I sigh. Here’s the first I read of this, in the Daily News yesterday (another great headline, DN!):
Topless artist sues over bust
Holly Van Voast is tired of getting busted.
The breast-baring artist filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday in Manhattan, charging the NYPD repeatedly violated her constitutional right to tour the city without wearing a shirt — or handcuffs. “The NYPD needs to be taught the proper way to handle bare breasts,” said her lawyer, Ron Kuby. [Oh, Ron!]
Frequent flasher Van Voast, 46, cited 10 arrests, including one near a “Hooters” restaurant. [Nice touch there.] The court papers note the state Court of Appeals has ruled women can legally bare their breasts in public.
The NYPD had no response to the lawsuit. [Hm]
— Larry McShane
Now, this is one of the times that both the Daily News and the New York Times report on the same case. So we now have a great opportunity to compare how a tabloid and a great newspaper treat a story. The Times headline — “Topless Woman? Move On, Police Are Told” alone suggests the difference in journalistic approach.
Well, yes, but the NYT has some zinger quotes. Take a look at the last four paragraphs in which NYPD officers weigh in. Body paint is mentioned.
So. I admire Ms. Van Voast for sticking out her chest for women’s rights, but given what’s been going on in our world (see my category The Global War Against Women), I ask her to consider taking up a graver aspect of the cause like, maybe, religious fundamentalists v women? Given the way religious fundamentalist require women to dress, I’m sure Ms. Van Voast can broaden her legal scope satisfactorily.
Meanwhile, I’m not running around topless, but I am ever so grateful to Ms. Van Voast for suing for my right to do so.