War Room Longue V. 73: Royal Rumble

[JDragon]

I mean yea, you could be the absolute most talented worker on the team, but I am going to have a certain level of judgement based on your appearance in the corporate atmosphere. I have hired a guy with dreads before, but he/it was very "fresh" as was his appearance and demeanor. That hairstyle in that pic if I'm being blunt looks ghetto to me.

When I conduct interviews, it is more than just the on-paper qualifications, school, etc. I judge based off of their word choice, body language, appearance as well. If I see a guy with that haircut they already start one notch down in my book. It isn't racial, as like I mentioned if I see a white guy come in with a Mohawk I'm probably not hiring him either. Appearance is a big deal for me for a number of reasons.

I don't disagree with what you write there, but it really depends on what you are looking for and what the surroundings are. If you have a creative team on marketing or some coder in a non-client facing IT position, what would be the problem? It's different though when I am trying to fill a position in Sales or where you know you have a lot of top management exposure.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I usually use fresh chilis which I grow myself, but to get that much heat in a coconut milk based dish requires so much habanero or similar chili (trinidad scorpions, carolina reapers etc) that the floral, fruity flavour is too overpowering.
Whereas this stuff is dried habanero soaked in concentrated habanero extract. All the heat, but a bit less of the flavour.
It's supposed to be a dry rub for wedges or chicken, but I just use it instead of chili powder.

That's a nice nuanced approach. I just remember eating some wings with one of those super high Schofield unit sauces. My girlfriend at the time had an iron palette and could take any amount of heat. I labored through it sweating like a pig but that was nothing compared to the next morning. My butt felt like it was the '68 Tet offensive in Vietnam all over again. I didn't cry... but maybe I teared up a bit going through that ordeal.

 

[JDragon]

I usually use fresh chilis which I grow myself, but to get that much heat in a coconut milk based dish requires so much habanero or similar chili (trinidad scorpions, carolina reapers etc) that the floral, fruity flavour is too overpowering.
Whereas this stuff is dried habanero soaked in concentrated habanero extract. All the heat, but a bit less of the flavour.
It's supposed to be a dry rub for wedges or chicken, but I just use it instead of chili powder.

I am secreting more than @senri would allow for. Sounds like an awesome spice

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Mormons hate them some boobies

This Utah woman was charged for being topless in her own home. Now, she’s arguing the lewdness law is unconstitutional.

It started off as an impromptu teaching moment for her young stepchildren.

Tilli Buchanan and her husband had been installing insulation in their garage, and had stripped off their clothes just inside their home to get the itchy materials off their skin. She was topless when her stepchildren bounded down the stairs.

The children were a little embarrassed at the sight — but Buchanan told them they shouldn’t treat her differently because she was a woman. They aren’t uncomfortable seeing their dad’s chest, she told them, so it shouldn’t be different for her.

“This isn’t a sexual thing,” she recalled telling the children. “I should be able to wear exactly what my husband wears. You shouldn’t be embarrassed about this.”


But apparently state officials don’t have the same view. After getting wind of what Buchanan had thought was an innocent encounter, they filed criminal charges against the 27-year-old West Valley City woman.

She’s now facing three counts of lewdness involving a child — a class A misdemeanor. If convicted, Buchanan could land in jail and stay on the sex offender registry for the next 10 years.

She’s been fighting the case since prosecutors filed it in February, and soon, her attorney Randy Richards plans to ask a judge to find that Utah’s lewdness statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women.

Buchanan faces criminal penalties for being shirtless in her own home, Richards argues, while her husband was also in the same state of undress and is not charged.

“The fact that this was in the privacy of one’s own home is real troubling,” he said. “Different people have different moral positions as far as nudity.”


‘You can’t teach kids this’

Like many criminal cases, critical details are in dispute. No one can quite pinpoint when this incident took place. Buchanan thinks it happened in fall 2016, while prosecutors put the timeframe as November 2017 and January 2018.


According to Buchanan, she had been in the garage that day with her husband, wearing long-sleeved shirts and protective clothing. They were sweaty and itchy, so they stripped down to their underwear, leaving their dirty clothes near a doorway so they could take a shower. That’s when the kids — a 13-year-old boy, a 10-year-old girl and a 9-year-old boy — saw her without her top on.

