Monday, March 11, 2019
Free the Nipple
In 2016, three women went topless in a beach in Laconia, New Hampshire. One was doing yoga, while the other two were sunbathing.When they refused to cover themselves after beach attendees complained, they were arrested. The Laconia law bans sex and nudity in public places but specifically applies to women by prohibiting the "showing of female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple." These women acted in coordination with the Free the Nipple campaign, a global group advocating for the right to be topless in public places. Is the law under which they were arrested justified? Does the law violate the rights of the women (such as free expression or sexual discrimination)? Is this a good example of restricting offending conduct that should be justified -- or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I have protested in class, #freethenip. The idea of nudity being “offensive” is a rather arbitrary tradition of society that we have been accustomed to since birth. I find it extremely hard to think of a counterargument – to pro-freedom for nudity – that is based on reason or logic, rather than “but it’s gross .” Someone who gets uncomfortable because of the occasional exposure of the female nipple will have to exercise self-control, as does just about everyone who already suppresses natural tendencies; it is just something to which one must become accustomed. I would make the argument that if it is illegal for women to expose a nipple or two in public, then it must also be illegal for men to do so if we want to exercise gender equality… #brokinis for a day at the beach with the boys? In all seriousness, this law is quite arbitrary and solely based on unreasonable traditions. I do not think the law should be able to intervene much with “offenses” that are visual. Things like racist t-shirts, partial nudity, etcetera should be legal, which would FORCE discussion about these things; this, in turn, would help people talk about and understand what they perceive as issues or inappropriate in society. Visually offensive things that should be regulated would be something like faking the murder of someone, which can cause serious psychological trauma to a witness. Anything that can result in traumatic stress afterwards, for a justified reason (racism and other ideas founded on harm/ oppression to others/ their rights are not justified), should be discussed by the political members of the state to conclude what really should be prohibited by law.
ReplyDeleteOffense is very subjective. What offends me may not offend you and visa versa. However, society can often agree upon certain actions that are ALWAYS offensive and thus, can justifiably restrict those actions. Feinburg explains this ideology, titling it the offense to others principle. He explains that since offense is oftentimes subjective, one must look towards objective principles in order to draw the line between where the government can and cannot restrict action. Taking into account the seriousness of an offense as well as the reasonableness of the offending conduct, the government can use its best judgment to make laws. This is why public sex is outlawed, since it is clear that people do not need to be in public to have sex. The issue with public nudity, however, is that it isn’t clear if the offense is serious enough to prohibit it. Many local governments have taken it upon themselves to declare nudity illegal, citing the offense to others principle as a justification. Society is pretty split upon whether or not it is just. Since women’s breasts are considered a sexual organ, the argument can be made that it can offend others and can be avoided just by wearing a shirt. There is a major flaw with this argument, though. The freedom of expression and importance to the person who is refusing to wear a top may outweigh the seriousness of the offense. If men don’t have to wear a shirt, why do women have to? Is this law sexist or is it just preventing unintended harms? If it can be ruled that nudity’s magnitude of harm completely outweighs any freedom of expression, then this law is justified. Yet since it is such a muddled, grey area, it is very difficult to find the justification for this law. Should women be ashamed of their sexuality? Or do people just prefer to not see naked people walking around (and is that enough of a reason to ban nudity)? Since I have not seen any evidence of the traumatic harms, I don’t believe the law is completely just; however, just because I haven’t seen the harms doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed in class, the idea of offense is subjective. What offends me might not offend someone else and vice versa. This is why I believe the arrest of the two women who were exposing their breasts on a public beach in New Hampshire is greatly unjustified. In Europe, many women go topless at beaches without any complaints, but our society has created social norms that expect women to cover certain parts of their bodies at all times. These norms, however irrational they may be, maintain their places in some people’s minds. The arrest in 2016 showed that the offense does not need to offend many people, so how can we arrest two women who are dressing as they please? The offending of one other person should not be enough to warrant the arrest of someone else; all people have different ideals and standards. Hence, the subjectivity of the principle. I believe there is a benefit to forming and enforcing laws based on the opinions and ideas of people because it prompts public debate over the ideas and opinions. However, I believe this is an example of a poor enforcement of the law because it also sexually discriminates against women who wish to not wear a top at the beach. Humans in their natural states should not offend us especially considering that is how we are born, and women’s nipples help feed their infant children. Breastfeeding is a whole other issue, but the idea of our society not allowing women to expose their chests while men can is a prime example of the discrimination. If the sight of a woman’s nipples in our society is deemed illegal because it offends, then shouldn’t men not be allowed to go topless in public as well?
