness has been legal in NH for as long as I can recall, and plenty of women exercise their freedom each year on the beaches. I’ve seen pretty every conceivable body type represented. I’m say that it’s most likely the case that whichever type you happen to find attractive sees you being a creep, and avoids you (whether they are topless or not – the behavior you exhibit would chase away any woman of substance or integrity).

  19. … or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm.”

    I think that covers that right there. You might not consider a woman bearing her breasts on a public breach as an act of gross lewdness that causes affront or alarm … but a parent of a young child might think otherwise.

    But, of course, being respectful of others feelings or rights in the community is something freetards epically fail at.

    Lewd: “showing, or intended to excite, lust or sexual desire, esp. in an offensive way; lascivious”

  20. “calling them out on their hypocrisy”

    “It’s hysteria like this that needs to end”

    Fair enough, but set an example by avoiding phrases such as:

    “were subsequently eviscerated”

    (rebuked, chastised, reprimanded, admonished, scolded, etc. would have been better)

  21. @Eddie: Sorry, but exposed nipples is not “gross lewdness.” Even exposed genitalia are not “gross lewdness.” Hence why the law actually separately describes exposed genitalia as an offense; if they were part of “gross lewdness,” then the law would not mention them, because “gross lewdness” would cover it all.

    So, unless you are going to try and argue that nipples are somehow “more lewd” than genitalia, you’re out of luck. And remember that the NH Constitution prohibits discrimination, so even if you could somehow make that argument, it would have to apply to male nipples every bit as much as to female nipples.

    “Gross lewdness” actually means things like masturbating while clothed; acts where the genitalia are covered, but the behavior is still lewd.

    “Having small children being able to see a women’s bare breasts on a public beach violates the rights of parents … but other people’s rights don’t matter to freetards when they want to do something.”

    No, actually, it doesn’t. There is no more a right to avoid seeing female breasts in public than there is a right to avoid seeing male breasts in public. Both are identical structures, and both are fully-lawful in public. If someone wants to keep their children from seeing that, they are free to avoid public beaches. Just like they are free to do the same if they want to keep their children from seeing people with tattoos, or people with a particular skin color, or whatever.

    Being in public means being exposed to the public. Breasts no more violate anyone’s rights than do religious displays. I wonder how Moore would feel if atheist parents used your argument and demanded that all crosses be hidden, because it violates their rights as parents for their children to be exposed to Christianity. Think that would be a good idea? I bet those “freetards” would condemn such a bill, wouldn’t they, since they aren’t hypocrites who only want the freedoms that they care about, and no similar protection for others…

  22. ” Sorry, but exposed nipples is not “gross lewdness.”

    Sorry, Flint, but you’re not the authority on the law around here; that is for a judge to decide.
    Based on how it’s all going, I’m guessing that there will not be any bare breasts freely wandering around NH public beaches next summer.

  23. @Eddie: Actually, the legislature gets to decide, when the write the law. Judges are obligated to follow that. And the legislature already decided to clearly indicate that exposed genitals are separate from “gross lewdness” by, you know, separating them. NH courts have not even once ruled in the way you claim they should. Not once. Feel free to try and cite a case, if you imagine they have.

    Your prediction sounds like the ones we keep hearing from Jumping Jacks. He has a 100% failure rate with his predictions. I expect you’re similar, by the sound of things.

    It also wouldn’t even matter what the law says, because the Constitution trumps any statute, and the Constitution bans discriminatory laws. The legislature could ban both male and female nipples, but a law which discriminates against women, only, is patently unconstitutional.

  24. @Flint: “It also wouldn’t even matter what the law says, because the Constitution trumps any statute, and the Constitution bans discriminatory laws. The legislature could ban both male and female nipples, but a law which discriminates against women, only, is patently unconstitutional.”

    LoL. Right. It’s amazing how far from reality you actually are regarding these issues. “The Constitution says…”. That’s not how it works, no matter how you wish it otherwise.

    The laws are reviewed (if asked) by justices and they decide if something is constitutional or not based upon their interpretation of the NH Constitution and historical precedent – not you. The legislature gets to make laws and change the NH Constitution if they so desire – not you. The people vote for those legislators. The whole shebang gets trumped by the US Constitution, if necessary.

