Marching for right to bare breasts, women faced with sea of cameras | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Marching for right to bare breasts, women faced with sea of cameras | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

what an indiot the "spokesperson" is. WHat a stereotypical idiot. What did she EXPECT would happen?

They should hopefully inspire women here in Greenville to do the same!!

*****************************

Marching for right to bare breasts, women faced with sea of cameras
The picture-taking bothers the event's organizer, who says partial female nudity shouldn't be remarkable.

By Edward D. Murphy emurphy@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer


PORTLAND - About two dozen women took a walk down Congress Street topless Saturday, attracting a large crowd as they tried to preach that partial female nudity is not worthy of attracting a crowd.

The point of the march was that a topless woman out in public should attract no more attention than a man walking around without a shirt on, said Ty MacDowell, 20, of Westbrook, who organized Saturday's event and promoted it on Facebook.

But as the event got under way in Longfellow Square, the marchers were soon outnumbered by scores of onlookers -- mostly young men eagerly snapping away with cameras and cell phones.

MacDowell said she was surprised by the turnout of those interested less in challenging societal convention than in seeing partially undressed women.

"I'm amazed," she said, and "enraged (at) the fact that there's a wall of men watching."

MacDowell said she understood that for women, going topless in public "is not socially acceptable yet, and obviously there's going to be a reaction to something that breaks the norm."

But, she said, the picture-taking was particularly upsetting.

"A lot of people were taking pictures without even asking," she said. "Even if you're somewhere where people are fully clothed, you should ask."

One of the marchers said she wasn't surprised by all the attention because partially nude women in public "is so taboo."

But Adrianna Tibkey, who recently moved to Portland, said the march "was really, really fun, and it's nice to know it (going topless) is legal here."

Most of the onlookers were men -- but not all of them.

Tammy Walker said she shared the marchers' viewpoint, even if she wasn't prepared to join them in going topless.

"I think it's great," she said. "You (men) can let it all out -- why can't we?"

Some of the men in the crowd thought the marchers were naive to think women going topless would ever be commonplace.

"If they were looking for no reaction -- that's just crazy," said James Gilley of Gorham.

As the march started toward Tommy's Park in the Old Port, it picked up more onlookers and the curious. Through Monument Square, there were more than 500 people -- a mix of marchers, picture-snappers, oglers and people just out enjoying a sunny, warm day.

Laurie Francis of Livingston, Mont., was enjoying the sun and a cup of coffee in Tommy's Park with her family, in Maine for a vacation, when the boisterous group swung into view.

She said the event led her to conclude that Maine -- where nudity is not illegal as long as genitals aren't on display -- is more progressive than her home state.

"You don't see this" in Montana, she said. "Everyone's wearing a lot of layers in Montana at this time of year -- including bras."

But Francis said she thought women promoting the concept of going topless as no big deal "is a nice idea."

Police said there were no incidents or arrests. Officers said their only concern was that the marchers stay on the sidewalk, since they hadn't gotten a permit that would allow them to walk in the street.

MacDowell said many of the marchers encouraged her to continue her efforts to promote public toplessness, but she said she will try to avoid a repeat of what occurred Saturday.

"We'll have a topless adventure," she said. "Go fly a kite or something."



Staff Writer Edward D. Murphy can be contacted at 791-6465 or at:

emurphy@pressherald.com

Famous Miranda rights warning could get rewrite

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer
Mon Dec 7, 4:59 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday seemed headed toward telling police they must explicitly advise criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation.

The arguments in front of the justices were the latest over how explicit the Miranda warning rights have to be, as justices debated whether the warnings police gave Kevin Dwayne Powell made clear to him that he could have a lawyer present while being interrogated by police.

Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.

Joseph W. Jacquot, Florida deputy attorney general, argued that the warning given Powell "expresses all the rights required under Miranda."

Justice Stephen Breyer clearly disagreed.

"Aren't you supposed to tell this person, that unlike a grand jury, you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation?" Breyer said. "I mean, it isn't as if that was said in passing in Miranda. They wrote eight paragraphs about it. And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?"

Different courts have came down on different sides on what exactly should be said, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

"We've got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn't that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can't reasonably convey, if there's this many courts holding that it doesn't?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Powell's lawyer, Deborah K. Brueckheimer, said that the warning Powell was given from Tampa, Fla., police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning."

Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer's argument "angels dancing on the head of a pin."

"You are saying, 'Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,'" Scalia said. "I mean, doesn't that seem to you quite fantastic?"

Miranda rights have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. But those requirements likely will continue to be parsed by lawyers and judges.

For example, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that most police start off Miranda rights by saying "You have the right to remain silent." But, Alito said, what happens if someone begins talking to the police and then decides that they want to be silent?

"Once you break your silence, there is nothing in there that says you have the right to resume your silence," Alito said.

"We could write that down. It could be the next case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said to laughter.

This is the third Miranda case the court has heard this year. The justices heard arguments earlier over whether officers can interrogate a suspect who said he understood his rights but didn't invoke them, and whether a request for a lawyer during interrogation can expire after a lengthy period of time.

Decisions in all three cases are expected next year.

The case argued Monday is Florida v. Powell, 08-1175.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov