←back to thread

693 points macawfish | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.232s | source
Show context
spacechild1 ◴[] No.44544721[source]
That Tennessee law is particularly crazy:

> (a) Pubic hair, vulva, vagina, penis, testicles, anus, or nipple of a human body

Naked bodies do not harm anyone. This is US puritanism at its peek. Glad the author also pointed out the hypocrisy of treating nudity as more obscene than violence.

replies(2): >>44545609 #>>44550539 #
LocalH ◴[] No.44545609[source]
Interestingly (and I suppose fairly?) the law doesn't seem to make a distinction between male and female nipples. So an image of a shirtless man violates this just as much as an image of a shirtless woman.
replies(2): >>44545990 #>>44548575 #
1. Pikamander2 ◴[] No.44548575[source]
I'd imagine that male nipples are exempted due to the line that mentions "applying contemporary community standards".

Of course, that wording is deliberately vague for a reason. Judges, especially conservative ones, have often let states use wording like that to get away with female-toplessness bans, blue laws, religious imagery in government buildings, etc, since that kind of wording lets them avoid including discriminatory language in the law itself, therefore supposedly not violating the constitution.