ReplyDeleteThe "Free the Nip" movement has become quite controversial. Historically, society has not accepted the idea of public nudity. In examining the reasonableness of the offense however, it becomes clear that the "Free the Nipple" movement should be justified on the basis of freedom of expression. In Feinberg's book "Offense to Others," he analyzes the gray area where one must weigh the good of an action versus its potential harm to others. It is undisputed that any crime of physical harm should always be outlawed. However, it becomes difficult to define the legality of actions which may offend others through non-physical measures. The "Free the Nip" movement would fall into this gray area, and Feinberg would argue that the movement is justified by the means of expression of opinion. To promote liberty, it is essential that we protect the rights of self-expression. He argues that it is a necessary condition for any government like the United States to function. The importance of emotional expression is even furthered by J.S. Mill in "On Liberty" as he explains how discourse moves the ball forwards in our challenge to uncover true ideas. Therefore, the political and moral values of the "Free the Nip" movement in decreasing sexual discrimination should be evaluated of great significance. Feinberg concludes on this subject that no amount of offensiveness should compare to the importance of expression of opinions, and therefore we should attribute reasonableness to the movement.
ReplyDeleteI am personally not in accordance with the movement as I feel as if public indecency should be frayed away from. At the same time, I appreciate at the minimum the discussions around sexual equality that arise from the movement and that some change may be necessary. It is for discussions like this which make movements like "Free the Nip" so important to society. Putting aside beliefs for the correct outcome, the protests themselves are integral to our constitution and promoting good values throughout.
The Offense to Others principle applies here to the Free the Nipple movement, because they were not causing any harm, not harming themselves, and only exposing the part of their body that society deems inappropriate. For every one person there are two nipples, sometimes three, and while half of the world’s population, men, are able to wonder around with their nipples exposed, women like the three in Laconia were arrested and a convicted felon, maybe a sex offender due to public nudity. I’m not 100% sure on the whole sex offender thing, but I feel that it is an extreme that our society has naturally placed the Free the Nipple movement in that category. On the other hand, a woman’s nipple is the source of life for literally every single human, so the fact that we are covering the nipples up and not embracing them for what they do to our human population is almost insulting. Miley Cyrus once said in an interview with Jimmy Fallon that her breasts do not offend anyone, it is the nipple, and she can wear about a quarter size sticker on her nipple and it is appropriate for network TV. I believe that the law is outdated and needs to be reconsidered because we are teaching people that breasts are another form of genitalia instead of a natural source of food and a part of the woman’s body that is allowed to be embraced and not punished. The Free the Nipple movement tests the boundaries of society and the fact that people are so offended by it, in my opinion, is ridiculous. In class, I brought up breastfeeding and how recently it became a cultural acceptance when it used to be an awkward conversation. After centuries of woman breastfeeding the world somewhat came to a conclusion, and Freeing the Nipple should be justified and should be protected or at least regulated.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat one finds offensive is subjective. Depending on one’s values may or may not offend them in comparison to another person. Due to this reasoning, I believe the arrest of the two women who were exposing their breasts on a public beach in New Hampshire is unjust. In many other societies such as Europe, many women can go to public beaches without wearing a top. Our society expects women to cover certain parts of their bodies. Although I believe the arrest to be irrational, it still seems to be the consensus of our nation. The arrest of the two women is uncalled for since it offends the few. The offense of couple should not lead to arrest or other punishments. America is a melting pot of different cultures and ideas and for this reason, I feel we must take a second look at laws such as these as judge them as such. The law should either call for both men and women to wear tops or for men and women to both be giving the freedom to what they want to wear.
ReplyDelete