Women's Boobs Are Not Free Speech, Says Federal Court

[Safety]

Really? I guess that means men don't own their bodies either. I mean, can I walk down the street naked from the waist down and call that free speech?

This is more an issue of society being prudes, than some woman's rights issue, IMO.

In this instance, it's about the law applying equally. Men and women can't walk down the street without underwear and pants on, however, men can walk around with their chest bared, but women can't.

[nic34]

Isn't the court saying women should control their boobs? Cover them, bra them.

Don't liberals tend to favor security over liberty?

Im confused, does that mean cons favor liberty over security? New to me.

[Chris]

Im confused, does that mean cons favor liberty over security? New to me.

Generally, yes.

[Ravens Fan]

In this instance, it's about the law applying equally. Men and women can't walk down the street without underwear and pants on, however, men can walk around with their chest bared, but women can't.

That is not what you said. You made it out to be men trying to control women's bodies. I personally have no issue with women going around bare chested, but society does. The female breasts are considered sex organs and therefore indecent in public. The male breast is not. The law addresses decency norms, so neither gender may legally be indecent in public. I would support removing the female breasts from the list of indecent body parts, but let's not pretend that male and female breasts are equal.

[Safety]

That is not what you said. You made it out to be men trying to control women's bodies. I personally have no issue with women going around bare chested, but society does. The female breasts are considered sex organs and therefore indecent in public. The male breast is not. The law addresses decency norms, so neither gender may legally be indecent in public. I would support removing the female breasts from the list of indecent body parts, but let's not pretend that male and female breasts are equal.

That is exactly what I said. "Just another example of how a woman doesn't own her body, and others try to control it." This is just one aspect of my point, there are several other examples of some people trying to control a female's body and what she can/can't do with it.

Your argument about it being about sex organs is irrelevant, because if that was the case, the National Geographic magazines that used to display females of different tribes would be in the pornography section.

[Ravens Fan]

That is exactly what I said. "Just another example of how a woman doesn't own her body, and others try to control it." This is just one aspect of my point, there are several other examples of some people trying to control a female's body and what she can/can't do with it.

So are you saying that the law is wrongly controlling women, or that it is not applied equally because men aren't controlled exactly the same?

Can I make the argument that a man doesn't own his body and others try to control it, since we must cover our genitals?

Your argument about it being about sex organs is irrelevant, because if that was the case, the National Geographic magazines that used to display females of different tribes would be in the pornography section.

My argument was spot on. Documentary's and pieces of art are generally exempt in our society from being labeled as pornography.

[Safety]

So are you saying that the law is wrongly controlling women, or that it is not applied equally because men aren't controlled exactly the same?

Both.

Can I make the argument that a man doesn't own his body and others try to control it, since we must cover our genitals?

False equivalency, women have to cover their genitals also.

My argument was spot on. Documentary's and pieces of art are generally exempt in our society from being labeled as pornography.

No, it was not. "Generally" key word, that makes it subjective, which makes it not relative on the basis of equal treatment.

[Ravens Fan]

Both.

Fair enough.

False equivalency, women have to cover their genitals also.

And why is that?

It is not a false equivalency, since both arguments are made about the Government forcing their control over an individual's body.

No, it was not. "Generally" key word, that makes it subjective, which makes it not relative on the basis of equal treatment.

Males are allowed to be naked in those examples as well. It is the decision of whether each instance is exempt or not that is subjective, not the gender of the person involved. videos or pictures of African tribes going about their daily lives with the men naked and woman wearing only bottoms are considered documentaries, not pornography. That is not based on what gender is being shown, but other circumstances.

[Safety]

And why is that?

It is not a false equivalency, since both arguments are made about the Government forcing their control over an individual's body.

You brought the argument that men can't walk around without pants, so therefore men don't own their bodies either, as a way to prop up your position. That is a false equivalency. There was never an argument about men or women not being able to wear or not wear lower garments in public, it was strictly about the unequal policy of saying women cannot show their chest like men can.

Males are allowed to be naked in those examples as well. It is the decision of whether each instance is exempt or not that is subjective, not the gender of the person involved. videos or pictures of African tribes going about their daily lives with the men naked and woman wearing only bottoms are considered documentaries, not pornography. That is not based on what gender is being shown, but other circumstances.

Again, based upon your argument, you called breasts "sex organs" therefore it should be covered, I countered the argument by saying there are sex organs on display outside of the pornography section, so your premise was/still is flawed.

[Mister D]

That is exactly what I said. "Just another example of how a woman doesn't own her body, and others try to control it." This is just one aspect of my point, there are several other examples of some people trying to control a female's body and what she can/can't do with it.

Your argument about it being about sex organs is irrelevant, because if that was the case, the National Geographic magazines that used to display females of different tribes would be in the pornography section.

There are all sorts of laws about what human beings can and cannot do with their bodies.