Nudists filed a federal suit against San Francisco on Wednesday, arguing that a proposed ban on public nakedness violates their civil rights.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit nudity on city streets, sidewalks, plazas and public transit. It exempts street fairs and parades, which would require permits.
The lawsuit claims the ban "would violate the civil rights of people who want to bare their bodies for personal or political reasons," the Associated Press writes.
Much of the attention -- and controversy -- has been centered on "the naked guys" in the city's predominately gay Castro District.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the measure Tuesday.
"Over the past two years, the situation on our streets, and particularly in the Castro has changed," Supervisor Scott Wiener, who proposed the ban, said at a Nov. 5 public hearing on the legislation. "Public nudity is no longer random and sporadic, and it's no longer an occasional quirky part of San Francisco."
If the ban passes -- and Weiner appears to have unanimous support from the board -- the naked would be fined $100 the first time and $200 for a second offense within 12 months. The third time, the nudist could be slapped with a $500 fine or misdemeanor.
At last week's hearing, one skin worshiper removed her clothes and was promptly removed from City Hall by sheriff's deputies, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Gypsy Taub touted "body freedom" and assailed Wiener's legislation as "fascist."
Wednesday, the award-winning documentary filmmakers behind the 1,000 Bodies Project planned to fly in from Norway to capture Fog City nakedness, SF Weekly said.
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
Dude naked people ( mostly old hippies you don't want to be naked, most of them men) just sort of wander San Francisco. It's one of their tourist attractions actually.
EDIT:
To clarify, the nudity at Folsom Street Fair itself will be covered, but more than a few people wander around the rest of the place while the fair is on, which is a big boon for local business.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
loomer wrote:This is going to play hell with Folsom.
EDIT:
To clarify, the nudity at Folsom Street Fair itself will be covered, but more than a few people wander around the rest of the place while the fair is on, which is a big boon for local business.
Lol, that was my first thought as well. For anyone who doesn't knwo what "Folsom" is, well It is a yearly party where a vast amount of beefy, hunky, sweaty Daddies and 'boys' walk around mostly buck ass naked except for various strips of Leather.
Fun Times! (fans self)
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan Read "Tales From The Crossroads"! Read "One Wrong Turn"!
So I guess if the ban went through that Scott won't be seen in public then?
Anyhoo, why is this ordinance necessary or are they so hard up on cash that they think this would generate revenue?
ASVS('97)/SDN('03)
"Whilst human alchemists refer to the combustion triangle, some of their orcish counterparts see it as more of a hexagon: heat, fuel, air, laughter, screaming, fun." Dawn of the Dragons
Todeswind wrote:Dude naked people ( mostly old hippies you don't want to be naked, most of them men) just sort of wander San Francisco. It's one of their tourist attractions actually.
If it's anything like Orient Beach in St. Martin I'll pass. Hairy beached whales, bags of bones and knee length tits as far as the eye could see...
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” -Tom Clancy
I'm pretty sure the city's going to lose more money with the cost of approving and enforcing this law than they would gain back with the fines unless they manage to nab a group protest or something. I'm pretty sure it's entirely a matter of them feeling the "we don't want to see any naked people" constituency is bigger and/or more vocal than the "we want to be able to go naked" group.
Also, nudity isn't explicitly banned in a lot of areas. Often it's only lewd conduct that's banned, or in some cases you just can't expose your genitals.
Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:I'm pretty sure the city's going to lose more money with the cost of approving and enforcing this law than they would gain back with the fines unless they manage to nab a group protest or something. I'm pretty sure it's entirely a matter of them feeling the "we don't want to see any naked people" constituency is bigger and/or more vocal than the "we want to be able to go naked" group.
Also, nudity isn't explicitly banned in a lot of areas. Often it's only lewd conduct that's banned, or in some cases you just can't expose your genitals.
In most communities, they'd probably be right. In San Francisco... I'm honestly not so sure. The place has attracted a certain type (homosexuals, artists, fetishists seeking acceptance, libertines, etc) for so long that as a foreigner, it's honestly my perception of the city that a non-tiny percentage of the city actually prides itself on being open about nudity and sexuality, so long as it's in healthy forms.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
