Judge weighs blocking San Francisco's nudity ban
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Public nudity activists prompted a hearing scheduled for Thursday in San Francisco in which a federal judge will consider blocking a new city law requiring people to wear clothing.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has been asked to block the law from going into effect on Feb. 1 while he considers their lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ordinance.
The activists argue that the ban on public nudity violates their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because their nudity is a political statement.
They also argue the law violates equal protection rights because it exempts children younger than 5 and public nudity at certain events such as an annual street fair, the city's Gay Pride Parade and it Bay-to-Breakers foot race, which is noted for the wacky costumes - or lack thereof - of participants.
Attorneys representing the city counter that the ban is a matter of public health, safety and the "general welfare" of all residents.
The Board of Supervisors authorized the ban on a 6-5 vote last month after enduring several vocal and naked protests from nudists and their supporters. They argued that the citywide ban is unnecessary and would draw police officers' attention away from bigger problems while undermining San Francisco values like tolerance and appreciation for the offbeat.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco's largely gay Castro District, introduced the legislation after receiving constituent complaints about the naked men who gather in a small neighborhood plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets naked.
The ban requires clothing below the waist of all appearing in public.
If the ban becomes law, a first offense carries a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has been asked to block the law from going into effect on Feb. 1 while he considers their lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ordinance.
The activists argue that the ban on public nudity violates their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because their nudity is a political statement.
They also argue the law violates equal protection rights because it exempts children younger than 5 and public nudity at certain events such as an annual street fair, the city's Gay Pride Parade and it Bay-to-Breakers foot race, which is noted for the wacky costumes - or lack thereof - of participants.
Attorneys representing the city counter that the ban is a matter of public health, safety and the "general welfare" of all residents.
The Board of Supervisors authorized the ban on a 6-5 vote last month after enduring several vocal and naked protests from nudists and their supporters. They argued that the citywide ban is unnecessary and would draw police officers' attention away from bigger problems while undermining San Francisco values like tolerance and appreciation for the offbeat.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco's largely gay Castro District, introduced the legislation after receiving constituent complaints about the naked men who gather in a small neighborhood plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets naked.
The ban requires clothing below the waist of all appearing in public.
If the ban becomes law, a first offense carries a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.
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.
 @Bill Nelson So is Seattle.
Um, I hate to say it yes, nude maybe natural, but some people will give us nightmares when nude.
The issue was that people were abusing it. Many by "abusing" themselves.
Â
I don't think anyone takes issue with nudity. Not much different than people wear lame clothing. The issue is that because nudity is no big deal, people have TO MAKE IT a big deal.
Â
They begin to "modify" themselves, or use means to "enhance" themselves. Thus trying to raise the shock level back up a notch to get the attention they desperately crave.
Â
It the community of people actually monitored themselves the law would not have to do it for them.
Â
We have the same laws here in Portland, but have much less issue. The reason why is that people who do the nude events or just ride around nude aren't being jerks.
Â
People often confuse tolerance with acceptance. They aren't the same thing. One says "You do what you do, I do what I do, let's not bother each other", and the other says, "I agree or don't take issue with what you are going. I embrace it."
Â
I can tolerate a person being nude, but I likely won't "embrace" it.
Â
Â
As long as they cover their junk, I don't care. No offense if you want to flaunt your flab, keep it at home. Notice you never see any hot nudists, just old/fat men and a few women.
I really only want to see hot looking females naked but I suppose that makes me shallow! Well, shallow I shall have to be.
Items such as this should be blocked. It goes to show that those that legislate do not always keep our rights in mind when voting.
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD...  If you want to pass a law, how about making spandex a privilege, rather than a right? :)
For some nudity should be a citation as an eyesore.