Woman who sued Chicago over right to bare breasts loses appeal

By Jonathan Stempel

 

(Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court said Chicago can enforce an ordinance banning women from baring their breasts in public.

 

By a 2-1 vote, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago late on Wednesday rejected an appeal by a woman who was ticketed for exposing her breasts on national "Go Topless Day."

 

The dissenting judge objected to the majority's "premature" decision to endorse a law that she said might reflect "longstanding biases" toward how women should look in public.

 

Sonoko Tagami, a supporter of GoTopless Inc, a nonprofit advocating for a woman's right to go bare-chested in public, sued Chicago after being ordered to pay a $100 fine plus $40 in costs over an Aug. 24, 2014, protest where she walked about with "opaque" body paint on her breasts.

 

Tagami said Chicago violated her constitutional free speech and equal protection rights by letting men, but not women, bare their breasts.

 

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Diane Sykes said Chicago had an important interest in "promoting traditional moral norms and public order," and restricting exposure of "intimate, erogenous, and private" body parts.

 

"The list of intimate body parts is longer for women than men, but that's wholly attributable to the basic physiological differences between the sexes," wrote Sykes, joined by Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook.

 

Ilana Rovner, the dissenting judge, faulted the majority for "nakedly" declaring that Tagami's nudity, by itself, was not political protest.

 

"Tagami was not sunbathing topless to even her tan lines, swinging topless on a light post to earn money, streaking across a football field to appear on television, or even nursing a baby," Rovner wrote. "Her conduct had but one purpose - to engage in a political protest challenging the city's ordinance on indecent exposure."

 

Rovner said Tagami deserves her day in court, and a lower court judge should not have dismissed her lawsuit.

 

"Do I relish the prospect of seeing bare-chested women in public?" Rovner wrote. "As a private citizen, I surely do not. (I would give the same answer with respect to bare-chested men.)

 

"But I speak here strictly as a judge, with the responsibility to accord Tagami her constitutional rights."

 

Tagami's lawyer, Joel Flaxman, in an interview said his client was disappointed and reviewing her legal options. "The majority went way too far in accepting the city's justification of promoting traditional moral norms and public order," he said.

 

Bill McCaffrey, a spokesman for Chicago's law department, welcomed the decision. "These laws have a long history, and they are also extremely common," he said.

 

The case is Tagami v City of Chicago et al, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 16-1441.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn and Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-10

What a shame !!....the judge should have not only let these fine ladies off,  but also thanked them all, for sharing in a charming public display !!

Edited November 9, 20178 yr by observer90210

The ups and downs of this case made me dizzy!

I think that the ruling is a huge travesty of justice women should be allowed to display those knockers when ever they they like providing the are aesthetically in appearance and not the kind that remind you of your mother.... 

On my many trips to Toronto, where it is not illegal, I have yet to see one woman taking up her right (or left either for that matter). It seems that women (72% according to one survey) are the main objectors to other women going topless in public.

36 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

On my many trips to Toronto, where it is not illegal, I have yet to see one woman taking up her right (or left either for that matter). It seems that women (72% according to one survey) are the main objectors to other women going topless in public.

They dont want the extra L competition ?

Before reading the article, the headline had me thinking that this woman had lost her attractiveness due to some physical reason like boob flop.

Boobs and constitutional rights - common sense just flew out of the US window again ;-) 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Tagami said Chicago violated her constitutional free speech and equal protection rights by letting men, but not women, bare their breasts

I agree with her 100%. I know free speech is not absolute but allowing Nazis to march and spout hate speech while denying a woman to appear topless in public seems a more a judgement on morality than the US constitution.

3 hours ago, DoctorG said:

On my many trips to Toronto, where it is not illegal, I have yet to see one woman taking up her right (or left either for that matter). It seems that women (72% according to one survey) are the main objectors to other women going topless in public.

Not sure you were in Toronto on National topless day but some women do  celebrate this right. Also mothers breast feeding in public can be seen regularly.

I htink this says it all:

A LOOK AT DIANE SYKES, POSSIBLE TRUMP SCOTUS NOMINEE

http://www.newsweek.com/profile-diane-sykes-trumps-possible-scotus-nominee-531588

Easterbrook was nominated to the court by Ronald Reagan on August 1, 1984 to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333, 346; the United States Senate did not act on his nomination that year, and he was renominated in Reagan's second term on February 25, 1985.^[2]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_H._Easterbrook}

1 hour ago, Ulic said:

I agree with her 100%. I know free speech is not absolute but allowing Nazis to march and spout hate speech while denying a woman to appear topless in public seems a more a judgement on morality than the US constitution.

Nazis?

I really thought those bast*** were a thing of the past from Germany.  Using that name again and again gives that dirt a kind of popularity. 

Awful.

I bet she feels a right tit now.

When it comes to the crunch, these bloody Americans are such fuddy duddies

Liberate them I I say !!!!!!

It's 'not" illegal to go topless in New Hampshire, USA or in New York City and several other states

 

http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150802/NEWS/150809948

 

https://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/four-ways-you-can-legally-bare-your-breasts-in-nyc-082416

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/24/434315957/topless-in-new-york-the-legal-case-that-makes-going-top-free-legal-ish

 

Besides the above performers I have seen women walking around Central Park and on subway topless 

Edited November 10, 20178 yr by Tony125

4 hours ago, Ulic said:

I agree with her 100%. I know free speech is not absolute but allowing Nazis to march and spout hate speech while denying a woman to appear topless in public seems a more a judgement on morality than the US constitution.

She was allowed to "march" though

"Marching ", public displays of protest are allowed , public nudity isnt allowed

The right decision would be only to allow women with perky boobs to go topless. Nobody wants to see flappy ones. They should also create a committee to determine the perkiness. A license to show boobs. 

Let those babes 'show-em'...........

Especially to muslim male terrorists, might get rid of some of those 'backpack bombers' before they take others with them.........

Young  and firm  is an  acceptable visual.  But   sagging  used maternal   extensions are  not   my  thing.

I  have  never   been a  boob  man  anyway.

Would  like   to   understand   how  the  world (?)  has  been  made  to  believe    breasts  are  a  sexual  organ ! 

So, she has the right to bear arms but not breasts.

18 hours ago, Tony125 said:

Besides the above performers I have seen women walking around Central Park and on subway topless

Photos and videos or it didn't happen. 

Personally I'm all for it.  If men can bare their breasts, then not allowing women to bare their breasts is totally sexist!!!  Now, where in Antifa when you need them?

On 11/9/2017 at 5:57 PM, DoctorG said:

On my many trips to Toronto, where it is not illegal, I have yet to see one woman taking up her right (or left either for that matter). It seems that women (72% according to one survey) are the main objectors to other women going topless in public.

Vancouver promotes clothing-optional Wreck Beach, and occasional topless birds are seen on other public beaches.

this story is worthless without pictures

this story is worthless without pictures

Don't get too worked up just google Sonoko Tagami. A flat chested plain looking Japanese.

 

She could get a short haircut then go topless in the park. Police will pass her by as she can pass easily for a 12 year old school boy.

 

 

 

 

The Americans are such hypocrites! Home of pornography and the most sexist music videos

 

Who cares? Leave it to the individual! 

 

I find cows udders off putting can we get those covered up. BIG boost for the bra industries.

On 11/10/2017 at 2:08 AM, DrTuner said:

The right decision would be only to allow women with perky boobs to go topless. Nobody wants to see flappy ones. They should also create a committee to determine the perkiness. A license to show boobs. 

Bras sexualize breasts. They should be banned.