Public nudity ban eyed in fed-up San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco may be getting ready to shed its image as a city where anything goes, including clothing.
City lawmakers are scheduled to vote Tuesday on an ordinance that would prohibit nudity in most public places, a blanket ban that represents an escalation of a two-year tiff between a devoted group of men who strut their stuff through the city's famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.
Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.
A first offense would carry 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. Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.
Wiener said he resisted introducing the ordinance, but felt compelled to act after constituents complained about the naked men who gather in a small Castro plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets au naturel. He persuaded his colleagues last year to pass a law requiring a cloth to be placed between public seating and bare rears, yet the complaints have continued.
"I don't think having some guys taking their clothes off and hanging out seven days a week at Castro and Market Street is really what San Francisco is about. I think it's a caricature of what San Francisco is about," Wiener said.
The proposed ban predictably has produced outrage, as well as a lawsuit. Last week, about two dozen people disrobed in front of City Hall and marched around the block to the amusement of gawking tourists and high school students on a field trip.
Stripped down to his sunglasses and hiking boots, McCray Winpsett, 37, said he understands the disgust of residents who would prefer not to see the body modifications and sex enhancement devices sported by some of the Castro nudists. But he thinks Wiener's prohibition goes too far in undermining a tradition "that keeps San Francisco weird."
"A few lewd exhibitionists are really ruining it for the rest of us," he said. "It's my time to come out now to present myself in a light and show what true nudity is all about so people can separate the difference between what a nudist is and an exhibitionist is."
Because clothes are required to enter City Hall itself, demonstrators who try to disrobe at the Board of Supervisors meeting will be escorted out by sheriff's deputies. That is what happened last Monday when Gypsy Taub removed her dress at a committee hearing where the ban had its first public hearing. Taub, a mother of two, said she got her start as a nudist while hosting a local cable program devoted to the theory that the government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"I thought if I take my clothes off, I bet they are going to listen," she said.
San Francisco lawyer Christina DiEdoardo filed a federal lawsuit last week on behalf of Taub and three men that seeks to block Weiner's ordinance, if it passes and is signed by Mayor Edwin Lee. The complaint alleges that the ban infringes on the free speech rights of nudists and discriminates against those who cannot afford to obtain a city permit.
While it may seem strange that going out in the buff is not already illegal in San Francisco, most California cities do not have local nudity laws, Wiener said. Instead, they are adequately covered by state indecent exposure laws and societal mores. But indecent exposure technically only applies to lewd behavior, so city officials have had to craft a local solution, he said, adding that the cities of Berkeley and San Jose already have done so.
"I suspect there are a lot of places that maybe don't currently have a local law (and) that if people started getting naked every day would quickly see a local law," Wiener said.
City lawmakers are scheduled to vote Tuesday on an ordinance that would prohibit nudity in most public places, a blanket ban that represents an escalation of a two-year tiff between a devoted group of men who strut their stuff through the city's famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.
Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.
A first offense would carry 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. Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.
Wiener said he resisted introducing the ordinance, but felt compelled to act after constituents complained about the naked men who gather in a small Castro plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets au naturel. He persuaded his colleagues last year to pass a law requiring a cloth to be placed between public seating and bare rears, yet the complaints have continued.
"I don't think having some guys taking their clothes off and hanging out seven days a week at Castro and Market Street is really what San Francisco is about. I think it's a caricature of what San Francisco is about," Wiener said.
The proposed ban predictably has produced outrage, as well as a lawsuit. Last week, about two dozen people disrobed in front of City Hall and marched around the block to the amusement of gawking tourists and high school students on a field trip.
Stripped down to his sunglasses and hiking boots, McCray Winpsett, 37, said he understands the disgust of residents who would prefer not to see the body modifications and sex enhancement devices sported by some of the Castro nudists. But he thinks Wiener's prohibition goes too far in undermining a tradition "that keeps San Francisco weird."
"A few lewd exhibitionists are really ruining it for the rest of us," he said. "It's my time to come out now to present myself in a light and show what true nudity is all about so people can separate the difference between what a nudist is and an exhibitionist is."
