🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53bidc$58a@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Paul S Galvanek <psg+@pitt.edu> wrote:
!In article <53b1r8$7jf@wanda.vf.pond.com>,
!Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
!>
!>You seem to think that this makes the bill acceptable, but it actually
!>makes it worse.  Now it's not just the exposure you're banning, but the use
!>of such exposure in political demonstrations -- which goes straight to
!>the heart of the First Amendment.
!
!It certianly does make it right as it has always been the case that while
!we have a right to free speech that speech is subject to some regulation.
!That's why while people have a right to protest abortions, they can be forced
!to do it from across the street of a clinic, free speech may give you the
!right to have access to certian types of pornography but that does't mean 
!you can set up a tv in a pulbic park and watch you favorite flick.  

you can set up a tv in a public park and watch your favorite flick if that
does not entail displaying explicit sex acts to the public.  (presuming you
have a power source for the tv, of course).

!Speech that includes public displays of nudity is going to be regulated 
!whether you like it not.  Public nudity is simply not acceptable behavior
!in most communites and if a adult theater can be prevented from displaying
!movie posters or handing out advertisements with nudity, women who go out
!of the way to display themselves while breast feeding are sure going
!to get regualted - why should a breast feeding mother be allowed to do 
!in public something thing with her body that no one else is permitted to
!do? 

breast feeding is not a form of speech.  women do not breast-feed their
babies to express themselves; they breastfeed because the babies need to be
fed and breast milk is the healthiest thing the babies can eat.

it is not a valid line of reasoning to compare breast feeding (the necessary
care and nurturing of an infant) to pornography (which depicts sexually
explicit material of adult interest).  there is nothing lewd or lascivious
about breastfeeding.

mothers (in general) do not "go out of the way to display themselves while
breast feeding";  they are simply responding appropriately to their infants'
needs.

the exposure of breasts simply does not constitue public nudity.  breasts
are a secondary sex characteristic (like facial hair on men); they are not
necessary for intercourse, and in fact, have no clearly defined function
other than producing milk to feed infants.  (sensitivity to sexual arousal is
not unique to the female breast, but is a function of male nipples as well, 
and is present in the female even before the breasts develop. )  making
exposure of the female's nipple illegal, but not the male's, is a very clear
case of sexual discrimination and unequal treatment under the law (which is why
such law has been struck down in the state of new york).

allow me to conclude with a personal question:  what do you have against
public nudity?  (presuming it is not accompanied by lewd/lascivious behavior)

!Paul S. Galvanek

-D-
-- 
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meet the
definition of a telephone fax machine.  By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.