71

A travel advertisement aired on the radio in Italy states that it is "perfectly legal" to be topless in New York City; is this true?

The ad doesn't say anything else useful to the question.

Community
  • 1
Ciacciu
  • 821
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 5
    So why aren't there tons of Italians coming to NY and bearing themselves? – Octopus Dec 11 '14 at 18:47
  • 4
    @Octopus: I suspect there are more people interested in seeing others topless than in being topless themselves. Both, either, or neither could be attracted by the ad ;-) If there aren't tons of topless Italians in NY then I guess it's some combination of the time of year and there only being a smallish number of Italians in the first place who can't find anywhere else to get topless. – Steve Jessop Dec 11 '14 at 19:37
  • 2
    Potentially not `perfectly` legal, depending on how "perfectly" is defined. Toplessness in and of itself is legal. If done to demonstrate lewdness or incite public disturbance or similar, then toplessness can be cited as a cause. It can depend on total circumstances. And New York is similar to many other places in that respect. – user2338816 Dec 12 '14 at 01:55
  • 1
    @Octopus the ad was aimed to Christmas vacation. Expect them soon enough :D Thanks for the input user2338816 – Ciacciu Dec 12 '14 at 09:21
  • 2
    I just saw a news article where the daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore was top-free on Lexington Ave., as part of her support of the *Free the Nipple* campaign. Video was cencored, though. – JDługosz Dec 13 '14 at 09:00
  • This should be closed as a [general reference question](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/73/13812) since the answer is easily found with an internet search. – pacoverflow Dec 14 '14 at 23:07
  • @pacoverflow According to that, people are allowed to answer such a question if they find it interesting; so, "This **could** be closed as a general reference question". – ChrisW Dec 19 '14 at 03:16
  • Who is this travel advertisement supposed to be attracting? Italian women who are anxious to go to a far-away American city where they can legally go topless, or Italian men who are anxious to go to a far-away American city where they can (supposedly) see topless American women? :-) – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Aug 19 '15 at 17:23

1 Answers1

98

Yes it is perfectly legal.

This is based on the Santorelli case, in which Ramona Santorelli was arrested for baring in public "that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola". She was acquitted after the case went to the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York) in 1992 on the grounds of equal protection. Since then there have been many similar cases decided the same way.

In February 2013, the New York City Police Department issued a command to all its officers through their daily roll call. It reminded officers that they are not to cite or arrest a woman for public lewdness, indecent exposure or any other section of the Penal Law for “simply exposing their breasts in public".

There are plenty of references for this:

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • 13
    @Ciacciu There is similar case law in Ontario. You'd be wrong if you imagined that women (or men) often take advantage of this law: i.e. although it's legal it is socially so unusual that it's basically non-existent. – ChrisW Dec 11 '14 at 14:26
  • 5
    Also, much like many activities that are legal in and of themselves, they can be cited as aspects of illegal activities if they are needlessly disruptive. Much like the difference between free speech and yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, I believe there have been people cited for being confrontational with their toplessness since the ruling. – Sean Duggan Dec 11 '14 at 15:21
  • @ChrisW I understand, but I think you'll concede that the fact that it is not just tolerated, but clearly legal *could* sound unusual. Also I doubt such a law would come to be in Italy, and that made me question the truth behind the claim – Ciacciu Dec 11 '14 at 15:23
  • 3
    @Ciacciu Yes, I added that not because it's a bad question but because the source of the claim was a "travel advertisement": an advertisement which said, "go to New York because it's legal to be topless there" would be a bit deceptive as well as being true. The case law happens because of equal rights: i.e. because it's not illegal for men therefore it's not illegal for women. – ChrisW Dec 11 '14 at 15:30
  • If it's legal, then why in the world does the Naked Cowgirl (google that, but NSWP) wear pasties? – user5341 Dec 11 '14 at 16:09
  • 4
    @DVK: Because some people aren't quite as wild as they want people to think they are. :) – cHao Dec 11 '14 at 16:18
  • @SeanDuggan free speech means that you can say what you want without getting arrested, but not that you can't be shown the door of a private establishment (like a theater) should you be disruptive. – ratchet freak Dec 11 '14 at 16:59
  • @ratchetfreak: It's also generally interpreted as limiting "harmful" speech. We have free speech, but noise ordinances can be enforced is another example. I suppose I mainly wanted to make a distinction due to having read an article a few years back where the female author took advantage of the toplessness in Central Park and was warned by a local officer that she should be careful not to "cause a disturbance" when she kept her top off to buy a hot dog. Could be they've ruled on a similar case since then. – Sean Duggan Dec 11 '14 at 17:09
  • 14
    @Ciacciu A law saying it's legal for women to be topless didn't "come into being". Instead what happened was: a) "[Equal Protection Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause)" passed as a constitutional amendment in the 19th century; b) woman arrested and convicted for violating "Penal Law § 245.01 (exposure of a person)"; c) on appeal, argues to the appeal court that law § 245.01 is unconstitutional because it violates the "Equal Protection Clause"; d) appeal court agrees and overturns the conviction. It's [case law, i.e. precedent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent). – ChrisW Dec 11 '14 at 17:38
  • Sorry, I'm not native, as you could guess from the question, and I often have a hard time finding the right expression, thanks for the clarification! Also in italy the judiciary system is quite different, with precedents not being really that relevant, so a law would HAVE to be made. :) – Ciacciu Dec 12 '14 at 09:24
  • @Ciacciu [Italy has a constitution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Italy) which says things like, "Regional laws must remove any obstacle to the full equality of men and women in social, cultural and economic life and promote equal access to elected offices for men and women." If there is a law which says that it's illegal for women to be topless, somewhere where it's not illegal for men to be topless, and if someone were arrested, I wonder whether they could argue that the law is unconstitutional and so must be UNMADE. Google suggests that topless is legal on any Italian beach. – ChrisW Dec 12 '14 at 09:53
  • FWIW, there was a young woman in NY that I saw walking through the street in the middle of the day completely topless. While she attracted many stares, no one seemed to give her a problem/ – thumbtackthief Dec 12 '14 at 19:33
  • 2
    The unclosed quotation at the end of the second paragraph is bothering me, but the system doesn't allow suggesting such minor edits. Can someone close it? >_ – Izkata Dec 13 '14 at 04:15
  • There is a problem with your answer DJ CLayworth. The case you mention regards municipal ordinances from Monroe and Rochester County. I did a quick search for NYC municipal ordinances, as the question asked, and all I could find was that it is not legal, and that it could be considered a lewdness misdemeanor. See New York City, N.Y., Code § 17-142. Now, the case you mentioned is not on point because it does not apply the ordinance mentioned above. Again, my research was cursory, but I would not start going topless in NYC...or not yet. – edn13 Dec 17 '14 at 02:04
  • § 17-142. Definition of nuisance. The word “nuisance”, shall be held to embrace public nuisance, as known at common law or in equity jurisprudence; ... All such nuisances are hereby declared illegal. – edn13 Dec 17 '14 at 02:12
  • 1
    @edn13 The point of the Santorelli case was that it showed that 'equal protection' rights trumped the toplessness laws that existed in Monroe and Rochester county. Such rights would trump any such laws in NYC. Even if there are laws against toplessness in NYC, they would be overturned on appeal: and the NYC police obviously recognize that because they instruct their officers not to arrest people for mere toplessness. – DJClayworth Dec 17 '14 at 19:20
  • 1
    @edn13 The cases in question were in the NY State Supreme Court. While the original incident occurred in Monroe County and the City of Rochester, any decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York establishes a binding precedent for all jurisdictions within NY State, insofar as it applies equally to those jurisdictions. (There are, for example, some municipalities in NYS whose response has been to require men to wear shirts too, thus satisfying the equal protection requirements of the constitution.) – LessPop_MoreFizz Dec 18 '14 at 04:21
  • 1
    I hate making this sound so complicated but I fear that there is no way around: NY Supreme Court is the bottom court in NY, so very little binding power there. As about what the Court of Appeals would say, we do not know. My point is that we cannot say something is legal just because NYPD officers seem not to enforce the law that says the opposite. We can say that it seems to be a behavior NYPD officers currently tolerate. – edn13 Feb 16 '15 at 19:48
  • @edn13 LessPop is in fact mistaken, and the Santorelli case was heard before the NY Court of Appeals. (See first link in the answer). And while we cannot make a definite pronouncement on any *individual* legal case, the decision in the Santorelli case combined with the actions of the NY police is enough to say that, for practical purposes, it is legal to be topless in NY. – DJClayworth Feb 16 '15 at 23:45
  • Santorelli wasn't acquitted by the appeals court based on equal protection. Instead, the court said the law only applied to commercial situations, such as topless waitresses. Santorelli argued equal protection, and Judge Titone wrote a concurring opinion based on equal protection, but the majority opinion avoided the equal protection issue. See also "The court did not find the law discriminatory, as the women had argued" https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/nyregion/seeking-equality-not-tips-topless-marchers-draw-a-crowd-in-manhattan.html – DavePhD Jul 05 '17 at 15:41
  • Technically true, although the ruling seems to indicate that the court chose to interpret the law that way specifically to prevent it being invalidated through equal protection. But I would have to be a pretty knowledgeable lawyer to understand it in full. – DJClayworth Jul 05 '17 at 17:44