Protesters Strip as San Francisco Bans Public Nudity

Wednesday, 21 Nov 2012 10:33 AM

By Michael Mullins

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
    A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Women can still go topless in San Francisco, but a close vote by the city’s supervisors on Tuesday approved a ban on other forms of public nudity that were producing a flood of complaints from residents.

Immediately following the 6-5 decision, nudists and others at the board of supervisors meeting began stripping off their clothes, according to the New York Times, with one woman ripping off her shirt while yelling, “shame on you . . . What are you afraid of?” Anticipating the strip-down, police were on hand with blankets to cover up the naked protestors.

The law doesn’t go into effect until Feb. 1, leaving plenty of time for residents who argue the ban is a violation of free speech rights to demonstrate further and have the matter decided by a federal judge.

The new law’s other exceptions include permitting public nudity among preschoolers. Also, during certain San Francisco celebrations, such as the annual gay pride parade and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates a bondage/leather subculture, full nudity remains legal.

With the new law, San Francisco joins several other California municipalities with similar bans, including Berkeley and San Jose. Under current California law public, nudity is legal so long as it is not deemed lewd or offensive.

The law was proposed by City Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents the city’s Castro district, an area with a large gay and lesbian community.

According to Wiener, the public nudity complaints that led to the new law weren’t made by business owners or straight residents, as had been alleged by some nudists, but rather, “the dominant demographic expressing concern is gay men.”

Detractors were quick to reject Wiener’s reason for the law, with outgoing supervisor Christina Olague calling the law “a solution in search of a problem.”

Under the new law, first time violators will receive a fine of up to $100, a second violation within one year would cost up to $200, and a third would result in a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $500.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
  Copy Shortlink
Send me more news as it happens.
Get me on The Wire
Send me more news as it happens.
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
You May Also Like

US Officials '99% Certain' North Korea Behind Sony Cyberattack: Report

Wednesday, 17 Dec 2014 20:51 PM

U.S. officials have determined with "99 percent certainty" that the North Korean government is behind the cyberattack on . . .

AMC MoviePass: Subscription Service Lets Viewers See Daily Movies

Wednesday, 17 Dec 2014 20:29 PM

AMC Theaters has joined startup MoviePass on a pilot program that will offer a subscription service for in-theater movie . . .

Socialmatic Camera Prints Polaroids and Posts Them to Social Media

Wednesday, 17 Dec 2014 19:53 PM

Polaroid will soon offer the Socialmatic camera, which both prints photos and posts them to social media. . . .

Top Stories

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved