Nudists Finally Get Into Trouble for Being Naked in Public (San Francisco)

[Danee]

As promised, San Francisco's nudists took off their clothes today and rallied outside City Hall, and as promised, the cops were out enforcing the brand spankin' new law prohibiting nudists from taking off their clothes in public.
Today, the ban on public nudity went into effect, just two days after a federal judged tossed the nudists' challenge to the city's ban. The naturists vowed that that wouldn't stop them from stripping down today; in fact they were pretty darn hopeful they'd get cited by the cops.

And that they did. According to Officer Carlos Manfredi, police issued four tickets to nudists who refused to put on pants.
The nudists' attorney, Christina DiEdoardo, told SF Weekly that if naked people were cited today for "exercising their free speech" (aka being naked), then that would be enough to take this case back to court on the basis of discrimination.

"The [judge's] order gave an implicit invitation to refile the case if there are instances of discrimination," she said on Tuesday.

In other words, this nudity thing is far from being over.

[/size] [size=78%]From: http://blosfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/02/nudists_finally_get_into_troub.php[/size][/font][/font][/size]

[mikeisnude]

   Glad to hear it's far from over.  Congratulation to those brave hardy true nudists that fight for all of us.

[dasein]

The nudists' attorney, Christina DiEdoardo, told SF Weekly that if naked people were cited today for "exercising their free speech" (aka being naked), then that would be enough to take this case back to court on the basis of discrimination.

"The [judge's] order gave an implicit invitation to refile the case if there are instances of discrimination," she said on Tuesday.

Eh, not a terrifically strong case, I'm afraid. The city will argue that this is a permissible "time, place, or manner" restriction (for example, the city could prohibit rallies in front of hospitals in order to preserve the peace and quiet for those recuperating inside — so long as the restriction was viewpoint neutral; that is, so long as it was applied equally and not applied on the basis of the content of the speech). Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) ("Our cases make clear, however, that even in a public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions 'are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.'").

Here the city will argue that that there was no viewpoint discrimination. Anyone nude was liable to ticketing, regardless of the viewpoint on behalf of which the nudity was used.

The four elements are:

* The restrictions are reasonable and pertain to the time, place, or manner of the speech
* The restrictions are not applied differently according to the content of the speech; all speech must conform to the TPM restrictions
* There is a significant governmental interest at stake (and the court will find that nudity falls under public morals, which is accepted as a significant governmental interest)
* The restrictions are narrowly tailored and leave open ample alternative channels for imparting the viewpoint to the public

Of these, the last one might be the best grounds for challenge.

[Zeraf242]

"So is it time for"

(Puts on sunglasses) 

"nudists to take off their gloves?"
YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHH!!!

[Historybuff83]

"So is it time for"

(Puts on sunglasses) 

"nudists to take off their gloves?"
YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHH!!!

  I lol'ed when I read this

[nudetrail]

 

[The Streaker]

Good luck San Fran nudists!

[Northman]

I hope all ends well. Oh well, perhaps in the not so distant future that law can be revoked with the growing number of pro-naturism people.