OHIO - from NAC's website - states breasts are not allowed to be shown - read # 3 below
"Rule 52"
OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Section 4301:1-1-52 Entertainment - prohibition against improper conduct.
(A) Definitions as used in this rule:
(1) "Lewd activities" are those activities (including those which are electronically reproduced) that contain lustful, lascivious or lecherous behavior and includes, but is not limited to acts of, or acts that simulate, sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, or oral copulation.
(2) "Disorderly activities" are those that harass, threaten or physically harm another person including threats or other menacing behavior, fighting, assaults and brawls.
(3) "Nudity" is the showing (including electronically showing) of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks (or anus) with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple and/or areola, or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state
New York State, but even though the law against women being top free was overturned by the appellate court it is still on the books and a few years ago some friends of mine went to a store (men and women) without shirts on. The women were arrested (not by the local police that first responded to the call, but the county sheriff who decided to run them in.) Eventually the charges were dropped but they did they really had a hard time and paid for legal representation.
I anot sure why , but every once in a while topless dancers from columbus will parade topless in downtown to show that it is permitted. hence the question...
That brings up a different question to me. Are they doing it to show it is permitted or to drum up business. LOL
I anot sure why , but every once in a while topless dancers from columbus will parade topless in downtown to show that it is permitted. hence the question...
There *may* be some ordinance in Columbus that superceeds state law, or there may be a "policy" to not prosecute, or to not arrest, or....
Remember, it's the prosecutor, ( the DA in some jurisdictions ) to find SOME law under which one can be found guilty of something.
Then there are tecnicalities for "sex establishments" that are separate, such as the under 21 stuff. We have so many "laws" that are diametrically opposed, it's nearly impossible to walk down the street without violating something.That brings up a different question to me. Are they doing it to show it is permitted or to drum up business. LOL
Under some new "law" sponsored by some ultra-right fanatic from Cincinatti, I had a friend, a stripper, who moved out of state so she could work. A VERY sharp Hungarian girl, with an awful lot on the ball. Under that new "law" there can be no alcohol if there is nudity, and vice-versa, making it technically illegal to have a beer at a resort, or for anyone at a nudist resort to be nude if someone ( anyone ) has beer. Under the law, a nudist resort is a "sex establishment" as rediculous as *we* know that is !
If we *really* want to know, it could be a very expensive consult with a good lawyer, but the way *I* read the "law" ( and I am not a lawyer ) I could argue that it'e technically illegal to be "nude" including topless, or for a man even dressed if in a turgid state, anywhere outside your own home, and it's questionable IN your own homw if a door to door salesman happens to show up, causing an "affront" with someone unexpected. SERIOUS woe if that door to door happens to be an 11 year old Girl Scout selling cookies !
It's funny, sad, rediculous, and obscene to actually read "The Law" as written.
One man's opinion.
( a non-attorney spokesman. consult your own attorney before taking any action, having any opinion, thinking, or going to the bathroom. your mileage may vary. results not typical. see your doctor to find out if you're physically capable of engaging in nudity, as nudity may cause heart attack, stroke, the common cold, sunburn, or death. )
cincinnati seems to be the prude center for the state. larry flynt's legal battles started there, they have some higher than thou group that opposes anything to do with the nude body, either in person or via art. a couple of years back this group was pushing some anti nudity issue to be on the ballot, they failed to do so partly because many of their petition signers were not registered voters these are people who have an agenda similar to the pmrc. they find it offensive so it should be offensive for everybody. these people lack the understanding of how a radioor television worksnor do they grasp the concept of avoiding an art museum or strip club.
most rational people change the channel if they don't like what is on the radio or television. the same rational people also just choose to not go to an art museum if the show on display isn't to their liking.
The Ohio revised code does not seem include a definition of "private parts" which I believe generally do not include breasts. And in order for the statute to apply the action must be reckless and likely to affront others. I can't see how this would apply to the average woman being topless in a public place such as a park.
Several years ago there was a woman in the Columbus area who frequently was arrested mowing her lawn while topless. It is my understanding that her case was litigated and resulted in an interpretation of Ohio law which made it legal for women to be topless in Ohio. When I find the details I'll post them.
Bill
The Ohio revised code does not seem include a definition of "private parts" which I believe generally do not include breasts.
I'll admit I don't know for sure, but I suspect it would be interpreted to mean anything within the same legal definition of nude. Not something I'd care to be the test case !And in order for the statute to apply the action must be reckless and likely to affront others. I can't see how this would apply to the average woman being topless in a public place such as a park.
Playing Devil's advocate...
I can see how it's the very definition of reckless, knowingly and deliberately likely to cause an affront ! A private park, I'd tend to agree with you, but even then it seems questionable.
That *may* be one way the nudist resorts exist, as a non-public private park.
After all, there *is* a check-in gate, so it's not "public" as I see it.Several years ago there was a woman in the Columbus area who frequently was arrested mowing her lawn while topless. It is my understanding that her case was litigated and resulted in an interpretation of Ohio law which made it legal for women to be topless in Ohio. When I find the details I'll post them.
Now THAT would be valuable information !
Regardless of how you or I might interpret anything in the law, judges seem bound to duplicate precident, so if there *is* precident, although not making it legal, it can become a positive defense !
The case I mentioned occurred while I was working in Columbus, which would have been between 1996 and 2003. The woman lived in one of the northern suburbs of Columbus I believe. The story was covered in the Columbus Dispatch and the local radio and TV stations at the time. I'm unable to find any reference to it on the Internet. I suspect more information can be found in the Columbus Dispatch archives, but I can't access them.
Bill
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!