Nudity ban upheld, found to be stupid

|
(27)

The City Attorney's Office just announced that a federal court has upheld San Francisco's ban on public nudity. From the press release:

The court found that the nudism advocates’ challenge to the ordinance based on the First Amendment lacked merit because “public nudity alone is not expression protected by the First Amendment,” and because the ordinance was “not substantially overbroad.”  Judge [Edward] Chen additionally rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that exemptions for such permitted events such as Bay to Breakers and the Folsom Street Fair violated constitutional Equal Protection guarantees, holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the exceptions lacked a rational basis.  Though the nudism advocates’ facial challenge to the ordinance was dismissed without leave to amend, the court left the door open for nudism advocates to amend their pleading with subsequent “as-applied” claims, provided they were able to do so.

So maybe this isn't over yet.

The news comes just as the Atlantic chimed in on the city's nudity ban, calling it pretty dumb:

In San Francisco next week, it will remain perfectly legal for a 50-year-old man to seduce an 18-year-old, impregnate her, ridicule her physical appearance until she is brought to tears, walk out on her, seek out her mother, seduce that mother for no other reason than to further hurt the jilted daughter, draw a graphic novel of the whole sordid chain of events, and publish in on the Internet. But it'll be illegal for him to be naked outside. Does anyone think the resulting moral signal is desirable?

There's a long discussion of Judeo-Christian values, the Bible, Adam and Eve, etc. But the conclusion really makes the point:

Americans are bombarded with images of semi-clothed people all the time. It just happens that they're all beautiful actors and actresses, magazine cover girls, television underwear models, and porn stars. The average person sees lots of naked bodies, but very little real variety. While that may be more aesthetically pleasant, it skewers our notion of what a normal human body looks like. In an age of Victoria's Secret in the mall, substantial nudity on primetime television, and ubiquitous YouPorn, a ban on nonsexual street nudity begins to seem absurd. Society needs some relatively unattractive people to be naked in public now more than ever before.

So there you have it. Legal, stupid.

 

Comments

"isn't over yet"?

Seems to me the ban has been ratified.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 3:54 pm

Tim's concern for how the east coast establishment views San Francisco is... touching.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:30 pm

Or perhaps I am the only one who thinks that Tim is just going thru the motions these days, and that his heart and soul is no longer in the "struggle".

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

I don't doubt that propagandists can find work somewhere but I doubt if anyone would even consider Tim. First off, he's too well known already as a professional propagandist and has absolutely zero credibility.

But more important -- he isn't even a decent propagandist. He never pays lip service to the other side, never makes the slightest pretense that he is trying to look at things from more than one perspective and he underestimates the ability of the reader to see right through his BS.

He is totally predictable...you could easily write a bot to come up with criticisms any time Ed Lee is mentioned or a building is proposed.

I do think that the Onion could hire him, however.

Posted by Troll on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 6:52 pm

calm down.

Posted by admin on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

my fat ass.
Please. Won't someone touch it?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 10:38 pm

couldn't the nudists continue being nude and just hold some sort of protest sign? to the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court held that nudity IS expression protected under the First Amendment in the realm of protesting something (TSA searches, nudity bans!)

Posted by sfpro on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:40 pm

many places where current SF laws says it is perfectly OK to be nude in.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:42 pm

"couldn't the nudists continue being nude..."

I suspect they will regardless of this reactionary ban. It will be like other bans in this City...meaningless and feel-good, but ignored. For example, there's a ban on smoking in the Warner Plaza but people smoke there and on the edge of it. Nothing's done about that. The same for the tourist area on Twin Peaks. "No Smoking" up there, but people smoke there all the time.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

But then they could enforce this nudity ban and ignore the smoking ban because nudity kills, second-hand smoke doesn't.

[sarcasm intended]

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:10 pm

"But then they could enforce this nudity ban and ignore the smoking ban because nudity kills, second-hand smoke doesn't."

So True! So Absurd! So Republican!

Posted by RandomArrow on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 12:25 am

cops do not arrest these self-absorbed losers, then people will take it into their own hands and execute citizens' arrests or take out injunctions.

Enough is enough.

Posted by anon on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 5:13 pm

Are you really saying enough is enough re: nudists?

Do you realize what city you live in?

Why are you people trying to change the city into a cow town?

Why don't you stop ruining San Francisco and take your bizarre antisocial agenda somewhere else? Like the sticks of Kansas. Y'all would fit right in over there.

Posted by peanut on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 2:25 pm

Yes, they would fit in beautifully there. From my limited experience with prudish hicks, they're not the brightest bunch so I suspect they're not real clear on geography so they may not even know where it is. But Topeka has been suggested to them many times but they don't have the sense to move there, if they know where it is.

They are adamant to bring Topeka here and when that happens, one can say bye bye to any tourism industry that this city has because to my knowledge Topeka (or a place like Topeka) is not a destination site for international tourism.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:17 pm

he can ban all he wants....its just words on paper.
meaningless if you do not recognize one mans "authority" over another.

i dont believe in "authoritas" of any kind

disobey!
think for yourself.

recall scott wiener

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 8:16 pm

Uh, I imagine if we had an epidemic of cradle-robbing pentagenarian graphic artist philandering, we consider banning that too.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 4:44 pm

From The Atlantic: "In San Francisco next week, it will remain perfectly legal for a 50-year-old man to seduce an 18-year-old, impregnate her, ridicule her physical appearance until she is brought to tears, walk out on her, seek out her mother, seduce that mother for no other reason than to further hurt the jilted daughter, draw a graphic novel of the whole sordid chain of events, and publish in on the Internet."

Um, yeah, best I can tell, that's pretty much legal everywhere. 18 is the age of consent in most states, and the rest of what they mention is not a crime anywhere. Morally reprehensible, maybe, but not a crime.

Wow, way to go Atlantic. Riveting "journalism" there. *cough* *cough*

Seems to me somebody there has a grudge against our beloved city...

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 7:36 pm

From The Atlantic: "In San Francisco next week, it will remain perfectly legal for a 50-year-old man to seduce an 18-year-old, impregnate her, ridicule her physical appearance until she is brought to tears, walk out on her, seek out her mother, seduce that mother for no other reason than to further hurt the jilted daughter, draw a graphic novel of the whole sordid chain of events, and publish in on the Internet."

Um, yeah, best I can tell, that's pretty much legal everywhere. 18 is the age of consent in most states, and the rest of what they mention is not a crime anywhere. Morally reprehensible, maybe, but not a crime.

Wow, way to go Atlantic. Riveting "journalism" there. *cough* *cough*

Seems to me somebody there has a grudge against our beloved city...

Posted by A Horse With No Name on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 7:37 pm

that law is real stupid one!!!
Enjoy life by being natural. nudistsocialclub.c0m is a place where individuals can relax, be at ease and develop an acceptance of the natural human form. Challenge yourself by trying the nudist lifestyle.

Posted by Guest237nudist on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 9:14 pm

If you have a place to go why, do you want to make others partake?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:54 pm

Because it's just like a religion wanting to convert the masses but only as nature intended.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 3:49 am

Lets hope that someday nudists don't come door to door trying to interest people in the Book of Nudism. I would prefer Mormons I think.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 6:03 pm

Because you're a neuter. This also explains your angry trolling- no sex, just frustration and angry online cumchugging.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 11:15 pm

What if the wearing of clothing were banned? Or what if everyone were required to cover their arms and legs? Would we say, why must these freaks who want to wear clothes have to force others to view it when they have places to go where they can wear clothes? Would we say, why must these freaks who insist upon wearing shorts and short sleeves ...? You get the point. What basis does the government have for determining what is proper in clothing? Except for specific job safety requirements, there is no basis. Mere offense to the sensibilities of others is no basis for a law. If you disagree with that, then you agree that the Taliban has a perfect right to require the wearing of the burqua.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

and dogs meowed?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 6:54 pm

Not having to see Castro nutsacks sagging to the pavement from a park bench is something we should all be thankful for. In a city that values aethetics, old men's balls were a serious breach of cultural decorum.

Posted by Chromefields on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 8:42 am

You're an amateur troll. I can tell you're not a professional troll because professional trolls don't speak from a position of ageism (that's specifically stated in our Code of Ethics guidelines we received last fall at our international convention in Topeka). Finally, professional trolls don't speak from a position of ignorance (Code of Ethics, page 104, paragraphs 6-9). There are no benches in the Jane Warner Plaza or the Harvey Milk Plaza for anyone to sit on, naked or clothes. Please refine your act or discontinue being an amateur troll.

International Troll Society Member, #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 2:01 pm