West Valley City Deputy Attorney Corey Sherwin offers a different account in court papers: He alleges that Buchanan stripped down in front of her stepchildren after making a statement about how if her husband could take off his shirt, then a woman should be able to as well.

He further alleges that Buchanan, while “under the influence of alcohol,” had told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if he showed her his penis.

The police became involved in the situation after the Division of Child and Family Services began an investigation involving the children that was unrelated to Buchanan. Though it was not the focus of the initial investigation, Sherwin wrote, the children’s mother reported it to authorities because she was “alarmed” about what had happened in front of her kids.

Buchanan, the stepmother, said she hadn’t thought about the incident much since it had happened — until a police detective called her earlier this year and asked about it. Then, weeks later, the charges were filed.

“I was devastated,” she said. “Because the moment I took to teach the kids, it was kind of smashed. Like you can’t teach kids this. In fact, you’re going to be charged for even bringing this up.”


Free the Nipple?

Richards, Buchanan’s attorney, has filed a motion asking that a judge find that Utah’s lewdness law is unconstitutional.

Much of his argument leans on a 10th Circuit Court ruling, where the appeals court sided with two Colorado women who sued Fort Collins.

The women are part of “Free the Nipple Fort Collins,” a group arguing that the city’s ban violated their right to equal protection.

Richards argues this decision is controlling in other states covered by the 10th Circuit, which includes Utah.

"Because Tilli Buchanan is a woman — and only because she is a woman — the state now seeks to condemn her as a child sex offender for engaging in the exact same non-sexual conduct as her lawfully faultless husband,” Richards wrote. “Tilli Buchanan is being singled out for prosecution solely on the basis of sex.”



But West Valley City prosecutors argued in response that the 10th Circuit ruling was narrowly tailored to an injunction prohibiting enforcement of a city ordinance, not a state’s lewdness statute.

They argue that Utah’s lewdness statute is different than Fort Collins’ ordinance, and does not discriminate on the basis of gender. The city attorneys further argue that if the distinction of female breasts is struck from Utah laws, it could have unintended consequences.

They argue that not differentiating between male and female breasts would affect child sex offender laws that prohibits touching a young girl’s breasts.

“This would create an absurd result,” Sherwin wrote, “albeit necessary one under such a change.”

The Fort Collins decision was released in February, but only recently was it confirmed that the city would not appeal the 10th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When asked about Buchanan’s case, West Valley City Attorney Ryan Robinson declined to discuss the specifics about why they wanted to bring her case to court, saying it would violate attorney rules for a prosecutor to discuss the facts of a case before trial.

But he said this about the Fort Collins decision: “We are still in the process of reviewing the 10th Circuit case and what effect, if any, [it has] on Utah’s lewdness statute.”


‘I don’t think of myself as a criminal’

Attorneys are expected to argue Buchanan’s case on Nov. 19, a date that’s been delayed several times over scheduling issues.

In these past eight months since she was charged, Buchanan has had the case looming in the back of her mind. Her feelings of anger and disbelief have softened somewhat as her case has dragged on.

She doesn’t consider herself an activist, and said this isn’t exactly a cause she’s felt passionate about. Unlike the women in Colorado, you won’t see Buchanan topless in public waving protest signs.

“It’s not like at the forefront of my brain,” she said. “I’m not going to go sign up for the ‘Free the Nipple’ cause. I just thought, ‘This is cool, this is really awesome and natural.’ It’s not a thing to me. It’s never been a thing.”

It’s still not something that’s discussed within their family, and Buchanan said they’ve shielded their children from the criminal case.

But Buchanan said she’s noticed a change in herself when she’s around the kids at home. She wonders if her shorts are too short, or if she should be wearing a tank top. She worries about lounging around the house without a bra on.

She doesn’t want anything else to happen, she said, that could be interpreted as inappropriate.

“Whatever is going to happen is going to happen,” she said. “And it’s either going to go really well or it’s going to go really poorly. But, ultimately, I don’t think of myself as a criminal and so I’m going to continue as if I wasn’t a criminal.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09...0czOPXMgpTmhyIGCJeo11a14Hu_p39f9hmWIXulvwRK7o

Lock her up! Lock her up!

