Jersey City, NJ Community Forums

Jersey City => News => Topic started by: fasteddie on 09-15-2011, 10:52am

Title: Court Rules - Moobs OK, Boobs Not
Post by: fasteddie on 09-15-2011, 10:52am
Beachgoer's claim she's got as much right to go topless as a man is rejected by Jersey appeals court, saying state must safeguard public's moral sensibilities
Published: Thursday, September 15, 2011, 9:45 AM
The Star-Ledger Continuous News Desk

When Phoenix Feeley visited New Jersey's famous beaches in 2008, she packed all the usual stuff for a hot day in the sun, except one: a shirt.

Her bare breasts caught the attention of Spring Lake police, and she was arrested after she refused to cover up. She argued women should be able to go shirtless in public like men.

But a state appeals court ruled yesterday that women must wear their tops or face the consequences.

"I'm disappointed," said Feeley, 31, a New York City artist. "It seems like there's such a headache over it, but not to be able to reveal my chest when a man can reveal his, it doesn't make any sense to me. Therefore I just do it naturally and I pay the consequences later."

The right to bare it all -- or at least part of it all -- is a matter of equality, she said.

But the court ruled women have no constitutional right to leave their shirts at home. In fact, cloaking their breasts is a matter of grave public concern, the judges said.

"Restrictions on the exposure of the female breast are supported by the important governmental interest in safeguarding the public's moral sensibilities," the two-judge panel wrote.

An attorney for Spring Lake did not return a call seeking comment on the decision.
Feeley was twice arrested three years ago while sunbathing at the beach in Spring Lake. Police said she refused to put on a shirt, and was given one after being booked at the station. She left that shirt at the door when she was released, and was again detained later in the day.

Feeley was charged with violating the borough ordinance prohibiting public nudity. She protested, arguing that exposing her breasts was not nudity, and appealed her case. A somber Feeley said yesterday she planned to ask the state Supreme Court to take up the issue.

"In America, the land of the free and where equality reigns free, a woman can't take off her shirt but a man can," she said. "In another country, a woman can't take a scarf off her face without getting stoned to death. What's so different about the two?"

Feeley is no stranger to top-free controversy. In 2005, she was arrested in New York City for walking down a street without a shirt. She sued the city, pointing to a ruling by New York State's highest court saying women can go topless in public. The city later paid her $29,000 to settle the suit.

But New Jersey legal precedent cuts a different way. In its ruling, the court relied on a 2001 case -- State of New Jersey v. Arlene Vogt -- in rejecting Feeley's argument.

Nudity is allowed at only one place in New Jersey, Gunnison Beach, part of the Gateway National Park at Sandy Hook. The beach, with a tradition of skinny dipping dating to 1974, is controlled by the National Park Service.

Title: Re: Court Rules - Moobs OK, Boobs Not
Post by: MÇA on 09-15-2011, 01:00pm

Title: Re: Court Rules - Moobs OK, Boobs Not
Post by: shahaggy on 09-15-2011, 01:19pm
so going topless is legal in New York but not legal in New Jersey??  :-\

seriously, we just can't have nice things around here  :'(
Title: Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $8 billion to man after he grew some titties
Post by: MÇA on 10-09-2019, 02:25pm
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $8 billion to man after he grew some titties (
October 9, 2019

Man claims Johnson & Johnson’s product had him out here growing titties, Johnson & Johnson is ordered to pay him $8 billion.

Nicholas Murray sued Johnson & Johnson after claiming that their antipsychotic product Risperdal caused him to grow breasts after he started taking it in 2003. He was awarded $680,000 in the first lawsuit at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Murray says he started taking the drug after a psychologist diagnosed him with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Murray’s lawyers, Tom Kline and Jason Itkin said in a statement:

 “[The] jury told Johnson & Johnson that its actions were deliberate and malicious. The conduct that the jury saw in the courtroom, was clear and convincing that J&J disregarded the safety of the most vulnerable of children. This is an important moment, not only for this litigation, but for J&J, which is a Company that has lost its way."

Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $8 billion in punitive damages to the man. Murray stated that he wasn’t warned about the effects and risks of Risperdal and was unaware that it may make you grow breasts.

John & Johnson says it plans to appeal the ruling, calling it  “grossly disproportionate with the initial compensatory award in this case”, and says it’s confident that the case will be overturned.

The company stated that the court and jury did not hear how the label for Risperdal “clearly and appropriately outlined” the risks associated with the medicine.

Previously a judge ruled that New Jersey law which prohibits punitive damages should be applied to all cases, but a judge ruled in 2018 that punitive damages were permitted, and should be determined by where each plaintiff lives.