Re: $29,000 for arresting topless woman
It's not a question of "knowing the law". It's not that simple. The law is clear in most places that this is illegal, but that doesn't mean that those laws are constitutional. Ask three constitutional experts (judges) this question and you'll get four different answers.
You can't forget that the constitution was written more than 200 years ago and in such a way as to address the concerns of that time. The courts have to interpret and apply the intent of the authors to the issues of today - many of which the authors couldn't have imagined.
If the woman was truly interested in advancing the cause of women's rights she might have thought about issues that affect most women, not just the few who are so starved for attention that they might want to go topless in public.
With that said, I fully endorse the concept but I'm afraid those with an interst aren't the ones I'd like to see shirtless.
Don't let the settlement fool you - most lawsuits are settled rather than tried because it's cheaper to do so. A settlement like this, particularly when accompanied with the standard non-admission of wrongdoing, is no indication that the settling party was wrong. The sad fact is that it's just cheaper to pay her to go away than try the case. Instead, I'd conclude the opposite. If she had a strong case she wouldn't have settled for $29,000. After attorney's fees she has BARELY ( ; )enough to buy a crummy used car. A typical civil rights violation case wins the agrieved party hundreds of thousands of dollars and reimbursment for attorney's fees. Why didn't she hold out for the big payday if the law is truly on her side???
She gets her 15 minutes of fame, then returns to her job - where she makes 80% of what her equally qualified male counterparts do for the same work. Meanwhile those who are actually pursuing the advancement of women's rights are saying "get off my side".