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

@PolishHeadlock2 @Trotsky

Have you guys seen any of these Gritty memes? lmao just bizarre and I know I'm late on this but I get a kick out of it. There are also a whole bunch of racist Nazi ones that came later that I'm not going to post.

Robespierre quote? lol

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/12/24/18145323/gritty-explained-mascot-flyers-meme-leftist

 

[Islam Imamate]

Mormons hate them some boobies

This Utah woman was charged for being topless in her own home. Now, she’s arguing the lewdness law is unconstitutional.

It started off as an impromptu teaching moment for her young stepchildren.

Tilli Buchanan and her husband had been installing insulation in their garage, and had stripped off their clothes just inside their home to get the itchy materials off their skin. She was topless when her stepchildren bounded down the stairs.

The children were a little embarrassed at the sight — but Buchanan told them they shouldn’t treat her differently because she was a woman. They aren’t uncomfortable seeing their dad’s chest, she told them, so it shouldn’t be different for her.

“This isn’t a sexual thing,” she recalled telling the children. “I should be able to wear exactly what my husband wears. You shouldn’t be embarrassed about this.”


But apparently state officials don’t have the same view. After getting wind of what Buchanan had thought was an innocent encounter, they filed criminal charges against the 27-year-old West Valley City woman.

She’s now facing three counts of lewdness involving a child — a class A misdemeanor. If convicted, Buchanan could land in jail and stay on the sex offender registry for the next 10 years.

She’s been fighting the case since prosecutors filed it in February, and soon, her attorney Randy Richards plans to ask a judge to find that Utah’s lewdness statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women.

Buchanan faces criminal penalties for being shirtless in her own home, Richards argues, while her husband was also in the same state of undress and is not charged.

“The fact that this was in the privacy of one’s own home is real troubling,” he said. “Different people have different moral positions as far as nudity.”


‘You can’t teach kids this’

Like many criminal cases, critical details are in dispute. No one can quite pinpoint when this incident took place. Buchanan thinks it happened in fall 2016, while prosecutors put the timeframe as November 2017 and January 2018.


According to Buchanan, she had been in the garage that day with her husband, wearing long-sleeved shirts and protective clothing. They were sweaty and itchy, so they stripped down to their underwear, leaving their dirty clothes near a doorway so they could take a shower. That’s when the kids — a 13-year-old boy, a 10-year-old girl and a 9-year-old boy — saw her without her top on.

West Valley City Deputy Attorney Corey Sherwin offers a different account in court papers: He alleges that Buchanan stripped down in front of her stepchildren after making a statement about how if her husband could take off his shirt, then a woman should be able to as well.

He further alleges that Buchanan, while “under the influence of alcohol,” had told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if he showed her his penis.

The police became involved in the situation after the Division of Child and Family Services began an investigation involving the children that was unrelated to Buchanan. Though it was not the focus of the initial investigation, Sherwin wrote, the children’s mother reported it to authorities because she was “alarmed” about what had happened in front of her kids.

Buchanan, the stepmother, said she hadn’t thought about the incident much since it had happened — until a police detective called her earlier this year and asked about it. Then, weeks later, the charges were filed.

“I was devastated,” she said. “Because the moment I took to teach the kids, it was kind of smashed. Like you can’t teach kids this. In fact, you’re going to be charged for even bringing this up.”


Free the Nipple?

Richards, Buchanan’s attorney, has filed a motion asking that a judge find that Utah’s lewdness law is unconstitutional.

Much of his argument leans on a 10th Circuit Court ruling, where the appeals court sided with two Colorado women who sued Fort Collins.

The women are part of “Free the Nipple Fort Collins,” a group arguing that the city’s ban violated their right to equal protection.

Richards argues this decision is controlling in other states covered by the 10th Circuit, which includes Utah.

"Because Tilli Buchanan is a woman — and only because she is a woman — the state now seeks to condemn her as a child sex offender for engaging in the exact same non-sexual conduct as her lawfully faultless husband,” Richards wrote. “Tilli Buchanan is being singled out for prosecution solely on the basis of sex.”



But West Valley City prosecutors argued in response that the 10th Circuit ruling was narrowly tailored to an injunction prohibiting enforcement of a city ordinance, not a state’s lewdness statute.

They argue that Utah’s lewdness statute is different than Fort Collins’ ordinance, and does not discriminate on the basis of gender. The city attorneys further argue that if the distinction of female breasts is struck from Utah laws, it could have unintended consequences.

They argue that not differentiating between male and female breasts would affect child sex offender laws that prohibits touching a young girl’s breasts.

“This would create an absurd result,” Sherwin wrote, “albeit necessary one under such a change.”

The Fort Collins decision was released in February, but only recently was it confirmed that the city would not appeal the 10th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When asked about Buchanan’s case, West Valley City Attorney Ryan Robinson declined to discuss the specifics about why they wanted to bring her case to court, saying it would violate attorney rules for a prosecutor to discuss the facts of a case before trial.

But he said this about the Fort Collins decision: “We are still in the process of reviewing the 10th Circuit case and what effect, if any, [it has] on Utah’s lewdness statute.”


‘I don’t think of myself as a criminal’

Attorneys are expected to argue Buchanan’s case on Nov. 19, a date that’s been delayed several times over scheduling issues.

In these past eight months since she was charged, Buchanan has had the case looming in the back of her mind. Her feelings of anger and disbelief have softened somewhat as her case has dragged on.

She doesn’t consider herself an activist, and said this isn’t exactly a cause she’s felt passionate about. Unlike the women in Colorado, you won’t see Buchanan topless in public waving protest signs.

“It’s not like at the forefront of my brain,” she said. “I’m not going to go sign up for the ‘Free the Nipple’ cause. I just thought, ‘This is cool, this is really awesome and natural.’ It’s not a thing to me. It’s never been a thing.”

It’s still not something that’s discussed within their family, and Buchanan said they’ve shielded their children from the criminal case.

But Buchanan said she’s noticed a change in herself when she’s around the kids at home. She wonders if her shorts are too short, or if she should be wearing a tank top. She worries about lounging around the house without a bra on.

She doesn’t want anything else to happen, she said, that could be interpreted as inappropriate.

“Whatever is going to happen is going to happen,” she said. “And it’s either going to go really well or it’s going to go really poorly. But, ultimately, I don’t think of myself as a criminal and so I’m going to continue as if I wasn’t a criminal.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09...0czOPXMgpTmhyIGCJeo11a14Hu_p39f9hmWIXulvwRK7o

Personally I think that is inappropriate but charging her for that seems like a bit much. I don't believe in the "free the nipple" stuff unless we're talking about nursing mothers who should get a pass. But charging her and potentially putting her on a sex offender registry seems like overreach and not what that law was intended to prosecute.

 

[JDragon]

Regarding eating spicy, Currywurst is one of the most popular German fast food dishes, and in the past 15 years, making them spicy has been a trend.

If you ever get to Frankfurt or surroundings, check out Best Worscht in Town, they are great. They also have this

So 'normal' folks go with A or B (Tabasco range), B+ is with a bit of Habanero powder, fun starts from there. I still remember a friend of my brother-in-law's visiting us with him when I still lived in the area. He was positively convinced that he would eat an 'F' sausage without problems. Of course, they don't sell that shit to noobs without vetting them, so they let him try one piece of an 'E'.

He ate a whole loaf of bread, did not order a sausage, and wouldn't talk about anything else that night.

 

[senri]

I usually use fresh chilis which I grow myself, but to get that much heat in a coconut milk based dish requires so much habanero or similar chili (trinidad scorpions, carolina reapers etc) that the floral, fruity flavour is too overpowering.
Whereas this stuff is dried habanero soaked in concentrated habanero extract. All the heat, but a bit less of the flavour.
It's supposed to be a dry rub for wedges or chicken, but I just use it instead of chili powder.

jrelagbhivsfaegrlqagbfriy79g3aggf597fq79r3gfayre4ffaebegahyrigyy

 

[Quipling]

Can't just post normal porn, gotta go grossing everyone out in the process.

Bastards.

Tbh the porn he got banned for was pretty bad last time. Just a grainy, low-res close-up of some flatass chick getting railed.

 

[Trotsky]

Personally I think that is inappropriate but charging her for that seems like a bit much. I don't believe in the "free the nipple" stuff unless we're talking about nursing mothers who should get a pass. But charging her and potentially putting her on a sex offender registry seems like overreach and not what that law was intended to prosecute.

If we passed laws saying that men have to be lactating into someone's mouth for exposure of their nipples to not be deemed criminally lewd, people would rightly gawk at the silliness of the prohibition.

 

[Ruprecht]

That's a nice nuanced approach. I just remember eating some wings with one of those super high Schofield unit sauces. My girlfriend at the time had an iron palette and could take any amount of heat. I labored through it sweating like a pig but that was nothing compared to the next morning. My butt felt like it was the '68 Tet offensive in Vietnam all over again. I didn't cry... but maybe I teared up a bit going through that ordeal.

Yeah, this stuff isn't that hot. 550,000 Scoville units supposedly. The hottest varieties of chili are over 2 million.
Although I've grown some Carolina Reapers, Trinidad Moruga Scorpions and Bhut Jolokia which weren't as hot.
A level half teaspoon per serving is still plenty.
Before I used this I used CaJohns Trinidad Moruga Puree, but that still had a stronger taste even when using less (it's almost 3 times as hot, 1.4 million Scoville units).
I've developed a decent tolerance, although if I eat a ridiculously hot chili on an empty stomach I get the hiccups.

 

[Islam Imamate]

If we passed laws saying that men have to be lactating into someone's mouth for exposure of their nipples to not be deemed criminally lewd, people would rightly gawk at the silliness of the prohibition.

Male and female breasts are just not the same, somehow I think you know that but will pretend otherwise for the sake of your point.

 

[Ruprecht]

jrelagbhivsfaegrlqagbfriy79g3aggf597fq79r3gfayre4ffaebegahyrigyy

Only on Tuesdays.

 

[Ruprecht]

I am secreting more than @senri would allow for. Sounds like an awesome spice

They don't make it anymore unfortunately. I've got about an eighth of one left, then I'll have to find something else. I haven't tried the Blair's Reserve extracts.

 

[Trotsky]

Male and female breasts are just not the same, somehow I think you know that but will pretend otherwise for the sake of your point.

It doesn't matter that they're not exactly the same. Their being basically different doesn't justify, let alone necessitate, that sort of wildly disparate treatment. The only difference between the two is (more) naturally-occurring fatty tissue and lactation hormones. But male and female arms, thighs, jaws, shoulders, and cheekbones aren't the same, but that mere fact doesn't justify women's bodies being required to be veiled.

 

[Andy Capp]

Some 25 year old marine is claiming to have been having sex with Warren on the side and apparently she is into severely violent BDSM.

She needs to make the following public statement immediately to put the whole thing to rest,

Prime Hughes was the original GOAT WW. GSP is the china knockoff, known for secret roids, oiling, ducking fighters, and boring fights. Only took down the GOAT after losing the first fight and catching him out of his prime later.

LOL no matter how many times these slights are discredited, people will still repeat them because they can't handle that GSP beat every one of their heroes at 170. It's almost cute at this point.

It's a bit normal in the tech world though, especially if you aren't in a customer facing position. Hair isn't a big deal as long as you take of it, but I can see why people would be put off by face tats or gaudy face piercings.

But hey, it's 2019. I work for the fifth largest tech company in the world and have long hair just past my shoulders although I tie it up in a bun at work. Got hired no problem with my hair like that. I have no tats or piercings though.

Region probably matters though. The workplace environment differs quite a bit in here in California as opposed to Chicago where I'm from. In SoCal they're just happy to have someone with drive and career goals that isn't going to be a flake.

At the end of the day, if you are amazing at your job, it's amazing what people let slide.

Right. I couldn't care less what a person's hair is like as long as they do a good job and aren't preparing food--unless, that is, they're facing customers, because then it's not about what I consider ok or not, it's what the only barely reasonable customer may think.

Korean is supposed to be easy to pick up, especially reading. The language was designed to help improve literacy.

Also, since we're talking about languages, people need to check this dude's channel:

Dude just goes around town speaking to people in their native languages and blowing their minds. Pretty much taught himself dozens of languages.

Cool. These days, I have occasion for people from all sorts of different places to come to me. I'll be doing my best over the winter to learn how to converse a bit with many of them. Right now, I can get by in French and I have enough Japanese and Spanish be politely charming. Next comes German. I hope to have a grip on all of these by this time next year. It's very handy to have an aptitude for language. You're right, people react to their language in some interesting ways when they hear it from someone unexpected.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

@PolishHeadlock2 @Trotsky

Have you guys seen any of these Gritty memes? lmao just bizarre and I know I'm late on this but I get a kick out of it. There are also a whole bunch of racist Nazi ones that came later that I'm not going to post.

Robespierre quote? lol

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/12/24/18145323/gritty-explained-mascot-flyers-meme-leftist

Yup

A buddy of mine got a Gritty tattoo the weekend he was unveiled.

The Alt right has been trying to use him as well.

https://www.newsweek.com/gritty-alt...emitic-proud-boys-philadelphia-flyers-1222767

 

[Islam Imamate]

It doesn't matter that they're not exactly the same. Their being basically different doesn't justify, let alone necessitate, that sort of wildly disparate treatment. The only difference between the two is (more) naturally-occurring fatty tissue and lactation hormones. But male and female arms, thighs, jaws, shoulders, and cheekbones aren't the same, but that mere fact doesn't justify women's bodies being required to be veiled.

Women's breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic in a way men's breasts or a woman's jaw aren't.

 

[Trotsky]

Women's breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic in a way men's breasts or a woman's jaw aren't.

So are beards and Adam's apples, yet I don't see people insisting men walk around in scarves.

 

[Andy Capp]

Mormons hate them some boobies

This Utah woman was charged for being topless in her own home. Now, she’s arguing the lewdness law is unconstitutional.

It started off as an impromptu teaching moment for her young stepchildren.

Tilli Buchanan and her husband had been installing insulation in their garage, and had stripped off their clothes just inside their home to get the itchy materials off their skin. She was topless when her stepchildren bounded down the stairs.

The children were a little embarrassed at the sight — but Buchanan told them they shouldn’t treat her differently because she was a woman. They aren’t uncomfortable seeing their dad’s chest, she told them, so it shouldn’t be different for her.

“This isn’t a sexual thing,” she recalled telling the children. “I should be able to wear exactly what my husband wears. You shouldn’t be embarrassed about this.”


But apparently state officials don’t have the same view. After getting wind of what Buchanan had thought was an innocent encounter, they filed criminal charges against the 27-year-old West Valley City woman.

She’s now facing three counts of lewdness involving a child — a class A misdemeanor. If convicted, Buchanan could land in jail and stay on the sex offender registry for the next 10 years.

She’s been fighting the case since prosecutors filed it in February, and soon, her attorney Randy Richards plans to ask a judge to find that Utah’s lewdness statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women.

Buchanan faces criminal penalties for being shirtless in her own home, Richards argues, while her husband was also in the same state of undress and is not charged.

“The fact that this was in the privacy of one’s own home is real troubling,” he said. “Different people have different moral positions as far as nudity.”


‘You can’t teach kids this’

Like many criminal cases, critical details are in dispute. No one can quite pinpoint when this incident took place. Buchanan thinks it happened in fall 2016, while prosecutors put the timeframe as November 2017 and January 2018.


According to Buchanan, she had been in the garage that day with her husband, wearing long-sleeved shirts and protective clothing. They were sweaty and itchy, so they stripped down to their underwear, leaving their dirty clothes near a doorway so they could take a shower. That’s when the kids — a 13-year-old boy, a 10-year-old girl and a 9-year-old boy — saw her without her top on.

West Valley City Deputy Attorney Corey Sherwin offers a different account in court papers: He alleges that Buchanan stripped down in front of her stepchildren after making a statement about how if her husband could take off his shirt, then a woman should be able to as well.

He further alleges that Buchanan, while “under the influence of alcohol,” had told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if he showed her his penis.

The police became involved in the situation after the Division of Child and Family Services began an investigation involving the children that was unrelated to Buchanan. Though it was not the focus of the initial investigation, Sherwin wrote, the children’s mother reported it to authorities because she was “alarmed” about what had happened in front of her kids.

Buchanan, the stepmother, said she hadn’t thought about the incident much since it had happened — until a police detective called her earlier this year and asked about it. Then, weeks later, the charges were filed.

