J.C. wrote:edit....why were your boobs out for him to snap a picture? Can you free boob where you live? Just go topless?
.....
Interestingly enough, bare boobs are legal in NYC
from NYC penal law:
New York Penal Law
§ 245.00 Public lewdness. A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (b) in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he be so observed.
Public lewdness is a class B misdemeanor.
§ 245.01 Exposure of a person. A person is guilty of exposure if he appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed. For purposes of this section, the private or intimate parts of a female person shall include that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola. This section shall not apply to the breastfeeding of infants or to any person entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment.
Exposure of a person is a violation.
Nothing in this section shall prevent the adoption by a city, town or village of a local law prohibiting exposure of a person as herein defined in a public place, at any time, whether or not such person is entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment.
Now reading this may initially lead you to believe that boobies are illegal there, and also makes some difficulties with the law.... but I now give you
People vs Santorelli
Which says:
TITONE, Judge (concurring).
Citing the maxim that wherever possible statutes should be construed so as to sustain their constitutionality (see, e.g., Matter of Sarah K., 66 N.Y.2d 223, 496 N.Y.S.2d 384, 487 N.E.2d 241, cert denied sub nom. Kosher v. Stamatis, 475 U.S. 1108, 106 S.Ct. 1515, 89 L.Ed.2d 914; Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 143, 459 N.Y.S.2d 743, 446 N.E.2d 428), the Court bypasses appellants' equal protection argument by holding that Penal Law § 245.01 simply does not apply ``in these circumstances.'' That maxim is unhelpful here, however, since both the language and the history of Penal Law § 245.01 demonstrate quite clearly that the conduct with which appellants were charged is precisely the type of behavior that the Legislature intended to outlaw when it enacted Penal Law § 245.01. Thus, appellants' constitutional equal protection claim cannot be avoided and the only relevant legal maxim is the one that demands proof by the State that a classification based on gender be substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective (e.g., Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 388, 393, 99 S.Ct. 1760, 1765, 1768, 60 L.Ed.2d 297; People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y.2d 152, 168, 485 N.Y.S.2d 207, 474 N.E.2d 567). Since that standard has not been satisfied here, I would hold that, as applied in these circumstances, Penal Law § 245.01 is unconstitutional and, for that reason, the charges against appellants should have been dismissed.
Appellants and the five other women who were arrested with them were prosecuted for doing something that would have been permissible, or at least not punishable under the penal laws, if they had been men--they removed their tops in a public park, exposing their breasts in a manner that all agree was neither lewd nor intended to annoy or harass. As a result of this conduct, which was apparently part of an effort to dramatize their opposition to the law, appellants were prosecuted under Penal Law § 245.01, which provides that a person is guilty of the petty offense of ``exposure'' when he or she ``appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his [or her] body are unclothed or exposed.'' The statute goes on to state that, for purposes of this prohibition, ``the private or intimate parts of a female person shall include that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola.''1 The statute thus creates a clear gender-based classification, triggering scrutiny under equal protection principles (see, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397).
<EDIT - blah blah blah, more lawyer talk. If you REALLY want to read the whole thing, follow the link posted above. Now, to the final decision on public display of breasts in People v. Santorelli. >
In summary, the People have offered nothing to justify a law that discriminates against women by prohibiting them from removing their tops and exposing their bare chests in public as men are routinely permitted to do. The mere fact that the statute's aim is the protection of ``public sensibilities'' is not sufficient to satisfy the state's burden of showing an ``exceedingly persuasive justification'' for a classification that expressly discriminates on the basis of sex (see, Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 461, 101 S.Ct. 1195, 1998, 67 L.Ed.2d 428). Accordingly, the gender-based classification established by Penal Law § 245.01 violates appellants' equal protection rights and, for that reason, I concur in the majority's result and vote to reverse the order below.
So in conclusion.....
YES the boobies may run free in NYC!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!
Tehehe