Thursday, July 31, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 6 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

San Francisco lawmakers vote to ban public nudity

By Associated Press


SAN FRANCISCO >> San Francisco lawmakers narrowly approved a proposal to ban public nakedness, rejecting arguments that the measure would eat away at a reputation for tolerance enjoyed by a city known for flouting convention and flaunting its counter-culture image.

The 6-5 Board of Supervisors vote today means that exposed genitals will be prohibited in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit.

Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the measure in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose lack of clothing was an almost daily occurrence in the city's predominantly gay Castro District.

"The Castro and San Francisco in general, is a place of freedom, expression and acceptance. But freedom, expression and acceptance does not mean anything goes under any circumstances," Wiener said Tuesday. "Our public spaces are for everyone and as a result it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior."

Weiner's opponents on the board said a citywide ban would draw police officers' attention away from more critical problems and eat away at city's reputation for tolerance.

"I'm concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco's style and how we are as a city," Supervisor John Avalos said.

Under Weiner'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.

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.

A federal lawsuit claiming the ban would violate the free speech rights of people who prefer to make a statement by going au naturel was filed last week in case the ordinance passes.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 6 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
f206 wrote:
Isn't it ironic that the person who introduced the measure is named "Weiner!!?"
on November 20,2012 | 02:10PM
Bdpapa wrote:
How did this ever get on the ballot?
on November 20,2012 | 03:48PM
grantos wrote:
what kind of ballot are you referring to?
on November 20,2012 | 04:10PM
Bdpapa wrote:
I should have said how did it come to vote in the coucil?
on November 20,2012 | 07:59PM
Ronin006 wrote:
With a little luck, a great earth quake will strike San Francisco and the city and its peverted residents will slide into the sea.
on November 20,2012 | 04:35PM
Carang_da_buggahz wrote:
Running around the Castro district with no clothes on? I'd say these guys were "trolling" rather than trying to make a political statement, freedom of expression, and all that other BS. Only in San Francisco.
on November 20,2012 | 07:26PM
Breaking News
Political Radar
`Toss up’

Political Radar

Political Radar
Hilton; Plaza Club

Political Radar
Direct mail

Political Radar
Direct mail

Aperture Cafe
Ramadan #latergram