The beauty of the human form — especially the female form 8-) — is not the issue regarding "PUBLIC indecency". It REALLY is about the violation of rights.
However, those who claim the "violation of civil rights" as an argument for defense of PUBLIC indecency are forgetting something: what about violating the individual rights of others?
You see, everyone has the right to be in PUBLIC without being involuntarily subjected to seeing naked people... because they're in PUBLIC!
When individuals wish to be naked, they can exercise that right in PRIVATE. Otherwise, do these particular people who advocate the "right to PUBLIC indecency" think they have the so called "right" to do ANYTHING they want in PUBLIC?
The words "PUBLIC" & "PRIVATE" have different meanings and functions associated with them, and therefore, legislation associated with them ALSO often differs.
For example, everyone has the unalienable individual right to smoke. However, no one in a PUBLIC facility should ever be subjected to the risk of involuntarily inhaling second hand smoke, because PUBLIC facilities have to be made as accessible as possible to ALL individuals without having to endure such involuntary health risks.
On the contrary, PRIVATE facilities should never be regulated by government regarding smoking because PRIVATE facilities do not necessarily have to be made as accessible as possible to ALL individuals — in fact, the opposite is true. (Of course, there are various occasions where legislators have failed to recognize this and have violated the rights of PRIVATE property owners by enacting bad laws, but that's for another discussion.)
For another example, all "adults" have the unalienable individual right to voluntarily engage in sexual acts with one another. However, no one in PUBLIC should ever be involuntarily subjected to witness such acts. On the contrary, engaging in such acts in PRIVATE should never be regulated by government. (But of course, there are individuals who believe they somehow have the authority to so violate the rights of others and regulate such acts in PRIVATE via government, but again that's for another discussion.)
For one final and popular example, everyone has the unalienable individual right to free speech. However, no one has the right to yell "FIRE!" in a PUBLIC area, potentially inciting panic leading to injury or even death without potentially facing legal punishment. In such case, doing likewise in a PRIVATE area might ALSO lead to similar consequences. (Remember: along with LIBERTY comes great RESPONSIBILITY.)
These examples are given to illustrate how legislation governing PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC areas often CAN and SHOULD differ in various circumstances. Those who seek to ignore this fact are certain to reach such erroneous and immature conclusions regarding "civil rights".
Therefore, wherever state law "allows breasts to be exposed in public view in a non-sexual manner", individuals AND ESPECIALLY those responsible for enforcing the law should question the INTENT of the specific statute and act accordingly in situations of PUBLIC indecency. If it is later determined that the statute's wording causes confusion with regard to its INTENT, then the appropriate legislators should do their job and correct the problematic language.
My first guess is that one intent behind such a statute might have something to do with protecting a mother from arrest due to briefly exposing her naked breast in public while breastfeeding her child. I would imagine few individuals would ever consider her doing so as "indecent exposure", but since we CAN imagine someone reacting in such a way, it has probably occurred and a statute was created in response.
But as with so many aspects of society, if only a small degree of rational thought was applied by ALL parties involved, such matters which transgress the boundaries of sanity could simply be avoided.