San Francisco sheds part of free-spirited past with public nudity ban

Protester Gypsy Taub speaks out against the Board of Supervisors decision to ban public nakedness while naked at City Hall in San Francisco, Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012. / AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

SAN FRANCISCO 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 must 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.

Play Video

Public nudity banned in San Francisco

"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."

Wiener's opponents on the board said a citywide ban was unnecessary and would draw police officers' attention away from bigger problems while undermining San Francisco values like tolerance and appreciation for the offbeat.

"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."

To make his point, Avalos showed his colleagues a clip from the 1970 movie version of Joseph Heller's "Catch-22." In it, Orson Welles pins a medal on a naked soldier.

Demonstrators gather outside of City Hall in San Francisco for a protest against a proposed city-wide nudity ban, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012.

/ AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez

"I get emails all the time about people who are upset there are homeless people, and I would be the last person to legislate a solution for people who do not want homeless people in their neighborhood," Supervisor Christina Olague said.

Wiener countered that it was inappropriate for hard-core nudists to wrap themselves in the mantle of personal liberty.

"I don't agree that having yellow hair is the same as exposing your penis at a busy street corner for hours and hours for everybody to watch as they go by," he said.

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.

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.

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.

More from CBS San Francisco here.

[Jonseen]

Naked boobs and naked butts really are NOT an asset. I have to wonder about people who wander around like that, what is the reason for it.

My brother and his wife recently went on a Caribbean cruise. There were a couple of nude beaches along the way. They said there weren't any young people on those beaches, it was all naked old men.

Anyway, not my cup of tea. Most people look better with clothes on.

[posavea]

People in San Francisco should be use to it by now. Its what makes San Francisco different. I see those nudists all the time. They don't out there, and bother other people.

[posavea]

BTW, I AM A SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENT!

[hillzhaveays]

Yikes. If this woman's looks are any indication, the ban is definitely for the public good. Hideous.

[aubfmet]

What about the Hijab.

[fleabag75]

I always wondered about places that had signs about no shirt or shoes, no service.

[16sunovadun]

This whole story sounds like some kind of cover up to me.

[thetruthwillout]

Idiots with nothing better to do then parade around naked and for what? What is their point? And why does everyone else have to be subjected to some naked dirt bag. I love San Francisco but there is a time and place for everything, and being nude in public is just downright nasty. I don't care what you look like. I don't want to see it -- ugh.

[Molly-Pchr]

The right to go nude in public...wow, nothing better to do. Free expression? Nuts. It's not sanitary. Do you want to sit on a seat in a restaurant that somebody just sat on who was naked and perhaps didn't wipe??? You want your little one sitting on the seat or perhaps touching it? Gimme a break, people. Grow up!!

[m7856j]

You are right their is a place for nudity in ones bath room or bed room not in public thank you

[cleric77]

This is only a temporary set back for our amoral fellow citizens as they could to promote their immorality agenda upon our nation.
Let them stay in their "nudity camps and beaches resorts" instead of allowing them to "expose" others to their nude body parts.

[spacengin]

Although I have never seen one, I understand that Ferengi women (Star Trek) are always nude. As we have emerged from nude slime mold, our view of the world keeps changing. How far back in time was it that humans were typically naked?

For tribes in warm regions untouched by modern civilization, generally not much in the way of clothes are used. The ancient Greeks ran the Olympics in the nude. The Bible suggests that clothes were required when mankind became sentient which would be a transition from 6000 to 30,000 years ago. The ice ages probably created the need for clothes which then became the social standard and handy for control of primal forces. Marriage was likely introduced to keep peace in the tribes.

Freund thought that the covering up may have created mental sickness issues. It appears that in history, raiding tribes would kill off the men, rape the women and keep some of them naked for a while. This brings up an interesting possibility that from a healthy genetics point of view, this may have been beneficial. If so, this suggests that from an evolutionary point of view that it is possible that women may have an innate desire to be taken and even treated as property.

Akin's "legitimate rape" would then have both an evolutionary and biblical basis. Sentience, society and sex have these various forces in conflict and clothes help keep balance. No doubt the muslim burka has this in mind. Perhaps one result it that militant islam is related to sexual tension dysfunction.

[inketolstoy]

Careful, space. Freud might say you are projecting here.