Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Musings on Des Moines Topless PETA Protestor

This quote from an article on Tuesday's PETA protest in Des Moines brings up a couple of issues for me:
Des Moines Police Sgt. Todd Dykstra said Robertson, who wore a bikini bottom and hid her breasts with her forearm, didn't violate any laws "as long as she didn't unfold her arms."

Had Robertson done so, she would have been charged with indecent exposure, he said.



Issue #1: Is he referring to this indecent exposure law?
709.9 Indecent exposure.
A person who exposes the person's genitals or pubes to another not the person's spouse, or who commits a sex act in the presence of or view of a third person, commits a serious misdemeanor, if:
1. The person does so to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either party; and
2. The person knows or reasonably should know that the act is offensive to the viewer.

If so, could someone please tell me when breasts became genitals? I think it's more likely that the violation would be of Des Moines' Public Exposure ordinance:
Sec. 70-181. Public exposure.
(a) Except as provided in this section, no person shall expose the following parts of such person's body to another in any public place or in any place where such exposure is seen by another person located in any public place:
(1) A woman's nipple, the areola thereof, or full breast, except as necessary in the breast feeding of a baby.
(2) The pubic hair, pubes, perineum, or anus of a male or female; the penis or scrotum of a male; or the vagina of a female, excepting such body parts of prepubescent infants of either sex.
(b) This section shall not apply to limited or minimal exposures incident to the use of public restrooms or locker rooms or such other places where such exposures occur incident to the prescribed use of those facilities.
(c) This section shall not apply to exposures occurring in live stage plays, live theatrical performances, or live dance performances conducted in a theater, concert hall or similar establishment which is primarily devoted to theatrical performances.

Sorry to be picky, but in this case an indecent exposure conviction would raise the question of

Issue #2:
Is this the kind of thing we want to be on the sex offender registry? Does she need to be kept 2000 feet away from our public schools and required to register her address for the next 10 years because indecent exposure qualifies as an "other related offense" required for registry?

For my earlier discussion of this topic in which I suggest a two-tier indecent exposure law that differentiates between those with a sexual intent and run-of-the-mill skinny dippers or mooners, or in this case, protesters, go here.

No comments: