Yesterday, I provided a quickie post on protests this week in promotion of the right of women to be topless in public. On some level, this right is a tad absurd -- New York, as a link provided noted, has for years upheld the right of women to be topless in public places for non-commercial reasons that are not lewd. Since topless dancing did not meet this definition as far back to the 1970s, per state court precedent, "lewd" clearly has a strict meaning. Not too many women walk topless here.
Topless rights do touch upon various situations more likely to occur. For instance, there are times when being topless is more common, including in certain types of parades (e.g., Gay Pride parades, which tend to promote a general freedom to express who you are) and in parks/beaches. Protests of other kinds, including against war or animal use, also at times includes some toplessness. Breastfeeding also is an important matter, particularly when "public" includes shopping areas and the like. Or, the recent controversy over pics on Facebook. Furthermore, again as the previous post noted, certain clothing leaves little to the imagination.
One link went to the website promoted by Sandra Day O'Connor, which has the purpose of educating schoolchildren about the law. A game is provided in which you are a law clerk to a swing justice in a case involving a school not letting a student to wear a band t-shirt. As the "fishnet" case noted, limits on clothing are to be looked upon with disfavor. Schools are something of a special case, but topless issues touch upon broader matters of personal expression, which might have clear "speech" elements as well as "simply" a matter of personal autonomy (Justice Powell, e.g., "liberty interest within the Fourteenth Amendment as to matters of personal appearance").*
A similar thing can be seen by use of let's say marijuana. It was (and on some level continues to be) as much as a symbol of a certain sort of person as anything else. Ditto cigarettes, actually. Restraint is seen as a slam against such people and even freedom itself. Thus, even if you don't think being topless is a major concern in itself, backlash can have troublesome connotations. Male and female toplessness is not quite "equal," but targeting one over the other, particularly when what matters is a speck of clothing, does burden one group over the other in dubious ways. More so the broader point of double standards that harm women regarding appearance issues.
This is not really about the right to walk down the street topless. It is ultimately about a lot more.
---
* Once you start to discuss the matter, a whole realm of issues can be touched upon. For instance, what you do on your own property (or in a car) that might be visual to the public in some fashion. What will be allowed on magazine covers, television (VH1 blocked out nudity in bathing scenes of Woodstock), or even to be processed in film labs? Breast issues as a whole can be talked about, including implants and so forth.