So sue them!

[Agde]

I am wondering if the nudity=sex confusion could be used attack back, starting with topfreedom. For instance, has there ever been a lawsuit

against a town, city or state for sexual harassment due to enacting laws or ordinances sexualizing female breasts?
against police for sexual harassment due to arresting bare-chested women but not men?
against a legislator for sexual harassment based on remarks in support of laws against breasts?
against a neighbor for sexual harassment due to staring at their neighbor's breasts as they gardened or sunbathed?
against a media entity for exploitative marketing of breasts?
against a school for sexualizing girls by forcing them to wear tops for sports when boys don't have to?
against a company for sexual harassment by allowing male workers to work shirtless but not women?
where a woman has simply argued that it was too hot out, and the top was making her sweat, so she took it off?
where a woman has simply argued that swimtops are for breast support and in her case it wasn't needed?
where women sued to have police cite gawkers and complainers for sexual harassment?
Unlike arguing for legal changes, the idea is use current law to reverse, or at least balance, who complains, who is tagged as disturbing the peace, and who in fact is offending whom.

[Naturist Mark]

I am wondering if the nudity=sex confusion could be used attack back, starting with topfreedom. For instance, has there ever been a lawsuit

against a town, city or state for sexual harassment due to enacting laws or ordinances sexualizing female breasts?In America such laws might be stricken due to defects or unconstitutionality (or they might stand) but there wouldn't be a penalty for attempting to pass such laws even if they are nullified. I suspect this falls under the 1st Amendment freedoms - including the freedom to be wrong.

against police for sexual harassment due to arresting bare-chested women but not men?Yes, this has happened at least twice in New York City.

against a legislator for sexual harassment based on remarks in support of laws against breasts?1st Amendment

against a neighbor for sexual harassment due to staring at their neighbor's breasts as they gardened or sunbathed? I know of cases where a neighbor complained of illegal nudity and was instead cautioned for invasion of privacy (or being a peeping tom) I do not know of any cases where the neighbor was actually charged

against a media entity for exploitative marketing of breasts?No, 1st Amendment makes exploitation perfectly OK. Of course the showing of bare breasts on broadcast TV will result in FCC fines

against a school for sexualizing girls by forcing them to wear tops for sports when boys don't have to?Not aware of any

against a company for sexual harassment by allowing male workers to work shirtless but not women?Not aware of any

where a woman has simply argued that it was too hot out, and the top was making her sweat, so she took it off?I believe that is pretty much what happened in one of the Ohio cases that decriminalized bare breasts - against a woman who habitually mowed her lawn topless, but the case was decided on other grounds

where a woman has simply argued that swimtops are for breast support and in her case it wasn't needed?Not aware of any

where women sued to have police cite gawkers and complainers for sexual harassment?Not aware of any
Unlike arguing for legal changes, the idea is use current law to reverse, or at least balance, who complains, who is tagged as disturbing the peace, and who in fact is offending whom.I suspect it would be a stretch. Sexual harassment law is normally limited to the workplace, and is used to limit freedom of expression, not liberalize it. Further the courts normally adopt remedies that are considered to be the least restrictive (at least they give lip service to such) - so should a court actually be convinced that allowing shirtless men to work on the construction site but not women somehow creates an environment hostile or sexually demeaning to women, the probable remedy would be to require the men to shirt up, not to allow the women to be equally topfree.

But it is an interesting concept ... it would require some very inventive and compelling reasoning to apply harassment law to topfreedom issues. I'm curious what people can come up with.

-Mark
(not a lawyer, yadda yadda yadda)

[Bob S.]

Agde:"against a school for sexualizing girls by forcing them to wear tops for sports when boys don't have to?"

I don't recall when or where this was (may have been local about ten years ago), but a high school girl complained that she was forced to put on her shirt (she was wearing a sports bra) even though her male tennis teammates could practice shirtless. The result was obvious, the boys were made to wear shirts all the time.

Bob S.

[nakeduni]

All you need is gobs of money to sue.

[nimrod]

I like the thinking on this, but I do not know that the harassment angle is the way to go. I believe that sexual discrimination cases would do it better, though it could have the negitive effect of making men ware shirts. The biggest hurtle would be de-sexuallizing the female breast from the general publics eye, and your biggest opponant would be the world of advertising who use the female breast, and nudity in general, has an object of sex to sell products, not that the religious right would not put in their disagreements, but who is making the most money on the sexuallization of the female breast.

[Naturist Mark]

I like the thinking on this, but I do not know that the harassment angle is the way to go. I believe that sexual discrimination cases would do it better

In the majority of the places in the USA where topfreedom is legal it was the result of sexual discrimination suits - such as New York and Washington DC (in Ohio it was on the basis of how the indecent exposure law is written). Potentially any State with an Equal Rights Amendment (most do have one) could possibly achieve the same result if it is taken to court - and potentially the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution might also provide grounds for nationwide topfreedom - an attempt to do just that in Florida a few years ago failed, but other cases might succeed if it got to the appeals level.

-Mark

[Agde]

Of course I was just trying to take a litigation angle and kick it up a notch, mainly for the PR value of being able to point out that clothing norms often have hidden (sexist?) agendas and that people should behave respectfully regardless of gender or fabric. Just filing lawsuits can have a social impact. Anti-nudity groups seem to be very adept at using formal complaint and frivolous lawsuits to push us into corners, so it was just a meditation on how to fight fire with fire.