Only In San Francisco Can Banning Public Nudity Just Barely Pass
In most areas of the country, banning public nudity would be a slam dunk. Sure, most guys appreciate some nudity, but, um, generally in SF what you see aren’t pretty women heading off nude, but, old hairy men showing their dangly bits
(Politico) San Francisco lawmakers disappointed committed nudists Tuesday by narrowly approving a ban on public nakedness despite concerns the measure would undermine the city’s reputation as a sanctuary for free expression.
The Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 in favor of a public safety ordinance that prohibits exposed genitals in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit. The law still needs to pass a final vote and secure Mayor Edwin Lee’s signature to take effect early next year.
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.
Somehow this turns into a civil liberties issue
“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. “I cannot and will not bite this apple and I refuse to put on this fig leaf.”
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 clears its final hurdles.
Good grief. A federal lawsuit to parade one’s dangly bits? It’s not like it’s against California Penal Code Section 314 or something.
And people were also complaining using the old “police have better things to do than ticket people for showing their private bits” meme.
During the hearing and vote, several people decided to disrobe, including a person named “Stardust”, who showed his old, wrinkled dangly bits to all. And we get some fun comments!
- The so called progressives don’t know the difference between freedom and license. Somehow they see freedom as an abandonment of any restraint and decency. People named Stardust who run around naked shouldn’t be setting the agenda.
- Their ugly nakedness infringes upon my rights! And no – it wouldn’t be okay if they’re good looking! I’m tired of the wackos using the constitution to agrue their point. I really doubt Madison and group were trying to protect public nakedness!
- California Penal Code Section 314 indecent exposure is against the law. SF needs to enforce state law. It’s no wonder why they have this reputation of sleaziness.
And here’s SF in a nutshell
Supervisor Eric Mar introduced legislation to “protect” children by making it illegal to put a toy in a happy meal, then voted against legislation that makes it illegal for a grown man to expose himself to that child as she walks out of McDonald’s.
No wonder the rest of the nation points and laughs at San Francisco.
FacebookTwitterEmail The New York Times sent Mattathias Schwartz to find out what was going on at Jack Dailey’s firearms training
FacebookTwitterEmail If you are a netcitizen of a certain age, you’ll remember the Charlie Brown TV specials. We all waited
FacebookTwitterEmail SIGN THE PETITION NOW!!! www.crnc.org/petition The College Republican National Committee is thrilled to announce the “Don’t Put It On