Breasts Are Dangerous To NJ’s Moral Sensibilties

“Restrictions on the exposure of the female breast are supported by the important governmental interest in safeguarding the public’s moral sensibilities,” the two-judge New Jersey Appeals Court panel.

A New Jersey Appeals Court ruled yesterday that women must keep their shirts on in public in order to safeguard the public’s moral sensibilites, according to The Star Ledger.

The plantiff, Phoenix Feeley, is appealing.

I must have been absent the day they taught moral sensibilities in Constitutional Law.  I think the judges should have phoenix-feelymade up different reason: If we let Phoenix Feeley go topless, we’d have to let Snooki do it, and that would create all kinds of public safety issues. 

New Jersey’s public employees pension system offends my moral sensibilities.  Let’s take a poll.  If the majority of the public agrees with me, let’s see the judges rule their own pensions unconstitutional.

phoenix-feely-jill-coccaroFeeley, whose real name is Jill Coccaro, sued New York City in 2005 because she was arrested while topless in the Big Apple.  New York’s top court had ruled years earlier that men and women have equal rights to bare their breasts. Feeley collected $29,000.  In 2008 she came to Spring Lake and tried to score again.

Ms. Phoenix, as she is known professionally, is the fire eating and breathing founder of NYC ALL STAR CIRCUS & FREE IGNITION.

She commented to the Ledger:

“In America, the land of the free and where equality reins free, a woman can’t take off her shirt but a man can,” she said. “In another country, a woman can’t take a scarf off her face without getting stoned to death. What’s so different about the two?”

Stoning to death.  That’s the difference.

Before appealing, Feeley should commission a poll to find if bare breast really do offend the public’s moral sensibilities.  If not, challenge the appellate court’s ruling on the facts.

Posted: September 16th, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: NJ Courts | Tags: , , | 6 Comments »

6 Comments on “Breasts Are Dangerous To NJ’s Moral Sensibilties”

  1. Jen Marie Purnell said at 1:29 am on September 16th, 2011:

    Hey Art! Hope you’re up for healthy debate…

    “Argumentum ad populum” is the flaw in argument on the premise that most, or many people believe something it must be true, good or right. Historical examples of this are endless: the world is flat, schools should stay segregated, and the one you just made. Public opinion shouldn’t be the premise for whether or not women go topless, logic should.
    Naturally, I understand the desire to shelter people from obscenity. But for that logic to be applied to this discussion, breasts must be assumed to be obscene, or represent immorality. If not, it is public opinion that needs changing, not laws regarding women’s clothing.
    I posit that they are not. Or at least, no more than men’s chests. The only physiological difference between the genders in breasts is in mass of fat and breast tissue. Ironically, we don’t forbid these from exposure. Cleavage is not illegal, nipple exposure is. Also, due to the great variation in breasts amongst both sexes, I find this to be a weak argument. Shall we forbid anyone with a B cup or larger to go bare breasted? Then heavy men are out. Petite, small chested women are in. Do nipples have great variation between sexes? Not enough to base legal arguments on it.
    The only thing argument left is the sexual objectification of breasts. This assumes the fact that they’re sexually appealing causes them to be immoral. Not only is this argument weak relative to the gender discrimination one, but my natural reaction to it is, “oh, grow up”. And exposure to them (as with exposure to bikinis) will habituate people to their shock value, once made legal.
    Further, women’s breasts actually have purpose in being exposed: breastfeeding. Men’s chest exposure serves none.

    Of course, your thoughts are welcome.

  2. ArtGallagher said at 7:13 am on September 16th, 2011:

    Hey Jen!

    If the courts ruled for equal rights instead of public moral sensibilities, whats next? Gay marriage perhaps?

  3. TR said at 8:02 am on September 16th, 2011:

    Free love, free sex, anything goes,1960’s, nudity, slippery slope,immorality, perverts, hows that worked out for society so far?

    You can fill in the rest.

  4. MoreMonmouthMusings » Blog Archive » The Situation May Not Be As Bad As It Seems said at 9:00 am on September 16th, 2011:

    […] and ONE VOICE might have better luck in the courts. Earlier this week the Appeals Court set public moral sensibilities as a standard for what is legal in New Jersey.  If Vitale can convince a judge that the […]

  5. Ed said at 3:54 pm on September 16th, 2011:

    To provide a male counterpoint to Jen’s female view, I agree with this ruling. For every one woman such as Ms. Phoenix whom I would love to see walking around topless everyday, there are about 40 women whom I see everyday that I thank God for that they ARE wearing tops, and maybe about 10 I wish would wear MORE. So I’m cool with ruling. 🙂

  6. MoreMonmouthMusings » Blog Archive » Topless Rights Advocate Jailed in Monmouth said at 9:11 am on August 6th, 2013:

    […] Phoenix Feeley is serving time at the Monmouth County Correctional Institution rather than pay fines for going topless in Spring Lake five years ago. […]