Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

FLESH AMENDMENT

San Fran's Public Nudity Ban Passes, Faces Uncertain Future

Ordinance passed but faces second vote and class action lawsuit

Next>

by PolitixMayday

Staff Writer t

Image: Michael Mayday

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors just barely passed a ban on public nudity in a 6-5 vote on Tuesday. Despite its passage, the law's future is uncertain: it faces another vote in December and a class action lawsuit brought by urban nudist activists.

The law was the brainchild of Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents the Castro, San Francisco's famous gay district, where many nudists congregate.

When the ban's passage was announced, City Hall erupted into shouting, and naked protestors were removed, including Gerhart Clarke, 55, pictured yelling "recall Weiner!" above.

Five supervisors voted against the ordinance, concerned that the law would distract police officers from more serious matters, such as the city's growing crime problems.

But Christina DiEdoardo, who represents a class action lawsuit against the ban on nudity, said the ordinance faces a bigger problem: California's constitution. "Cities can't go north if the state goes south on an issue," DiEdoardo said, explaining that municipality laws can't trump state law, which doesn't ban public nudity.

Currently nudity alone isn't counted as obscenity in California unless it's deemed public obscenity.

Other activists describe public nudity as political speech, arguing it's protected under the First Amendment.

Via Politix reporting

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Is public nudity protected speech?

Comments (view in Forum)

  • PNWest
    !
    @SavageMazx I don't often change my position on issues but your comment about cleaning the chairs has made me do a complete 180 on this issue. That and the picture of the guy. I'm now against public nudity in SF.
  • View all 10 replies >
  • jessejaymes
    !
    Like I said on the first thread about this subject, it had to be the gay guys in the Castro district running around naked. And of course it would be the kind of gay guy that is so unattractive even other gay guys complain about.
  • o
    Zoe2012
    !
    Not hardly, are these people crazy. Well, yes they are, they are liberal democrats in California, what else do you expect? Good grief, anyone in their right mind needs to get out of this crazy over-taxed state.
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    I did. Grew up in So. Cali surfing 4-5X's a week in the 60's-80's. Just saw how crowded, expensive and CRAZY it was becoming and bailed in '93. Miss the beach and weather,but, unless they "deport" about 15-20 million "crazies" I plan on never going back. Been there, done that!
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    You mean expression, not speech, and the first amendment allows for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. I do not wish to expose my self to right wing rants, so let me make clear I take no position on the issue, just seeking to cover the basic facts.
  • justanallusion
    !
    ALL public nudity SHOULD be banned as it is nothing more than an "expression", an expression of PERVERSION, and no one has any "rights" to perversion let alone the expression of it in a public domain, not to mention the fact that we ARE all already protected from perversion and perverse acts, which is exactly what public nudity amounts to, be it at a parade, rally, festival or public gathering of any sort.

    I don't foresee them (the gays/nudists) making any headway in ANY subsequent action to win ANY rights to the expression of what is nothing more than sexaul perversion.
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    Agree....First amendment my naked butt...lol. What ever happened to the "nudist camps". Ya wanna run around naked with your best "butties", Then gather some money and buy you some real estate and (please) include some 12 foot high fences!!
  • justanallusion
    !
    @CommonSense
    That would be the unwarranted, blantant exposure of an individuals' nudity in a public setting by those who haven't the developmental common sense nor decency to acknowledge the fact that they are NOT in the 'privacy of their own homes' where such 'expressionism' is both allowed and warranted and desire to exert their unsolicited adverse perspectives of reality onto the public-at-large.

    The exposure to the unclothed human anatomy.

    We, as a species, have elevated our cultural consciousness beyond that of the relatively mindless animals that we once were in the infancy of our development as people, as Humans, and have long since adopted the practice of clothing our bodies for the purposes of protection from the elements, adornment, modesty and, in particular, in consideration of others sensibilities, sensitivity and sentiment.

    Evolve already! Even our Neanderthal ancestors clothed themselves in the hides of their kills.

    I hope I've both adequately addressed both of your questions, and provided additional insight and support for my position on this matter.
  • Keyjo
    !
    I have a hunch, those complaining loudest are those who wish the had a decent, in shape body worthy of public exhibition.
    We should make public nudity legal ONLY if the nudist is height, weight proportionate. No beer bellies or fat butts.
  • Rocker
    !
    Not really. It's the self same group that were complaining that government had no business controlling their lives. And you can't be selective in what to control. Either you want governance or you don't. And me... I am in shape. 'Round' is a shape. LOL
  • blue_yahoo
    !
    No it's not "protected speech" it's a lifestyle. One that many do not want to see and want protected from forced interaction with. So, define areas where they are free to "express" themselves and people who don't want to see a bunch of saggy ballsacks and tits running around don't have to. They may consider their body as a form of art but you don't see art galleries displaying their nude art scenes by walking up and down the streets with it. I don't care how liberal you are you still don't have the "right" to interact with others only on your terms.
  • Tralee
    !
    Public nudity is not protected speech. Just because a bunch of guys are determined to flaunt the little man does not make it protected speech. Exhibitionists always tend to overestimate their attractiveness. Note: Most nudists are NOT the best looking of the bunch. Face it, who but some guy interested in another guy wants to see the ding dong of some stranger?
  • Tralee
    !
    @marine1 Yes, honestly, a sexy little something turns on hubby more than just full out skin! A little mystery is always better. "Specially since none of us are in our firm and satin skinned 20's. LOL! At my age blind is good.
  • u
    nuwey
    !
    They should be allowed to be naked if they so want . But, they should have to carry bleach wipes for a courtesy cleaning after sitting on public furniture!
  • u
    seedtick
    !
    How the hell is public speech considered "free speech?" I guess a fart might sound like free speech...but, I wouldn't think the smell is.
  • 1adam2
    !
    not in this case, in the battle of the weiners. this nudity appears to be, in support of perversion. and i do not believe, that any other pervert can keep me safe safe from them. and e-coli could become, as serious heath threat. this makes as much sense, as declaring taking a dump on public sidewalks as free speech.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    get_involved
    !
    I've seen pictures from Gay parades in San Francisco that had Gays giving other gays oral sex right in the middle of the street. San Francisco is full of subhuman misfits and genetic disasters. It's a circus.
  • u
    kyrebel
    !
    No one wants there children to see someone naked. Really, come on. In my state if someone exposes themselves to a child they go to jail. Usually after the parent gives them a black eye. Nothing to do with speech, It's indecent exposer.
  • u
    CommonSense
    !
    If swearing in public and burning a flag in public is protected speech (and both have been found to be) then there's no reason for public nudity not to be. In all three cases the only argument for it not being protected is that "people get offended by it". Sorry, but if you are offended that is your choice and your responsibility. Just choose not to be offended, or look away if you're really so stubborn and closed-minded that you can't do that.
  • R Load more comments...