Free The Nipple Movement Rejected by New Hampshire State Supreme Court - Granite Grok

Free The Nipple Movement Rejected by New Hampshire State Supreme Court

Topless girl - free the nipple

For those of you keeping abreast of this issue (or not), three women have been delivered a setback by New Hampshire’s highest court. The free the nipple movement, their effort to overturn the convention of men-only toplessness in public has been thwarted. The ‘girls’ have to stay under wraps, at least for now.

In a 3-2 decision, the State Supreme Court ruled that,

“society’s conventions consider female breasts to be an “erogenous zone” and that the laws ban both men and women from exposing body parts that are “intimately associated with the procreation function.”

Here is another nugget in the reporting for your consideration.

Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, who wrote the majority opinion, accepted previous courts’ logic that female and male bodies come with different definitions for what constitutes nudity. In a 1975 case that she cited, a California appeals court judge wrote that “nature, not the legislative body” made that distinction.

The State’s highest court has ruled that men and women are different. That our bodies are different. And that this difference, a distinction a child could see, has social and cultural consequences that matter.

The average leftist would consider this to be hate speech, not that there is much they don’t.

Difference with Distinction

But if nature made human bodies different (it did). And that means something (it does). Then there are potential consequences if the legislature eliminates privacy in spaces where “erogenous zones” intimately associated with the procreation function could be exposed to members of the opposite sex by statute.


As to the matter of freeing nipples, Dan Hynes, the attorney for the three women,

“…said that although his clients were disappointed by the decision, they were encouraged by the dissenting opinion, which concluded that the city’s ordinance was discriminatory.

Laconia, New Hampshire waived the fine for indecent exposure on the basis of good behavior. But the law stands as written. Advocates will have to convince another body, the legisaltive one, to make the changes they desire.