    Am I going too fast for you?

    Now I know you freetards don’t like the Feds, but that’s the way our system works. If you don’t like it, feel free to move somewhere else more in tune with your beliefs. NH is never going to secede from the union, so you might want to contact a realtor now and pack your shit.

    In the meantime, stop mewling about “The Constitution”; you don’t know what you’re blabbering on about. It’s not so black-and-white like you apparently think it is.

    For someone like yourself who thinks they’re so knowledgeable when it comes to the law and the “Constitution” … you’re actually rather naive and simple-minded.

  25. @Eddie: We’re not talking about my interpretation. We’re talking about what it actually says – what’s actually been upheld by the courts. Mothers are no longer automatically assumed to be the custodian of children in a divorce. Et cetera. Laws are not allowed to discriminate; that’s been settled by the courts, already.

    And no, the Federal Constitution couldn’t “trump” that. NH have a Constitution which is less restrictive of the government than the Federal Constitution permits. But the NH Constitution is permitted to be more restrictive. For example, NH does not allow many sorts of eminent domain abuses which are perfectly acceptable on the Federal level. Our government is bound by the more-restrictive provisions of the NH Constitution.

    So, from what we’ve seen, you apparently know literally nothing about how this works. This isn’t just a matter of others being more knowledgeable than you because they have some special level of knowledge. This is a matter of others being more knowledgeable than you because they have at least as much knowledge as a fourth-grader.

    Speaking of which, no the Legislature does not get to change the Constitution – they can vote with a 3/5 majority to propose amendments to the voters, but only the People can actually amend the Constitution (requiring a 2/3 majority). This is pretty basic civics, and anyone who actually votes in NH would know that, since we’ve had several amendments on the ballot in the past few cycles.

    I note that you’ve failed to provide any caselaw to support your claim that the courts view women’s nipples as “grossly lewd.” Found out that they haven’t made that ruling, didn’t you?

  26. That should be “NH may not have a Constitution which is less restrictive of the government than the Federal Constitution permits.” Not sure how the computer managed to eat just two words, but the comment system does seem to be a bit screwy today…

  27. Hey flinty, really, “NH have a constitution ?”
    It’s has a constitution, how can anyone take you seriously with your incoherent ramblings, eh flinty?

  28. “And no, the Federal Constitution couldn’t “trump” that.

    Gosh, some big-and-bad know-it-all like yourself is not familiar with the the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the US Constitution? I’m shocked. Look it up, Flint.

    p0wned … again.

  29. @Eddie: If you were actually capable of reading, you would see that I already addressed supremacy. If the Federal Constitution is more restrictive on some point, supremacy says that it takes over.

    Sort of like how if I put up a “no smoking sign,” smoking is not allowed, even though it isn’t illegal. But if it were illegal, I couldn’t put up a “smoking welcome” sign and say that the law does not apply. Whichever is most restrictive holds sway.

  30. well, the remarks are obviously inappropriate and misguided. However, you putting Bouldin in a pedestal immediately is amusing. You then continue it by saying that since Republicans are not for big government, they are hypocritical for calling for any sort of increase government oversight whatsoever. Lastly, you head down the pedantic road of flaunting their lack of grammar skills. By focusing on such things, you reveal how trashy your publication really is. All the best.

  31. If it is actually legal, just let them do what they want until the law changes or local ordinances are allowed to prevail. As with anything else, once the publicity fades, so will the activity itself. In an age where people feel less than complete unless they can find an entirely unnecessary controversy to stir up, or a way to normalize something that is not the norm, we are going to see this over and over. Free the nipple, all colleges are racist, and so on. As for Reps that are stupid enough to say what they are thinking without restriant, and on social media no less – I would hope there is a way to pull them from their positions. That is, unless their comments were done through an alias account of some sort just to .. well .. stir up controversy. Next controversy please.

  32. and so sorry for typos, i suck at typing and I readily admit that, even though I know how to spell 🙂

Care to comment?