.

Female Toplessness in Public is Legal in California

Now, a while back, I did a video exposing the Inglewood PD for their HYPOCRISY in their unjust attempt to try to jail me for wearing “pasties” in public! I was told by a female sgt. whose name escapes me in the police station (when I went to file a police report for urine soaked chicken wings at the Church’s chicken on 1500 N. La Brea Blvd in Inglewood) that she was going to jail me for 314.1 of the penal code for wearing PASTIES in public all because I titillated her male co workers – I know it wasn’t her who had a problem but her male sgt. a half bred half mixed black/ white guy seemed to have a problem. But if that is the case, that is a problem with your boys, not with I, for why THEY got titillated and started sexualizing MY breasts against MY will without MY permission! – but then she said she wasn’t going to jail me for those “offenses” for violations of penal codes 314.1 and 647(a) – which my being topless much less wearing PASTIES DOES NOT VIOLATE – but just put me into a “cage” and “teach me a lesson”. Now, nevermind the fact that her even doing that much less thinking about it constitutes a violation of my civil rights much less the fact that she is perpetuating rape victim blame by basically saying that I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR HER MALE CO WORKERS’ SEXUALIZING BEHAVIOR TOWARDS MY BODY (they were coming up to the window, “checking me out”, sexually harassing me with one – a Mexican guy I presumed – saying, “Oh, they’re nice!!”) but a wholesale violation of my civil rights in general – gender based and all and here is why based on the following video below:  


Anyways, let me explain and break it down for ya what the law really means: See, there is something called legal precedent, case law which dictates how a law is supposed to be applied to a case. So, in this case, judges have ruled that the female breasts are not “private parts” and that in order to be convicted of either 314.1 pc or 647 (a) lewd and lascivious conduct, YOU MUST BE DOING SOMETHING LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS IN PUBLIC SUCH AS PLAYING WITH YOURSELF  OR DOING SOME OTHER MANNER OF ODD AND LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT – SUCH AS HAVING SEX IN A CAR OR IN PUBLIC – TO BE CONVICTED OF EITHER OR OFFENSE! Just being topless (breastfeeding is legal in California) or being nude, period, on the face of it does NOT CONSTITUTE LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT!    It gets even better:   Female toplessness alone which is the bearing of breasts does not constitute “criminal activity”: in and of itself as defined by the law, legal case precedent: Robins vs County of Los Angeles: “[W]e are constrained to the view that the display of the bare female bosom, whether defined as `entertainment’ or not, … does not constitute criminal sexual activity”  

                                                                          Robins vs County of Los Angeles  

Interestingly enough, In re Gianni also states that: “Overturning convictions of lewd exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1) and lewd conduct (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (a)” meaning: BITCH, IF YOU WOULD OF THROWN ME IN JAIL THAT DAY UNDER PC 314.1 JUST FOR WEARING PASTIES, ETC. OR EVEN IF IO WERE JUST TOPLESS, PERIOD, WITH FULL NIPPLES AND BREASTS STICKING OUT, YOU – AND THE WHOLE ENTIRE INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOO – WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE LEGALLY AFTER I AM DONE SUING ALL AND EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU AS WELL AS THE WHOLE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT ITSELF FOR VIOLATION OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS!!  Here is the court case, along with a link: Crownover Vs. Musik  down below:                                                                      In Re Gianni pic of lawsuit info

Basically, what this all gets down to is, it is not illegal for a womyn to bear her breasts in public and that penal codes 314.1 or 647(a) CAN NOT SIMPLY BE USED AGAINST A FEMALE FOR BEING TOPLESS! CHECKMATE, BITCH, PLEASE!

SO NEXT TIME I WILL TAKE YOU ALL TO THE CLEANERS – INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS PART OF THE WHOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT – IF YOU INFRINGE ON MY CIVIL RIGHTS TO BE TOPLESS AND FEMALE!

The End!

Here are the case laws: 

In Re Gianni: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10749017154291261473&q=topless&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5

Robins Vs County of Los Angeles: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16086951436703113150&q=topless&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5

If you have any comments, anything personal you wanna share, send me an email here: [email protected] Also, feel free to donate here: paypal.me/RWilliams387 you like the content.

6 comments

    1. You know. I shouldn’t have said that. Drunk me was posting and drunk me isn’t as thoughtful or funny as they think. And FYI the “person” part was because I wasn’t sure how you identified. my apologies and best of luck to you.

Leave a Reply