The horrible bill (HB 1525) that would enact a prohibition on female toplessness went down in flames 18-0 this week in the NH house criminal justice committee. It was a decisive move by the committee and came after a long public hearing where an overwhelming amount of people opposed the bill in verbal and written form.
Sparked by last year’s “Free the Nipple” protests, some prudish state representatives filed legislation that would make it a misdemeanor for women to be topless anywhere in New Hampshire. (They did make an exception for breast-feeding.) A topless lady would be facing up to a year in jail, were this terrible legislation to pass. Men would still be allowed to be topless under the discriminatory bill, HB 1525.
Thankfully, the bill is nearly dead thanks to a unanimous vote to kill it by the NH house criminal justice committee. The committee voted today 18-0 to “ITL” (Inexpedient to Legislate) the legislation. The bill is not yet off the table – that will happen later when the full house votes on it.
Liberty rep John A. Burt put forth the motion to ITL the bill and also wrote the majority “blurb” for the house calendar along with Free State Project early mover and state representative Amanda Bouldin. (Amanda previously had made headlines for defending topless freedom from attack by the prudish reps who proposed the topless ban.) Here’s the text of Burt and Bouldin’s blurb:
This bill expands the indecent exposure law to include the anus (regardless of gender) as well as the nipple and areola (only if female). The committee heard testimony from many who warned that, due to likely acts of civil disobedience, the state would face expensive court fees should this become law. The NHCLU testified that violation of such a law could be considered protected political speech, indicating that the state would be unsuccessful in litigation. The committee sees no sense in passing a law that cannot be enforced.
The committee also believes that this bill violates Art. 2 of the State Constitution, which states that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.” This bill attempts to apply a law to women only. This bill would also place police officers in the uncomfortable position of having to determine the gender of a potential offender. Lastly, an offender (if convicted) would be listed in the state’s sex offender registry after a second conviction, which many considered to be an excessive punishment.
In a state with a nippy average temperature of only 46 degrees, the risk of rampant nudity seems rather low. The committee considers this legislation inexpedient to legislate for these reasons.
Today is a decisive loss for the prudes. To them I say leave topless women alone – your kids will be fine. If you don’t like seeing female areola, then advocate all public property be abolished and turned private. Then you can have a private beach just for people who want to keep their clothes on.
Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest on Free the Nipple NH.
The Keene Liberty Alliance, a nonpartisan group of people who want smaller government in Keene, once again conducted an exit poll during today’s presidential primary, exclusively at Ward 4. As people exited the Symonds School after voting, they were invited to take our one question exit survey, which asked, “Do you think government is too big, too small, or just the right size?”
Of the 322 people who responded to the poll, 74.8% (241) said it was “too big”, 22.4% (72) said it was “just right”, and 2.8% (9) said it was “too small”.
We collected nearly 30 emails in just five hours. It was an incredibly successful day, due to the high turnout for the presidential primary. Both republicans and democrats alike are frustrated with the ridiculous size of the government and the Keene Liberty Alliance exists to bring people together from across the political spectrum to help reduce the size, scope, expense, and intrusiveness of the government.
FSP Founder Jason Sorens Speaks to Nearly 100 This Morning
Nearly one hundred liberty-loving early movers were in attendance for the press conference this morning held by the Free State Project at the Radisson in Manchester. FSP founder Jason Sorens spoke on the creation of the FSP and why the first 5,000 participants chose New Hampshire as the destination. Jason said,
“The free state project is working because it gives people hope”
That’s definitely true for me. When I moved here as an early mover for the FSP in 2006 I was pretty angry about the government. I felt very lonely in Florida, with little more than a handful of libertarians in the area. Now there are more liberty-minded people living at my intersection in Keene than there were in the entire city where I’m from.
With over 1,600 having moved across NH from all around the globe as early movers, (the official FSP move begins today) and having a major impact, it’s clear that there is hope for liberty here in the Shire. I’m not angry anymore and haven’t been for many years. I expect other libertarians who feel isolated or cornered where they live will have a similar transition when they are surrounded by people who actually care about liberty and are willing to do something about it. It’s quite encouraging to be here. Here’s the full video of the press conference:
After Jason Sorens’ speech, FSP president Carla Gericke got up to address the crowd and journalists in the room, officially announcing that the FSP has reached its goal of 20,000 liberty-minded folks signing and promising to move to New Hampshire within five years of today, Feb 3rd, 2016. It’s now been dubbed “Porcupine Day”, and happens right after Groundhog Day. (The porcupine is the mascot of the FSP.) Once here, the FSP movers are to put forth the maximum practical effort to achieve liberty in our lifetime. Carla explained to the audience what it took to get the project to completion, including a sustained, expensive ad campaign on Facebook, for which much credit was given to Vince Perfetto who is well known in the NH liberty community as the producer of the excellent documentary, “101 Reasons Liberty Lives in New Hampshire“. (more…)
Today at 11am, the FSP will be holding a press conference in Manchester to announce the good news. I’ll be there and do my best to tweet it live here via the Free Keene Twitter:
In the Summer of 2015, Heidi Lilley and B. Liz MacKinnon were ticketed on Gilford beach in alleged violation of the town’s ordinances. In late December, they went to trial at Laconia district court and Free State Project early mover and attorney Dan Hynes put on an excellent defense. Judge James M. Carroll took the case under advisement and has now issued his six-page order: both cases are dismissed!
Don’t get too excited. If you read the order, you’ll find that Judge Carroll is no hero of constitutional rights or equality. Page three of his order ridiculously cites the private Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings system as evidence of a supposed “societal desire” to regulate female toplessness. Carroll argues that because the state’s three prudish witnesses (the three snitches) don’t appreciate female toplessness and because the town gave notice of the existence of the ordinance, that somehow means the town ordinance doesn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution or Article 1 of the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Given that Article 1 only mentions men when it says, “All men are born equally free and independent”, is it Judge Carroll’s opinion that only men were born free and that women can be told what to wear, for the good of “society”? He’s not foolish enough to come right out and say that, but his order does make excuse after outrageous excuse for the town’s ordinance, claiming it’s constitutionally sound:
The township’s compelling interest is met in maintaining the beach as a natural resource to be enjoyed by young and old , men and women, families and single persons while preserving appropriate standards that allow the township to maintain their local values and mores…The Court does not find that the prohibition violates any constitutionally protected right…the movement “does not have ‘a right to impose one’s lifestyle on other who have an equal right to be left alone.
Topless Tuesday, Keene’s Central Square, 2010
So, if the social mores were that all women must wear burqas, because seeing any skin at all bothered people, it sounds like Carroll would consider that mandate constitutional as well.
Though Carroll defends the right to marry either gender, he says that such marriage is a protected right, while toplessness is not. On the final page, he claims the toplessness in this case had no artistic value, while on page three he acknowledges the female nipple “has been the subject of great beauty in art”. Apparently Carroll is an art critic now, too.
Ultimately, Carroll decides the case in the favor of the defendants, but not on the excellent constitutional or equal protection arguments made by attorney Hynes, but simply on a technicality of the system: (more…)