Because clothes are required to enter City Hall itself, demonstrators who try to disrobe at the Board of Supervisors meeting will be escorted out by sheriff's deputies. That is what happened last Monday when Gypsy Taub removed her dress at a committee hearing where the ban had its first public hearing. Taub, a mother of two, said she got her start as a nudist while hosting a local cable program devoted to the theory that the government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"I thought if I take my clothes off, I bet they are going to listen," she said.
San Francisco lawyer Christina DiEdoardo filed a federal lawsuit last week on behalf of Taub and three men that seeks to block Weiner's ordinance, if it passes and is signed by Mayor Edwin Lee. The complaint alleges that the ban infringes on the free speech rights of nudists and discriminates against those who cannot afford to obtain a city permit.
While it may seem strange that going out in the buff is not already illegal in San Francisco, most California cities do not have local nudity laws, Wiener said. Instead, they are adequately covered by state indecent exposure laws and societal mores. But indecent exposure technically only applies to lewd behavior, so city officials have had to craft a local solution, he said, adding that the cities of Berkeley and San Jose already have done so.
"I suspect there are a lot of places that maybe don't currently have a local law (and) that if people started getting naked every day would quickly see a local law," Wiener said.
just one of the many reasons I chose not to go to cali, its a waste of money and a major eye sore on the country, just like Portland is
Hasn't California sluffed off into the sea yet? That needs to happen.
It's good that Weiner included the perineum because God knows it's only a matter of time before some 6-year-old figures out how to flash his taint without showing his junk or his butt. Isn't that age discrimination, though? Freakin Bay Aryan hypocrites.
OK...I can see it might be a case of nudity taken to extreme...but n the flip side curtailing it to this extent may seem over-reaction. Â As for it being a Christian issue....in many societies in the Bible, nudity was very common. Â In many countries (some of those certainly embrace being Christian) nudity is also accepted. Â This will be one to watch I guess...in more ways than one! Â : ) Â
If men can go topless, why not women?
I agree. Exept in certain places. A topless woman walking down the street can cause a nice pile up. No one see's a topless man.
How appropriate that Supervisor Wiener is wanting prohibit anyone's wiener flopping around! I'll be honest, I think most things have a time and a place. And in all fairness, are there more pressing matters in the city that deserve more focus than bare cheeks and bare boobs? If someone is walking through a public thoroughfare and is not loitering, and is simply nude, and not stimulating himself/herself, I don't see what the big deal really is.Â
 @pdxd You haven't lived in 'Merka very long, have you?
Oh yes, I forgot, we reside in a judgementalist Christian nation. How could I have been so wrong to forget that? And here I thought people had individual freedoms.
@Servalowner @pdxd Yes the founders were rooted in Christianity â they were inheritors of the entire European Christian tradition â and at the same time they were steeped in an Enlightenment rationalism that was, if not opposed to religion, determined to establish keeping religion separate from government.What they said was âthe laws of nature and natureâs God.â They didnât say, âWe put our faith in Jesus Christ.. Washington, in his writings, makes many different references to God, but not one is biblical. He talks instead about a âGrand Architect,â deliberately avoiding the Christian terms.Too many people think the founding founders were like the modern day right wing fundamentalist evangelical Christians which couldn't be further from the truth
Your comment might make more sense, had this not happened in one of the most left-leaning, non-Christian cities in the country.Â
 @Servalowner Ironically, I didn't recall the USA ever having an official religion.
 @pdxd Ironically the Declaration of Independence was written by 52 of 55 hard-core Christians.Â
I find it funny that the person proposing the anti nudity ordinance has a last name of Wiener.
Another story I read about this said they could have a parade permit, for example the Gay Pride parade can have naked people parading. All one would have to do is get a parade permit for every day of the week.
Just make it like smoking.....designated nekid zone.
figures, the girl is the only one in the picture NOT holding her sign up high
 @archon312 If the photographer was further away, you may have spotted her beaver pelt.
I heard that the Beaver Pelt in San-Fran was Exstinked.
