florida news

Ten Florida women, including an 11-year-old girl and the descendant of women's rights pioneer Elizabeth Cady Stanton, are suing for the simple right to remove their shirts when and where men enjoy the privilege.

The Brevard Chapter of the ACLU of Florida filed suit in Brevard County Court to challenge county and state laws as well as state park rules, all of which prohibit women from exposing their chests except while breastfeeding, while at the same time allowing men the privilege whenever and wherever they wish. The lawsuit states that the women seek the right to be topfree "during their work, beachgoing, gardening, sunbathing, swimming, other outdoor activities, and in other nonsexual contexts as often are their husbands, sons, fathers, and other men."

A recent amendment to the Florida Constitution states that all "natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law". The new equal rights amendment was passed overwhelmingly by Florida voters in November 1998. The Topfree 10 now claim the simple, personal, physical right to appear in public with the same freedom that men enjoy without question and would be unlikely to give up.

1. Women are inhibited, physically uncomfortable, and endangered" because they cannot be topfree "in times of hot weather or strenuous activity." This discomfort also acts as a barrier to certain kinds of employment.

3. Women "are uncomfortably aware that, solely because of their gender, they are being forced to conduct and array themselves differently than are men."

5. Breastfeeding is effectively inhibited and discouraged due to the criminalization of the female breast even if breastfeeding itself is narrowly exempted.

6. Laws criminalizing women are "harmful, irrational, arbitrary, and capricious restrictions because of patriarichal, prurient, and otherwise unhealthy attitudes".

The lawsuit states that government reasons for criminalizing the female chest are ridiculous and serve no important governmental interest. Noted in the lawsuit is the medical fact that the human female breast is no more of a sex organ than a male breast.

In 1986 a woman represented herself in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and won a court victory stating that the D.C. nudity law did not apply to any body part but genitals. Since then the District of Columbia has been legally female topfree.

In 1992 New York's highest state court ruled that women could be topfree in public. Since 1992 women in the highly populous State of New York have enjoyed the right to bare their chests whenever men could do so. As one New York Justice wrote in his concurring opinion, "One of the most important purposes to be served by the equal protection clause is to ensure that 'public sensibilities' grounded in prejudice and unexamined sterotypes do not become enshrined as part of the official policy of government." Although the case was not precisely decided on equal protection grounds by the court majority, New York voters have had no interest in changing the law to re-criminalize topfree women.

In 1996 the Province of Ontario, Canada's most populous provice, became legally topfree due to a criminal court challenge by Gwen Jacob. Because the highest court in Ontario was interpreting a Canadian federal law, this case has set an important precedent for all of the other provinces in Canada. Attempts to change the law to re-criminalize women have not been supported by Canadian voters.

As a result of the Gwen Jacob victory, women throughout other provinces in Canada have challenged local and federal laws seeking to criminalize the female breast. A Canadian professor has organized the Topfree Equal Rights Association (T.E.R.A.) to help these cases.

In 1998 charges of indecent exposure were dismissed against three women who were arrested for baring their breasts in Moscow, Idaho. Sounding a familiar theme of political challenge through civil disobedience, one of the defendants, Natalie Shapiro, stated, "We need to challenge unjust laws by peacefully breaking them. That generates attention and controversy and makes people think about why those laws exist in the first place." Although the City Council proposed a new ordinance to criminalize female breasts, the female Council members opposing the new ordinance outnumbered the male Council members in favor. Thus Moscow, Idaho remains legally topfree for women.

In 1998 a Maine woman who had been mowing her lawn without a shirt for three summers faced the threat of police action when a neighbor complained. However, Maine state law does not criminalize female breasts. When the neighbor put a law on the town ballot to criminalize topfree women, town voters rejected it.

In a curious loop of history, the female rights movement in the United States began in Rochester, New York, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as a principle pioneer. In her own time Elizabeth Cady Stanton was ridiculed for wearing bloomers instead of a floor-length skirt. In 1986 seven Rochester women challenged their arrests and convictions for being topfree in a park during a picnic, with the result that in 1992 New York's highest court made female topfree legal throughout the entire state (see above). In 1999 Cathy Stanton, the 63-year old great-great-granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is a plaintiff in the Florida suit.