“I was devastated,” she said. “Because the moment I took to teach the kids, it was kind of smashed. Like you can’t teach kids this. In fact, you’re going to be charged for even bringing this up.”


Free the Nipple?

Richards, Buchanan’s attorney, has filed a motion asking that a judge find that Utah’s lewdness law is unconstitutional.

Much of his argument leans on a 10th Circuit Court ruling, where the appeals court sided with two Colorado women who sued Fort Collins.

The women are part of “Free the Nipple Fort Collins,” a group arguing that the city’s ban violated their right to equal protection.

Richards argues this decision is controlling in other states covered by the 10th Circuit, which includes Utah.

"Because Tilli Buchanan is a woman — and only because she is a woman — the state now seeks to condemn her as a child sex offender for engaging in the exact same non-sexual conduct as her lawfully faultless husband,” Richards wrote. “Tilli Buchanan is being singled out for prosecution solely on the basis of sex.”



But West Valley City prosecutors argued in response that the 10th Circuit ruling was narrowly tailored to an injunction prohibiting enforcement of a city ordinance, not a state’s lewdness statute.

They argue that Utah’s lewdness statute is different than Fort Collins’ ordinance, and does not discriminate on the basis of gender. The city attorneys further argue that if the distinction of female breasts is struck from Utah laws, it could have unintended consequences.

They argue that not differentiating between male and female breasts would affect child sex offender laws that prohibits touching a young girl’s breasts.

“This would create an absurd result,” Sherwin wrote, “albeit necessary one under such a change.”

The Fort Collins decision was released in February, but only recently was it confirmed that the city would not appeal the 10th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When asked about Buchanan’s case, West Valley City Attorney Ryan Robinson declined to discuss the specifics about why they wanted to bring her case to court, saying it would violate attorney rules for a prosecutor to discuss the facts of a case before trial.

But he said this about the Fort Collins decision: “We are still in the process of reviewing the 10th Circuit case and what effect, if any, [it has] on Utah’s lewdness statute.”


‘I don’t think of myself as a criminal’

Attorneys are expected to argue Buchanan’s case on Nov. 19, a date that’s been delayed several times over scheduling issues.

In these past eight months since she was charged, Buchanan has had the case looming in the back of her mind. Her feelings of anger and disbelief have softened somewhat as her case has dragged on.

She doesn’t consider herself an activist, and said this isn’t exactly a cause she’s felt passionate about. Unlike the women in Colorado, you won’t see Buchanan topless in public waving protest signs.

“It’s not like at the forefront of my brain,” she said. “I’m not going to go sign up for the ‘Free the Nipple’ cause. I just thought, ‘This is cool, this is really awesome and natural.’ It’s not a thing to me. It’s never been a thing.”

It’s still not something that’s discussed within their family, and Buchanan said they’ve shielded their children from the criminal case.

But Buchanan said she’s noticed a change in herself when she’s around the kids at home. She wonders if her shorts are too short, or if she should be wearing a tank top. She worries about lounging around the house without a bra on.

She doesn’t want anything else to happen, she said, that could be interpreted as inappropriate.

“Whatever is going to happen is going to happen,” she said. “And it’s either going to go really well or it’s going to go really poorly. But, ultimately, I don’t think of myself as a criminal and so I’m going to continue as if I wasn’t a criminal.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09...0czOPXMgpTmhyIGCJeo11a14Hu_p39f9hmWIXulvwRK7o

LOL in this country a woman can mow her lawn topless and the cops can't do shit. We hashed this dumb crap out over 20 years ago,
The court fight
"In 1991, Jacob was found guilty of one count of committing an indecent act and fined $75. During her court case, she argued that women's breasts are just fat tissue, not unlike men's.

But in his ruling, the judge said a woman's breast is "part of the female body that is sexually stimulating to men both by sight and touch," and should not be uncovered in public.

In 1996, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Jacob's conviction, saying "there was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what the appellant did. The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non-commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her."

Moreover, the court ruled that Jacob did not exceed "the community standard of tolerance when all of the relevant circumstances are taken into account."

The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the issue, though Jacob's lawyer had argued that her client had the same constitutional right to go topless as men did."

edit: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/women-s-topless-court-victory-20-years-later-1.1026403