I am a former resident of Stevenson, Washington, and I care deeply about my community and its well-being. Over the past year, I have observed Lucy Lauser—an extremist city council member—presenting her personal views inappropriately, and forcing her perspectives on everyone indiscriminately. This unwelcome course of action casts a troubling shadow over our community, creating an environment of discomfort and confusion. 

Additionally, my major concern centers around her troubling propensity for exposing herself publicly. As an authority figure and a representative of our local governance, such behavior not only undermines her integrity but also casts a negative impression on Stevenson’s image in the wider scope of Washington state.

No one, regardless of their political or personal ideology, should have the power to impose their perspective forcefully, particularly on young and impressionable minds. It is crucial to maintain an environment that promotes dialogue, respect, and understanding over monologue, disregard, and unilateral influence. Lucy Lauser is harming this necessary balance.

To preserve our community's well-being, it's critical that we put an end to these destructive actions and behaviors. By signing this petition, you help to safeguard our children's right to grow in an environment free of unnecessary influence and make Stevenson a place where every resident can be heard. Don’t let a single perspective dominate our narrative; let's reunion around our shared purpose as a community and find a way forward that respects and values each and every one of us.

I urge you to sign this petition and demand that city council member Lucy Lauser put an end to her unacceptable behavior. Let's ensure a safer, more inclusive Stevenson. Please sign this petition.

Let’s be absolutely clear—this conversation isn’t about hate, and it’s definitely not about transphobia. That’s a deflection tactic used to shut down any criticism or concern that doesn’t fit a certain narrative. What this is about is public accountability, the protection of minors, and equal enforcement of the law.

If anyone—regardless of gender identity—decides to expose their chest in front of children during a politically charged event, it’s not just “a body,” it’s a deliberate act. And if that act causes alarm or violates laws around public decency, then yes, it deserves to be questioned. That’s not hateful—that’s called living in a society with standards.

You don’t get to use identity as a shield against all consequences. If we’re serious about equality, then the rules need to apply equally. You can’t demand to be treated like everyone else, and then scream discrimination when you're held to the same standards.

And let’s stop pretending this is about “protecting free speech.” The First Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to expose themselves to minors under the banner of protest. That’s not protected speech—that’s crossing a legal and ethical line.

This community has every right to ask questions, demand answers, and expect accountability—without being labeled hateful for doing so. We can respect people's identities and still protect our children. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

So no, this isn’t hate. This is not fear. This is a community standing up and saying: we draw the line here.

Let’s Talk About What Actually Happened – A Response to Lucy Lauser

 

Lucy Lauser, you’ve made a lot of bold claims to justify your recent topless protest, and since this has affected our entire community, it’s time to set the record straight—with facts, not theatrics.

 

You’ve said:

 

“My body is not a sin.”

 

“I exposed my breasts to highlight double standards.”

 

“I wasn’t acting in my official capacity.”

 

“The law is on my side because breasts aren’t inherently sexual.”

 

“This was part of a larger strategy to fight a corrupt system.”

 

“If people are offended, that’s their problem.”

 

“I’m being targeted like I’m a threat, and the government wants to send me to a labor camp.”

 

“You have to choose—freedom or oppression.”

 

“You’re either with me or against me.”

 

Let’s unpack that.

 

1. Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences.

Yes, you have the right to express yourself—but so does everyone else. The First Amendment protects your protest. It also protects the community’s right to say, “this crossed a line.” You don’t get to use your platform to shock and provoke people and then shame them when they react. That’s not free speech—it’s manipulation.

 

2. Public nudity is not protected political speech in this context.

Washington State law (RCW 9A.88.010) clearly states that “open and obscene exposure” that causes “reasonable affront or alarm” is illegal. You exposed yourself in a conservative town, around children, in a non-designated protest space, knowing it would provoke. That’s not brave. That’s irresponsible.

 

3. No, you don’t stop being a public official when you step outside.

You were elected to represent the people—not provoke them. Everything you do in public reflects on your office. That’s what it means to serve a community. If you can’t balance personal activism with public duty, maybe you shouldn’t be in office.

 

4. You say you were making a point about double standards.

But instead of starting a conversation, you started a firestorm. The way to challenge inequality isn’t by exposing yourself to children and calling it feminism. That’s not changing minds—that’s giving your opponents exactly what they wanted: ammunition.

 

5. You claim this is part of a larger strategy.

If your strategy is to alienate your neighbors, escalate division, and turn a serious conversation about trans rights into a circus—then yes, it’s working. But don’t pretend this is helping your cause. It’s only further isolating you from the very people you say you’re fighting for.

 

6. You’re trying to weaponize victimhood to silence dissent.

Let’s be honest—your protest didn’t spark a meaningful debate. It sparked outrage, because you used victimhood as a shield to justify crossing a line. You’re framing all criticism as hate or oppression, not because it is, but because it helps your narrative. That’s not justice—that’s control. And it’s a tactic used to shame people into silence, not to invite dialogue.

 

7. You claim you’re being persecuted.

But making outrageous statements like “they want to send me to a labor camp” isn’t helping anyone—it’s fear-mongering. You’re not a political prisoner. You’re an elected official facing the consequences of your own actions.

 

8. You say people have to choose: freedom or oppression.

That’s extremist thinking. Real change doesn’t come from forcing ultimatums—it comes from earning trust, building relationships, and respecting everyone’s rights. You don’t unite a community by threatening to divide it.

 

Here’s the truth: you could’ve made your point a hundred better ways. You could’ve led with strength, grace, and strategy. But you chose shock value—and now you're surprised it caused a backlash.

 

This isn’t about your identity. It’s about your judgment. And until you take responsibility for how your actions have impacted this community, you’re not leading a movement—you’re just performing one.