The Plaintiffs in the suit live throughout Florida. All female members of the local ACLU board are plaintiffs. Most of the plaintiffs are mothers and grandmothers. One plaintiff is a 10 year old girl who suddenly can now be criminalized and hauled off to the county jail under the local county anti-nudity ordinance, should she take off her shirt in public, regardless of the biological fact that at such an age a girl's breasts are still indistinguishable from a boy's breasts. The girl's mother, Jan Frandsen, a plaintiff who evinces a fierce maternal disapproval of government threats against her daughter, says that "These discriminatory laws are all the more insidious because they are government-sponsored and government-sanctioned. It's legalized sexual harassment."

Shirley Mason, another plaintiff, states that "I am the daughter of African-Americans who moved to Minnesota to escape the Deep South and its oppressive Jim Crow laws. My ancestors paid a heavy price in this country so I would never have to settle for legalized government discrimination again." Mason also notes that "For nearly 18 years, women sunbathing topfree on Miami beaches has been commonplace, safe and uneventful. It has not caused any negative secondary effects on women, children or property values in our community - just the opposite. With this lawsuit, I'd like to right the obvious wrong of gender-biased, anti-nudity laws."

Another plaintiff, Kayla Sosnow, has endured the experience of being arrested and serving 20 days in jail for the 'crime' of taking her shirt off in the 90 degree Florida heat in a forest. Meanwhile her male companion was pointedly allowed his comfortable topless freedom by police.

T.A. Wyner, a prominent 'life-long skinnydipper', plaintiff, successful civil rights litigator, and ACLU board member in Ft. Pierce states that "The idea is that men will be out of control at the mere sight of a woman's breast, so they legislate to women who want to be free of a bikini top. There have been nudist communities in Florida for the past 50 years, and that response doesn't exist."


