San Francisco sheds part of free-spirited past with nudity ban
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco shed a vestige of its free-spirited past as local lawmakers narrowly approved a citywide ban on public nudity.
Casting aside complaints that forcing people to cover up would undermine San Francisco's reputation as a city without inhibitions, the Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 on Tuesday in favor of an ordinance that prohibits exposed genitals in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.
Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Bay-to-Breakers street run, which often draws participants in costumes or various states of undress.
Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the ban in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose bare bodies are on display almost daily in the city's predominantly gay Castro District. He said at Tuesday's meeting that he resisted for almost two years but finally felt compelled to act.
"It's no longer an occasionally and quirky part of San Francisco. Rather, in the Castro, it's pretty much seven days a week," Wiener said. "It's very much a, 'Hey, look what I have' mentality."
Wiener's opponents on the board said a citywide ban was unnecessary and would draw police officers' attention away from bigger problems. Supervisor John Avalos also expressed concerns about what the ordinance would do to San Francisco's image.
"We are a beacon of light to other parts of the country, and sometimes there is a little bit of weirdness about how we express ourselves," Avalos said.
Boos and calls for Wiener's recall filled the board's chambers after Tuesday's vote. Gypsy Taub, a nudist activist who organized naked protests and marches in the weeks leading up to Tuesday's meeting, disrobed in protest before sheriff's deputies escorted her from the room.
Under Wiener's proposal, 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.
The law still must pass a final vote and secure Mayor Edwin Lee's signature to take effect early next year.
A federal lawsuit seeking to block the ban already has been filed.
Casting aside complaints that forcing people to cover up would undermine San Francisco's reputation as a city without inhibitions, the Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 on Tuesday in favor of an ordinance that prohibits exposed genitals in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.
Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city's annual gay pride event and the Bay-to-Breakers street run, which often draws participants in costumes or various states of undress.
Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the ban in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose bare bodies are on display almost daily in the city's predominantly gay Castro District. He said at Tuesday's meeting that he resisted for almost two years but finally felt compelled to act.
"It's no longer an occasionally and quirky part of San Francisco. Rather, in the Castro, it's pretty much seven days a week," Wiener said. "It's very much a, 'Hey, look what I have' mentality."
Wiener's opponents on the board said a citywide ban was unnecessary and would draw police officers' attention away from bigger problems. Supervisor John Avalos also expressed concerns about what the ordinance would do to San Francisco's image.
"We are a beacon of light to other parts of the country, and sometimes there is a little bit of weirdness about how we express ourselves," Avalos said.
Boos and calls for Wiener's recall filled the board's chambers after Tuesday's vote. Gypsy Taub, a nudist activist who organized naked protests and marches in the weeks leading up to Tuesday's meeting, disrobed in protest before sheriff's deputies escorted her from the room.
Under Wiener's proposal, 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.
The law still must pass a final vote and secure Mayor Edwin Lee's signature to take effect early next year.
A federal lawsuit seeking to block the ban already has been filed.
"We're a beacon of light to other parts of the country..." What parts of the country? The parts that claim "they" were weird first, and "they" want to remain weird? Keep Portland Weird, Keep Austin Weird? It's not weird if it's mainstream. Just put some clothes on and be weird by respecting your citizens, including the ones that don't want to see other people naked.
Why is it that only the skanky ones embrace the nudity thing?
There isn't anything inherently morally wrong with nudity whatsoever. This is just culture clashing.Â
A city ordinance, like any other legislation passed into law,  against an activity that does not interfere with the private affairs of others is not an ordinance or law you need consent to, and consent is precisely the issue.  Seeing people clothed or naked will never be unlawful (murder, rape, theft are examples of unlawful behavior).  Don't consent to the ban.  Go nude if you wish.  Knowing the difference between unlawful and illegal, legal and lawful is precisely the point of any agreement between people.  Imposing a legality on those who do not consent is itself unlawful.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Â Spock
Basically its just another example of a small secular group trying to force feed the majority with thier ideals. And yes we do need some kind of social order. Anything less becomes anarchy. And where is the boundary for these extreme ideals?? I could care less if they want to run around naked in privacy of thier own homes or social club, but not out in public....They dont like to be forced into anything, but they should stop forcing us to tolerate thier ideals.
I know I am childish but I couldn't help but giggle when reading that Wieners opponents were all for showing off the wieners but Supervisor Wiener was against it.
 @whocares LOL....my laugh for the day...call me kiddo...lol...
San Fran drops it, Seattle adopts it. I just read that Seattle has passed a topless ordinance because of that women that wanted to go topless at the pool. Now women can go topless at the beach or the pool. Works for me.
 @lmdk2 The Seattle Parks Department has now published relaxed new rules that require pool supervisors to grant exceptions.  Is that your "topless ordinance"?
I also just read that 19 four year olds were ARRESTED some place back east for indecent exposure . Both both and girls. Ever play you show me yours and I'll show you mine when you were four ??? I know I did and I got caught, boy was I in a heap of trouble but I didn't get arrested for it. OVER KILL to the max.
We have laws here about that, it's called indecent exposure and it is typically done by molesters and sexual perverts, so there you have it. This should be about my freedom to not be visually assaulted by your physical nastiness. To call it freedom of speech is a complete lie.
 @No Time Your freedom to not be visually assaulted by your physical nastiness?  DON'T LOOK!  There is plenty of clothed physical nastiness out there too.
 @No Time What you wear is protected by freedom of speech. The Supreme court has decided that what kids wear to school is protected by the first amendment. Then not wearing clothes could be considered the same thing.  Saying that something is typically done by a group doesn't help things.  100% of molesters and sexual perverts breath air, 99 molesters and sexual perverts have seen a doctor.  You do not have the right not to be offended.  Just because it is a state/city law does not mean it is constitutional. And please check the law. I believe first someone has to complain to a police officer and be willing to file charges and the ""Offender" have to be doing something sexual in nature.
Geez, hippy flower power still going strong 45 years later. Guess their endless supply of drugs is still strong. Freedom of speech? Ever heard of indecent exposure? And based on what I'm seeing here, rather indecent to be honest. Talk about a bunch of left wing nuts. ;)
Can some one tell that lady the 60's are over.
Â
Â
Â
Kthxbai
 @Hachee_Bungwhy Peace bro, pass the pipe.
Isn't it ironic that the guy who proposed the anti nudity law is called Wiener?
@Larry*X*K LOL right?
Look at that poor cop.I feel for ya buddy.
 @F4I Look at the guy with the camera in the back, snapping as fast a possible...lol..
@MC I seen him also and at first I thought he didn't have a shirt on but he does.
Join a naked compound........ Nobody wants to see your junk! I will not visit San Francisco for nothing it's truly full of mentality ill people. :(
 @Funky-Munky I'm all about freedom of speech, but it's been upheld that indecent exposure laws everywhere but looney California are legal and necessary. Nobody wants to see your junk flapping in the breeze, man or woman, and it's a health issue too. I sure know I don't want to sit in the seat some guy with his unwashed body was just sitting in, naked. You want to be naked on your own property, be my guest. But in public you agree to temper your rights so you don't infringe on the rights of others.
 @dg54321  @Funky-Munky What rights are they infringing on?  To temper your rights are to give them up.
 @Funky-MunkyÂ
Â
I have to tell you this, one day my mother and I went for lunch, we decided to go to a state park, we seemed to be the only ones there, at least on the top part of the park, you could walk down to the water, there were several tables around, so we sat down to eat and all of a sudden this man, (I guess he was laying next to a table closer to the bushes) we did not see him before we sat down, anyway, he stood up, he was nude except shoes, sox and  glasses, (I was looking at his face) he had his clothes slung over his shoulder, he stood there in front of us for a minute, never said a word then turned and walked away, needless to say we were a bit shocked, we promptly left the area and went down the hill, we came across a park ranger cutting brush, so we told him there was a nude man at the top part, he (the ranger) ask my mother what the guy looked like, (what color hair, mustache etc.) my poor elderly mother, bless her heart, was so rattled, she blurted out.....How the hell do I know if he had a mustache, I wasn't looking at his face....well anyway I guess you had to have been there, we all laughed, my mother turned 4 shades of red, we left and never went to that park again...needless to say lunch didn't happen...lol...
@Funky-Munky-LOL; Why just limit yourself to the face when there would be soooo much more available???
 @Funky-Munky  @APenny4MyThoughts It is expression and you don't have a right not to be offended.  If that was the case anyone could look at anything and be offended and do as you say and punch them in the face.Lets see some cultures want the female face to be covered so maybe some should go after women with exposed faces.  Or there was a time were ankles should not be shown in our country so maybe some should go after exposed ankles.  I hope you see where I'm going with this.
 @APenny4MyThoughts So exposing your junk is considered freedom of speech.... I don't think so.... talk all you want but expose your junk and I would punch you in the face....
Freedom of speech is meant to protect the speech and expression of the unpopular.  Putting issues like this to a popular vote of officials defeats the purpose.  I'm not a nudist and I don't care about peoples uncovered bodies. I have seen the good looking ones and the not so good looking ones.  If our society wasn't holding on to some of its puritan views this would not be an issue.  Not saying all of our society's problems would go away but I believe some would if we would treat the human body and sex as natural along with acting like well adjusted adults in these matters.
@APenny4MyThoughts You can call these views anything you want, however if this society is to remain civilized there needs to be some restraints in place. Should we allow public rape or child porn because there are people out there who don't see anything wrong with it? I'm not a prude, but I don't want to see these people's naked bodies everywhere I go no matter how they look. There are plenty of nudist colonies for people who want to live that life style, but for the public places they should have to wear at least the minimal of clothing.
 @Jatok  @APenny4MyThoughts So you suggest  restraining the rights of the people to keep the people civilized?  Your examples have victims there are no victims here.  I may not want to see things but it doesn't mean that I am a victim if I do.  What if I didn't want to see kids, women, crosses, cars or dogs?  You don't have a right to not be offended.  If that was the case anyone could claim to be a victim. Rights should not cost you money or be limited to certain areas.  The public areas are where your rights can not be violated.
Yep, been there.
Do you know there is a nude beach in Seattle?
@APenny4MyThoughts Really, then why is it that in public places people's rights are being violated to accommodate those people who claim to be offended? I stand by my post and you can explain it any way you want to. You can justify anything if you try hard enough.