🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul S Galvanek (psg+@pitt.edu) wrote:
> >  FYI, a skillful breast-feeder does not expose her breasts, even her nipple.
> >  The female anatomy and baby are typically covered.
> >
> >  Nonetheless, I have grave concerns about a law that makes a felony (not a
> >  misdemeanor) out of something as harmless as this.
>
> The trick as always Ken, is to ignore the spin being put on the bill and
> actually read it to see what it says.

  Admittedly, I have not read the bill.  And I agree that I should.

  But the concern I expressed was the gravity placed on the "crime", namely
  that __any__ illegal public nudity should be considered a felony, not a
  misdemeanor.

> I specifically address the activities of certain people who go out of their
> way to demonstrate breast feeding in public
  :
> Like the woman I saw in Schenely Park a few weeks ago, there is a segment
> of the earth first, radical vegetarian movements, who use feeding their 
> children as an excuse to try and force their views and behaviors on others.

  I agree with other responders that if this is the legislative intent, it
  clearly tramples on the First Amendment.

  As to the question of whether such a "normal" activity could be considered
  protected speech, I hasten to note that __a__ supreme court (can't recall
  if it was Calif or US) has ruled that panhandling(!) is protected speech.

  Not that I agree with the ruling.  But if mere panhandling can be construed
  as protected speech (I don't think the court ruling qualified the activity
  based on intent to express), it is no stretch of imagination at all to
  construe __intentional__ expression as protected speech, even if that
  expression is an activity considered "normal" behavior.

-- Ken Mintz