	Ten Women Sue for Topfree Rights in Florida ACLU Suit Seeks Equal Right of Dress for Women (Suit Re-Filed 16 May 2000 in 18th Judicial Circuit Court!) Ten Florida women, including an 11-year-old girl and the descendant of women's rights pioneer Elizabeth Cady Stanton, are suing for the simple right to remove their shirts when and where men enjoy the privilege. The Brevard Chapter of the ACLU of Florida filed suit in Brevard County Court to challenge county and state laws as well as state park rules, all of which prohibit women from exposing their chests except while breastfeeding, while at the same time allowing men the privilege whenever and wherever they wish. The lawsuit states that the women seek the right to be topfree "during their work, beachgoing, gardening, sunbathing, swimming, other outdoor activities, and in other nonsexual contexts as often are their husbands, sons, fathers, and other men." The women are represented by a female attorney, Lisa Kuhlman Tietig, through the American Civil Liberties Union. A recent amendment to the Florida Constitution states that all "natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law". The new equal rights amendment was passed overwhelmingly by Florida voters in November 1998. The Topfree 10 now claim the simple, personal, physical right to appear in public with the same freedom that men enjoy without question and would be unlikely to give up. The lawsuit notes many harms which women must endure due to being unable to remove their shirts in public: 1. Women are inhibited, physically uncomfortable, and endangered" because they cannot be topfree "in times of hot weather or strenuous activity." This discomfort also acts as a barrier to certain kinds of employment. 2. Women "are objectified in a way harmful to themselves and to other women, girls, boys, and men". 3. Women "are uncomfortably aware that, solely because of their gender, they are being forced to conduct and array themselves differently than are men." 4. Women are afflicted with a badge of second-class citizenship. 5. Breastfeeding is effectively inhibited and discouraged due to the criminalization of the female breast even if breastfeeding itself is narrowly exempted. 6. Laws criminalizing women are "harmful, irrational, arbitrary, and capricious restrictions because of patriarichal, prurient, and otherwise unhealthy attitudes". The lawsuit states that government reasons for criminalizing the female chest are ridiculous and serve no important governmental interest. Noted in the lawsuit is the medical fact that the human female breast is no more of a sex organ than a male breast. The Florida lawsuit comes at a time when female topfree activists have enjoyed a number of successes within the United States and Canada. In 1986 a woman represented herself in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and won a court victory stating that the D.C. nudity law did not apply to any body part but genitals. Since then the District of Columbia has been legally female topfree. In 1992 New York's highest state court ruled that women could be topfree in public. Since 1992 women in the highly populous State of New York have enjoyed the right to bare their chests whenever men could do so. As one New York Justice wrote in his concurring opinion, "One of the most important purposes to be served by the equal protection clause is to ensure that 'public sensibilities' grounded in prejudice and unexamined sterotypes do not become enshrined as part of the official policy of government." Although the case was not precisely decided on equal protection grounds by the court majority, New York voters have had no interest in changing the law to re-criminalize topfree women. In 1996 the Province of Ontario, Canada's most populous provice, became legally topfree due to a criminal court challenge by Gwen Jacob. Because the highest court in Ontario was interpreting a Canadian federal law, this case has set an important precedent for all of the other provinces in Canada. Attempts to change the law to re-criminalize women have not been supported by Canadian voters. As a result of the Gwen Jacob victory, women throughout other provinces in Canada have challenged local and federal laws seeking to criminalize the female breast. A Canadian professor has organized the Topfree Equal Rights Association (T.E.R.A.) to help these cases. In 1998 charges of indecent exposure were dismissed against three women who were arrested for baring their breasts in Moscow, Idaho. Sounding a familiar theme of political challenge through civil disobedience, one of the defendants, Natalie Shapiro, stated, "We need to challenge unjust laws by peacefully breaking them. That generates attention and controversy and makes people think about why those laws exist in the first place." Although the City Council proposed a new ordinance to criminalize female breasts, the female Council members opposing the new ordinance outnumbered the male Council members in favor. Thus Moscow, Idaho remains legally topfree for women. In 1998 a Maine woman who had been mowing her lawn without a shirt for three summers faced the threat of police action when a neighbor complained. However, Maine state law does not criminalize female breasts. When the neighbor put a law on the town ballot to criminalize topfree women, town voters rejected it. In a curious loop of history, the female rights movement in the United States began in Rochester, New York, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as a principle pioneer. In her own time Elizabeth Cady Stanton was ridiculed for wearing bloomers instead of a floor-length skirt. In 1986 seven Rochester women challenged their arrests and convictions for being topfree in a park during a picnic, with the result that in 1992 New York's highest court made female topfree legal throughout the entire state (see above). In 1999 Cathy Stanton, the 63-year old great-great-granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is a plaintiff in the Florida suit. The Plaintiffs in the suit live throughout Florida. All female members of the local ACLU board are plaintiffs. Most of the plaintiffs are mothers and grandmothers. One plaintiff is a 10 year old girl who suddenly can now be criminalized and hauled off to the county jail under the local county anti-nudity ordinance, should she take off her shirt in public, regardless of the biological fact that at such an age a girl's breasts are still indistinguishable from a boy's breasts. The girl's mother, Jan Frandsen, a plaintiff who evinces a fierce maternal disapproval of government threats against her daughter, says that "These discriminatory laws are all the more insidious because they are government-sponsored and government-sanctioned. It's legalized sexual harassment." Shirley Mason, another plaintiff, states that "I am the daughter of African-Americans who moved to Minnesota to escape the Deep South and its oppressive Jim Crow laws. My ancestors paid a heavy price in this country so I would never have to settle for legalized government discrimination again." Mason also notes that "For nearly 18 years, women sunbathing topfree on Miami beaches has been commonplace, safe and uneventful. It has not caused any negative secondary effects on women, children or property values in our community - just the opposite. With this lawsuit, I'd like to right the obvious wrong of gender-biased, anti-nudity laws." Another plaintiff, Kayla Sosnow, has endured the experience of being arrested and serving 20 days in jail for the 'crime' of taking her shirt off in the 90 degree Florida heat in a forest. Meanwhile her male companion was pointedly allowed his comfortable topless freedom by police. T.A. Wyner, a prominent 'life-long skinnydipper', plaintiff, successful civil rights litigator, and ACLU board member in Ft. Pierce states that "The idea is that men will be out of control at the mere sight of a woman's breast, so they legislate to women who want to be free of a bikini top. There have been nudist communities in Florida for the past 50 years, and that response doesn't exist."