this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
1818 points (98.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
7674 readers
3238 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Love the message, but the blurb isn't correct. Police couldn't not arrest them because it would define them as a woman, outraging public decency and similar laws don't require specific genders.
I had a look further into this, because I wanted to better understand what factors might cause an act to be considered indecent exposure (or outraging public decency). This led me to some guidance on naturism and other non-sexual nudity, from the crown prosecution service.^1 It appears that having an "intention to cause alarm or distress" may be relevant for protests like this — arguably the entire point of the protest is to use the shock value of the nudity as a protest.
That being said, I think it's a bold move and possibly an effective protest. Even if public indecency laws are gender neutral, it would still be a strong message if any of these women got arrested for this — the reason why these women are capable of causing alarm or distress by going topless is because these are "female presenting nipples" (to use a heavily-memed phrase from the Tumblr porn ban era)
Yes it would also come under some public order offences. Bottom line is, the legal def of woman wasn't the reason they didn't get arrested.