« Previous | Main | Next »

November 14, 2017


A protester whose breasts were covered only by body paint was unable to persuade a federal appeals court that her First Amendment and equal-protection rights were likely violated when she was fined for violating Chicago’s public nudity law.

(Thanks to Kevin Smith)



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The protest "wasn't sufficiently expressive"?

I think we need pictures so we can decide for ourselves.

That's what happens when you can't hold your lacquer.

Its a crime there were no photos, that's what's a crime.

I believe all of the bloggers are in agreement that it's impossible to keep abreast of a situation like this without photographic evidence.

Didn't Tagami's Nudity open for Bowie?

Hmmm. Sexy picture of the courthouse.

Tastefully Done Body Painted Nipples First Amendment Right Approved opened for Dhillon and Ravi Shankar's daughter. Bonus appearance by Cheecago.

Put your hands together for, TDBPNFARA.

This is another "case-by-case basis" situation.

Do not support the public nudity. Remember the first rule of public nudity: The people who you want to see naked are never the people who want to get naked. Rules 2 through 10 are just rule 1 repeated.

Harvey W's houseplant, still awaiting trial, had no comment.

I volunteeer to uphold Chicago's topoless ban, I'll be glad to take matters in hand.

TOPLESS: I can spell I just cannot type, nor ( waiting in line for geezer bus) can I read the small print on my laptop.

It's hard to keep abreast of all these local ordinances.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise