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.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Alas Young Lady, You reside in the Land of Polyamorous Relationships”; …the charge is an oxymoron, is it not?
Some judges just do not prescribe to the Judicial oath…
So, they could easily charge lewdness for a woman to be breastfeeding her baby as she is, technically, exposing her breast to baby to feed. I agree this may be an extreme condition, but the way our country is going with all this, who knows.
What should happen to all the people who went to Woodstock? How about the videographers? Pornography? How soon before sex is outlawed altogether due to the nudity involved.
But in the end, it’s ok for all the celebrity women to show all on national tv….Grammys, and all the other award shows?
I love how the idiots in the comments section are saying shit like “the judge wants to see the evidence” (in other words; her breasts). And “the jury wants to weigh the evidence” (again, referencing her breasts). These people are making fun of the issue because the issue IS WORTHY of being made fun of as it clogs up the justice system. HOWEVER… I call these commenters “idiots” because when the woman ends up on the registry for this joke of a conviction, these same people making fun of it now, will NOT want her in THEIR neighborhoods when her face is on the registry.
I see China has picked up on this shamming registry idea from the US. They now have a shamming list of people who wear pajamas in public . They post there faces on signs to publicly shame them and warn others about them . It’s all about protecting the children.
Don’t know if they have started banning them from foreign travel ,from living within 2000 ft. Of a school, from entering a school or hospital, and all the other restrictions that have been added here. Those will probably be added on as they think about it more.
I think the judges are on drugs clouding their judgement.
I could see this IF, she has purposely exposed herself out of lewdness.
If she had been in public
If she had shown then on purpose to the neighbor kids
This was IN her own home and and act of changing clothes.
We have become a Police state like the Soviet Union.
When I was a kid I saw my parents come out of the shower all the time when we lived in Military housing as it was a one room unit with one bathroom.
( Ok yeah gross seeing your parents naked ) but it didn’t scar me for life.
My comment from a long ago post is coming true, soon 90% of the people in the U.S will be on the registry if something doesn’t give.
Amen, brother! I’ve been wanting to call the US the new USSR. Ironic, the role reversal since the Berlin wall fell.
That statute “requires prosecutors to show that the defendant exposed themselves and knew their actions would either cause “affront or alarm” to the children or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires” of either party.
Its about cause and effect. Did the prosecutors prove that moms action caused “alarm or affront” to the children or whether her intent was to sexually arouse herself or the children”? If not, than walking around her home topless in and by itself is not a lewd act.
Statutory wording matters.