Judge rejects challenge from Utah woman charged for being topless in her own home

A Utah judge has upheld the state’s lewdness law after a challenge by a West Valley City woman who is facing charges for being topless in her own home in front of her stepchildren.

Third District Judge Kara Pettit denied Tilli Buchanan’s motion to declare the lewdness statute unconstitutional in a ruling filed Tuesday. Buchanan’s attorneys had argued that the law targets and discriminates against women by specifically outlawing them from showing their breasts.

READ MORE


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

16 thoughts on “Judge rejects challenge from Utah woman charged for being topless in her own home

  • January 22, 2020

    Im guessing that if she breast fed her children after they were born she was in violation then also?

    Reply
  • January 21, 2020

    what about familys that are nudest and go to nudest campgrounds, do they arrest everyone?

    Reply
  • January 21, 2020

    Tereto
    Exactly better take all TVs smart phones ,computer s ,I pads ,bill boards , fountains , all animals, art work, away from kids and put them in boxes till there 18. That sounds like a bill that will fix the problem , right? If you’re going to do something don’t just half way do it.

    Reply
  • January 21, 2020

    Very interesting,thank You FAC
    This whole thing is about a jealous ex . This is the kind of stuff you’ll fill the courts with if someone doesn’t put a stop to it. The courts just keep passing the buck. You’ll be afraid to take a shower or change cloths , someone who doesn’t like you purposely sees you and make it seem like an accident and you’re screwed. That poor lady, Tilli Buchanan. Go for the jugular vein ACLU.

    Reply
    • January 22, 2020

      I’m sorry, but the ACLU has crafted some poorly thought out arguments resulting in horrible precedent such as their “Right” to live where want argument in Miller.

      Justice Clarence Thomas defines this vaguely argued “Right” as the Right of changing ones situation. It’s the vagueness of this claimed “Right” (to live where you want) which doesn’t rise to a Federal question thus the denial of cert.

      Reply
    • January 22, 2020

      I believe this is already filling the courts now…..the jealous ex is exactly what happened to us…..it was my ex. Had proof in WRITING what she would do and she did. Court was hearing none of it…irrelevant they said. Though they have the threat in writing….We have no choice but to wait on KARMA, it just takes soooo long but still I am hoping.

      Reply
  • January 21, 2020

    That prosecutor is such an idiot, to protect the children from lewdness. I’m sorry, but aren’t children exposed to lewdness just about everywhere?

    Reply
  • January 21, 2020

    Utah. Enough said.

    Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *