That's ludicrous - we're talking about a bit of fatty tissue with milk ducts and a (covered) nipple being exposed here! Going by that woman's standards, we could be sued because our (castrated) cat uses his penis to urinate on the bushes in our backyard. As far as I've been able to discern, the vast majority of males have penises and testicles, and almost all woman have breasts, vaginas and clitorises, so what is so shocking about the fact that J.J. has breasts? Granted, that little exhibition was in poor taste, but who could seriously be "shocked" by the fact that she has a "protuberance" from her chest?
While I can understand that many people find the open display of primary or secondary sexual characteristics "objectionable" or "embarrassing", to claim that the same is "shocking" or "injurious" is really riduculous. We all have sexual organs, and use them. It is totally unnecessary to flaunt that fact, but why in the world should it be proscribed/penalized? Just to give you an example: A "current" politician I studied with once admitted that he was an avid reader of "National Geographic" as a kid, because of the naked breasts of African women shown. Once elected to public office, he railed against the access to such magazines as "Hustler" and "Playboy" to teens. I still fail to see the difference.