- The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Several women lost their challenge to a city ordinance in New Hampshire preventing women from exposing their breasts in public, with the state Supreme Court saying bans on public nudity aren’t discriminatory.

“The ordinance prohibits both men and women from being nude in a public place,” the justices reasoned in their Friday ruling, upholding the ordinance in Laconia, New Hampshire.

Ginger Pierro had challenged the law after her 2016 arrest.

She’d gone to a public beach to practice yoga poses topless, and she rebuffed police warnings to cover up. She was arrested for violating the city law which makes it “unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally, in a public place: … [a]ppear in a state of nudity.”

The term “nudity” is described as “[t]he showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple.”



In protest of Pierro’s arrest, Kia Sinclair and Heidi Lilley went to another beach in Laconia and exposed their breasts a few days later, also getting arrested.

They said they were taking part in the “free the nipple” movement, which protests the different treatment of men and women who go topless in public.

The justices, though, said courts have generally upheld laws that prohibit women from exposing their breasts, citing a Washington Supreme Court case that upheld the different treatment “because there are more parts of the female body intimately associated with the procreative function.”

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide