[CENSORSHIP] White House bans ‘disrespectful’ topless trans influencer Rose Montoya

I suspect @astros123 will appreciate President Joe Biden's leadership on this issue

https://nypost.com/2023/06/13/rose-montoya-now-barred-from-white-house/

White House bans ‘disrespectful’ topless trans influencer Rose Montoya
By
Jesse O’Neill
June 13, 2023 12:49pm
Updated

The White House has banned trans influencer Rose Montoyaafter she flashed her breasts at President Biden’s Pride party — blasting the stunt as “inappropriate and disrespectful.”

Montoya, 27, was barred from the executive mansion on Tuesday, as footage went viral of her pulling her shirt and cupping her breasts moments after meeting Biden on the South Lawn at a Pride party Saturday.

In a statement to The Post on Tuesday, a White House spokesperson said she flouted basic etiquette and is persona non grata at future events.

“This behavior is inappropriate and disrespectful for any event at the White House,” the flack said.

“It is not reflective of the event we hosted to celebrate LGBTQI+ families or the other hundreds of guests who were in attendance. Individuals in the video will not be invited to future events.”
​

more at the link, including NSFW photos

​

 

from the above article

Rose Montoya in happier, less restrictively censorial times

​

 

related

Women's Boobs Are Not Free Speech, Says Federal Court
Because 'traditional moral norms' trump civil liberties

https://reason.com/2017/11/15/protecting-public-from-female-breasts/

excerpt:

To protect public health, safety, and morals, the government has an important interest in preventing women from going topless, a federal appeals court has ruled. And the importance of keeping lady breasts out of public view overrules any First Amendment or equal protection issues that such a policy raises.

But at least one dissenting judge felt differently, describing our topless protagonist as having "engaged in the paradigm of First Amendment speech—a public protest on public land in which the participants sought to change a law that, on its face, treats women differently than men."

Going topless might not be inherently expressive, "but to declare, as a matter of law, that it can never be expressive is the quintessence of throwing out the free-expression baby with the non-expressive-conduct bath water," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote.

And while Rovner notes that as a citizen, she doesn't "relish the prospect of seeing bare-chested women in public," she thinks the plaintiff here does present "potentially viable First Amendment and sex discrimination claims."

The case (Tagami v. City of Chicago) stems from the 2014 ticketing of Sonoko Tagami, who took to the Chicago streets with only opaque body paint over her bare breasts to celebrate "GoTopless Day" that year. Tagami was issued a $100 citation for violating the city's ban on public indecency, which prohibits the public display of female breasts and of all bare butts and genitals. After losing her challenge to the citation, Tagami filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Tagami's suit argued that banning women from going topless in public while allowing men to do so is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as well as her First Amendment rights. Neither the district nor appeals court agreed, dismissing Tagami's claims.
​

more at the link

 

at least one poster here was . . . confused by her

 

I absolutely just bust a gut laughing out loud at that first one

deserves not to be spoilered. oh my god

 

where is @Salvy

 

ooh, you're so serious. a serious person. an intellectual person. a great and somber person.

 

it's not that he didn't try.

Close, but no . . . cigar, as Bill Clinton might say

 

back to more important issues.

it's like Christmas for WaPo!!