Only if you use some Febreze, other ways, it still smells like your at one of the docks on the bay.
the hottest of the conservatives are the first to get naked in public, the ugliest of the liberals are the first
 @archon312 Turns out there's a lot of overlap, visually speaking, in those two groups.
 @Festivus I'd say it's like 10 to 1 if you compare hot Conservative Politicians or talking heads to Liberal women of the same categories. Pelosi, eeewww.
@last boyscout @Festivus had to Google her. Well, hello!!
 @last boyscout  @Festivus Hmm.  No, first thing I thought was "Who's Stacy Dash", and Google fixed that.  Second thing I thought was how many slave owners had bed warmers. Â
 @pdxd Her eyes and her smile actually.
 @last boyscout @Festivus Because you like the junk in her trunk? Because once you go black, you don't go back?Â
 @Festivus I'm thinking Stacy Dash. Oh yeah. Very Conservative and Very hot. I know what you liberals are thinking right now, how can a 'White guy' think Stacy Dash is hot when liberals assume that all White Conservatives are racists? Â
 @Festivus And I'm picturing George HW, who of course gave Babs those pearl necklaces
 @last boyscout That's just the conservative game face.  A quick look at the overall demographic and I'm thinking Barbara Bush.
Ah,San Francisco! The earthquakes shake the west; all the fruits and nuts roll into town!
The problem with these nudists is that they are usually the type of people that you don't want to see naked.
 @UtterReality It sets a dangerous precedent when you start taking away peoples rights... It's nothing but a down hill slide until your have to get a permit to buy a certain color or style of clothing.
 @Jamie  @UtterReality Hey Stupid, public nudity is NOT a right, what if your little kids saw some old guy's jank hanging out?
@archon312 @Jamie @UtterReality what's the difference between that and watching the neighbor's dogs screwing in the yard?
 @pdxd  @archon312 Oh noes! Seeing human anatomy? Probably the same ones they themselves possess -- I doubt they'd even notice nor care.
Â
What is it with this backwards society that thinks if a child sees an adult the kid will be screwed up for life? How sheltered where you?
 @archon312 And what if your kids walked in on daddy taking a wee-wee, or saw flacid skin hanging around in the locker room at the public pool?Â
@Festivus @archon312 @Jamie @UtterReality That may be the best way to coerce them to cover up in public - point and laugh about the size of their dinky winky.
 @archon312  @Jamie  @UtterReality Mine would have pointed and laughed, then gone on to live completely normal, productive, and meaningful lives, completely unscarred by the incident.
I think the penalty should be tougher. First offence, 1 year in Portland. Subsequent offences, 10 years in Portland. Hey, your mayor would love that idea. Let it all hang out!
 @C Garcia Third offense, Fresno
@WTFWTF @C Garcia Are you sure it is wise to condemn them to Fresno? That is some pretty cruel and unusual punishment.
"body modifications and sex enhancement devices" ???
Â
Apparently the issue is more than people getting naked, it's the freaks that have push the envelope with such bizzareness.
 @Jamie And that's the boundary they are trying to determine from my understanding.
lets hope the ordinace doesn't pass. they might come up here
Glad to see that there may be a part of the country with a greater population of 'special' people than Portland.
I loved SF when I lived there, but that was many years ago now... Â It was always a little "quirky", but in recent decades, it seems to have gone overboard...and has now apparently "graduated" to being just plain "weird" (even more so than Portland, I think). Â Â For a while, I thought I might like to go back, just for a visit... but not any more... I want to remember it the way I knew it. Â
I would rather go see the Springer show in a studio.Atleast when the show is over you don't need to worry about what or who you will see when you leave the studio.
@margay1 I agree.For the sake of my retinas,I think I'll visit somewhere else.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @margay1 ~  For sure..!   According to the posters on SFGate (on-line SF Chronicle), virtually all of the nudies they see on the streets are those that should NOT be nude on the street..!   I have nothing against nudists, but there's a time and place for it...I just don't think on public streets, in public parks, etc is the right place...
Â
(Y'know, I also don't remember that there were all that many days in SF when it was WARM enough to want to run around outside with no clothes on..! Â Â Brrrr..!)