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.
About time that city gets some decency.
Weiner hates nudity.... Who woulda thunk it?! ;o)
Why dont we all just go nude? Whats next, having sex in public?? how about defecating and urinating in public? Why bother with social order, lets all just do what we want. It seems like everytime some nutjob secular group decides to use the Free Speech 1st amendment we have to tolerate the craziness. Just getting out of hand....
Fremont had better be watching or the days of naked bike riders might be numbered, since Seattle pretty much mirrors what big brother San Francisco does....
Why is it that nudists always seem to be people you don't want to see nude?Â
@BobDobbs I was just thinking that. If you are going to walk around naked, go to the gym.
"Wiener's prohibition"- that sums it up or down?
Hopefully Nancy Pelosi is not a nudist.
Glad I don't live there or I'd be tempted to find more constructive uses for my paintball gun.
My opinion on the ban is this - Nakedness itself is not sexual and is not perverted. The blanket ban should be thrown out and replaced with a guideline of where it's ok to be nude - businesses, schools, churches.
Hold Weiner accountable
If you don't want to see naked people, move out of San Fran.Â
The  so-called "conservatives" in San Francisco wanted to ban a children museum that shows the crimes against the children of Palestine but now they are taken aback by nudity?Â
All these years they cried about Christians but now some chicken soup mother from the East has moved in with her precious progeny and wants the whole city to change so her brood does not see nudity. Tell her to pack up and take a long hike with her progeny on a short pier.
Â
The most  ugly and  lewd thing you will ever see is Oprah or Dr Dre on  your tv. They have more important things to fix down there like city employees who do not even show up for work but get paid for it.
'"I thought if I take my clothes off, I bet they are going to listen," she said.'
Â
Yeah, because everyone takes you seriously after that. *rolls eyes*
Â
This broad must have her head buried in the sand.
Well, then designate a place where they can be nude in public..like Nome Alaska.
I don't want to look at some guy's dripping underarm hair, batwings, beer belly, concave chest, nipple or c----piercings, genital shavings or whatever, in the same way I don't want to see gravity-defying torpedoes and someone's labia hanging out. And I don't want those labia touching my bus seat.
Â
This is about a bunch of people putting their desire to do whatever they want over the rights of others
 @chandlerÂ
Â
Some people do not like to see blacks having intimate interactions with whites. How is there a difference? Â It was a chicken soup mother from the East or some public housing welfare queen and her so-important "children" Â who probably made the complaint.
@chandler I think you pretty well nailed it.
I can't imagine anyone taking their family to the fruitcake capital of the west.
San Fran must run a close second to the Fruitcake Capital of the World....Claxton, GA
Â
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/10908
Â
Wiener vs Weiner?
Yeah, Wiener, Scott Weiner.....
"I thought if I take my clothes off, I bet they are going to listen,"Oh I had a laugh at this one. If you want someone to listen to what you're actually saying, being naked isn't going to help. In my experience you'll just get a "huh?" half way through.
People who are offended by nudity have serious mental issues
 @bearzooka The ones with the mental issues are the ones walking around in public without their clothes on because they want to make a "statement."
So let me get this straight, walking around nude indoors with the windows covered, that's not "sufficient" freedom of expression, and "flaunting your nudity in public within the sight of other NOT nude, is not "exibitionistic" ?
Â
Okay, okay, I just wanted to make sure i understand their contentions.Â
Â
Whatever dudes!!!
ROFL!!! A "Wiener" is trying to ban guys from showing their wieners! HAHAHAHA!!!!!
Beavis and Butt-Head could not be reached for comment.
A place where freedoms have exceeded common sense.
 @Grumpa "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
Ben Franklin...
Â
Given Ben's reputation as a bit of a rake, he might have applied this quote to this situation:
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country."...
Regardless of the outcome, San Francisco is still a weird place. And by the way, the new anti nude law being introduced by a guy named Wiener makes it all the more ludicrous.
@Alikelystorey Yeah. Wonder if he yells out his name in gay bars?
Looks like a bad case of hippies to me.