« Why Does This Amuse Me So? | Main | Ambition is a Fine Thing »

June 18, 2007

Phoenix Feeley (Jill Coccaro)

Phoenix Feeley (who has previously been known as Jill Coccaro) has just accepted a $29,000 payment from the City authorities in New York. Feeley was arrested two years ago during a topless stroll in the park and it's been held that her civil rights were violated:

A New York artist arrested by police when she went on a topless stroll two years ago has accepted a $29,000  settlement from the city, her lawyer says.
Jill Coccaro, 27, was charged briefly with indecent  exposure.

There's a very good piece here explaining one of the later instances.

Here is an image of the event (no, this is a family blog).

Phoenix

The reason her rights were violated? If men are allowed to appear in public unclothed from the waist up then so are women.

To be honest, I'm really not sure whether that is an example of a welcome equality between the sexes or an absurd overlooking of the differences between them.

So, enough of Feeley/Coccaro. This gives me a chance to retell the story of one of my favourite legal defences of all time. One of those stories that is simply far too good to ever want to check whether it's true or not.

Somewhere up there in the blue states in the top right hand corner of the map two young women decided to go jogging nude (well, with shoes on I think). Arrested, yes, charged with indecent exposure.

Their defence was that indecent exposure, the way the statute was written, was defined as the exposure of genitalia. As female gentalia are internal and not exposed in the act of jogging, despite their nudity they were not guilty of indecent exposure. Case dismissed on all counts.

No, that is much too good a story to actually check out, isn't it?

June 18, 2007 in June Experiment | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00e00981c09f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Phoenix Feeley (Jill Coccaro):

Comments

>>> No, that is much too good a story to actually check out, isn't it?

Oh I dunno, athough you might be pleased to note that there's nowt on Snopes to suggest that its an urban legend.

Posted by: unity | Jun 18, 2007 3:33:11 PM

I'm surprised it even went to trial - this used to be a crime that in England could only be committed by a man.

Posted by: Marcin Tustin | Jun 18, 2007 4:06:20 PM

I'm so happy I am from a blue state.

Posted by: Chris | Jun 18, 2007 5:55:33 PM

Post a comment