Attorney Dan Hynes, also an A+ rated state representative by the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, appeared in the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Thursday morning and pointed out the absurdity of prohibiting female toplessness, absolutely eviscerating the city of Laconia’s clearly discriminatory ban. In contrast, the state’s attorney actually argued that it was an issue of morality as she simultaneously admitted that a woman could wear pasties over her nipples and then it would be legal, even if the pasties were printed photos of nipples!
Are there really people who believe that the sight of nipples on a woman is immoral, but because it’s legal to cover them with photos of nipples, then it’s now moral?
Further, what exactly is immoral about female nipples being shown in public?
In case you missed it, here’s the original Free the Nipple trial from the original Gilford arrests (the case prior to this one, where the ladies won at the district court level). Hynes does an excellent job and the entire thing is pretty entertaining: (more…)
Join other Shire Society members inside and outside the Shire on the Forums.
Before the behemoth that is Facebook, there were forums. On these forums, people in communities were able to communicate about various things, and with the right amount of moderation, it worked well. Then Facebook came along and sucked up all the people and gave them terrible forums called “groups” where the only moderation tool is to delete discussion threads.
With forums, moderators can move threads between the forum’s subforums, meaning off-topic posts could be moved to more appropriate places in the overall forum. This cannot be done on facebook. There, one group is not connected with another group. An off-topic post will either be allowed to clutter the group, or it will be destroyed. There is no move option. That’s only one reason why Facebook groups suck, but it’s a major one.
So far my experience with Discourse has been very good. It’s snappy – posts appear instantly without having to reload an entire webpage. It’s got a modern feel and allows logins via a bunch of major accounts, including Google, Yahoo, GitHub, Facebook, and Twitter, and sharing of posts via Facebook and Twitter.
The Shire Society Forum has, despite its decline in popularity, still attracted new users over the years. Each month, there are new potential movers to the Shire who arrive and post an introduction, which is a requirement in order to enter the forum. Would you be willing to come welcome them? The forum has subforums for all the regions and major cities in New Hampshire and we’d welcome your input.
On Friday October 14, in Laconia district court, Judge Carroll heard the Motion to Dismiss for the Free the Nipple case. This case is unusual, in that I am thoroughly convinced that everyone in that room believed they were right, and was not engaging in rationalization to so believe.
I was able to get statements from two of the ladies who were being aggressed against by the State:
“My biggest problem with today’s hearing is the prosecutor kept ignoring the gender/sex discrimination. Cities are allowed to make rules, they just can’t make rules that only apply to women, or black people, or gay people, or Muslim.” – Kia
“How you choose to wear your body is a body rights and property issue. If you don’t own your body what do you own? It’s just as degrading to ask a woman to put a shirt on as it is to ask her to take it off. Nudity is a natural spiritual choice; I personally stand before my creator unashamed as his artwork, and the same should apply to a woman who chooses to wear a hijab.” – Ginger
The attorney for the protestors argued that the Laconia ordinance prohibiting female toplessness was unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates against women and is not authorized by the New Hampshire Constitution. New Hampshire is not a home rule state, which means that towns and other subdivisions of the State may only pass laws on matters which they are authorized by the New Hampshire legislature. The State of New Hampshire has not authorized its subdivisions to legislate on the topic of nudity or toplessness. (more…)
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…)
This isn’t legal advice, but it’s generally a bad idea to speak to police. The more talking you do, the closer you get to being issued a ticket or arrested for something. When the officer asks the routine question about the address on the license, he’s fishing to see if you’ve moved recently, and if you have done so without notifying the state within some amount of days. He can write you a ticket for that. So, by answering that question innocently, many people will walk themselves right into another fine.
Credit to Kenny Suiter for this simple approach to police stops that gives the driver the ability to respond to police questions, which is one’s natural inclination the police are trained to exploit, by simply informing them that you are not answering questions. Over and over. Here’s Kenny’s inspirational video.