[OT] Nudists mount Constitutional challenge to proposed nudity ban in SF / protest at City Hall (Noon, Weds. 11/14)

While this may not be a freedom that many of us personally choose to exercise, it is a very clear-cut libertarian issue! How free are we if we can't even go nude in public as we were born without being criminalized? Please do what you can to oppose this latest Big Government edict coming down the pike (see more details below). Note the protest happening tomorrow outside City Hall!

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))


To answer your question, we're not free at all. We live in a police state.

People going nude are not causing any trouble for anyone and can serve as an example to politicians who are paid to cause trouble and do an excellent job of it.

Warm regards, Michael

proposed nudity ban in SF / protest at City Hall (Noon, Weds. 11/14)
Liberty <ba-liberty@yahoogroups.com>, SFBay Cannabis Community List <SFBayCannabisCommunity@yahoogroups.com>

Sounds to me like an interesting question of freedom of association. Enough merchants doing business in the Castro do not want nudies to exhibit their wares around their premises -- enough merchants to send a clear message to Scott Wiener. However, were I a merchant in the neighborhood, I would band with other merchants, hire private security, and accompany the nudies out of the area for "lewd behavior", leaving the legal challenge up to them -- no need to involve the government. Oh, BTW, regarding the anticipated comparison to, say, Jim Crow, you can put some clothes on, but you cannot change your color.



If a nude individual walks into someone else's store or home, then the owner has a right to force them to remove them. However, it's not a violation of individual rights if the nudist walks on Govt property.

The issue comes down to property rights and the NAP.

Warm regards, Michael

Hi Michael and Starchild,

As I indicated, there is a legal issue involved in my solution, and I am sure law suits would fly, as they are right now against Scot Wiener's proposal. However, as does Enric (the list member who appears to have left the group over talk of opposing the ban), I feel it is my right also to attempt to influence the culture of the neighborhood I live or work in. If nudies have a right, so do I.

This issue is by no means isolated. We on this list have held differing views on other topics involving opposing cultural views of what our neighborhood should look like -- sit/lie, graffiti, loitering, protesting by obstructing, etc. And I have always been privileged to belong to a group that can discuss these subjects with respect and civility. I am sorry that Enric chose instead to leave.


I think the difference in the libertarian discussion of cultural issues is the role of government and whether the culture is according to fear of punishment or interest in others.

It is my inclination to prohibit government from getting involved unless the conditions my result in combat or injuries.

Very well expressed, John. Thank you. Yes, the existence of the cultural difference you mention is very real; that is why my suggestion in an earlier post did not involve a government solution. As you, I also believe in very limited government powers.


In this light, I suspect that government's prohibition of naked people is much worse than any perceived problem of naked people.

Not if you are a merchant believing you are losing money (and thus jeopardizing your and your family's livelihood) because nudies are keeping customers away. Or, not if you would prefer that your neighborhood reflect mainstream values, not extreme values. However, again, my "solution" had nothing to do with government; therefore, the issue of government prohibition is irrelevant to my argument.


I suspect that the government and Scott Wiener would not be taking action
against the nudists if they were not hearing from other constituents who
believe their rights are being violated.

Part of the problem here is the notion of public space. To whom does it belong?
I guess the nudists have decided they own it and can do whatever they want in
it. I believe in limited government, but I am not an anarchist who believes in
no government at all. The fact the part belongs to the government and they get
to decide what is permissible and not. The nudists need to seek out some
property owner who is willing to allow them to practice their naturism or they
need to buy some property on which they can do as they please.

Les Mangus


Public space belongs to the public, right?

Nudists are part of the public.

Warm regards, Michael

challenge to proposed nudity ban in SF / protest at City Hall (Noon, Weds. 11/14)

A shop keeper expects me to intervene in the peaceful conduct of a naked person? Or worse, I am supposed to pay someone else to intervene in the peaceful conduct of a naked person?

I'm supposed to put clothes on him? Maybe he doesn't want clothes. Maybe he has some contact phobia. I'm supposed to figure this out?
I'm supposed to lock him up and pay for that? Why?

Cuz he should be forced to wear clothes so somebody can make more money? Why don't we make it simpler and force him to give the shop keeper money, so the shop keeper can make more money? Maybe we should force everyone to give the shopkeeper money?

This is a distortion of a free and peaceful marketplace with coercion to suit the majority tastes and preferences. Any notion of libertarian values are long gone at this point.

Maybe people should be prevented from cross-dressing by the tractor store?
Maybe no openly gay people near the schools?
Maybe no openly Islamic people near the memorial gift shop?
Maybe no openly libertarian people near the communist hdqtrs?

When can we finally "drop the hammer" on the socialist coercion against otherwise peaceful behavior? When is enough enough?


When is enough enough? Whenever Obama, Pelosi, or Ed Lee decide it is.

And since they're boiling a frog, enough is enough when we're well-cooked.

Warm regards, Michael

challenge to proposed nudity ban in SF / protest at City Hall (Noon, Weds. 11/14)

I am not a parent, but if I were I would not want to walk down the street with my kids alongside naked men and women, that would be my choice as a parent.

Other parents may make different choices. Nudist groups are filled with whole families, kids, parents and seniors, which is a choice they make without infringing on my rights. They may be made uncomfortable if I chose to stroll through their private beach or park fully clothed. Parents make the choice for their own children and we would not think about forcing a parent to make decisions about how to raise their own children.

For most of recorded history we as a society have agreed on certain "social norms", and limited certain behavior to closed areas. Just like children are not allowed in strip clubs, or into movies that show nudity (without a parent/guardian), we limit natural acts, such as sex in public. These are legally defined as lewd acts and every society can freely arrive at what lewd means. Historically, the definition has changed and will continue to change.

Nudity, engaging in sexual activity, urination or defecation (by individuals capable of accessing a bathroom) and other normal human activities which have been deemed to be private by thousands of years of established social decorum are acts best left for private places, where no one else is forced to observe.

From what I have seen, heard or read about, the complaints against nudity are not coming from Macy's, or office buildings in the financial district or the quiet neighborhoods of the Sunset or Richmond. The nudists seem to be limited to a block or two of the city. Would it be that much of an infringement of rights to request that it be further limited to a private backyard or club?

Since a nudist has plenty of opportunity to be nude in private without being disturbed by the clothed, they need not force their behavior on others. Some things are best left private.

Yes, they are PART of the public.They do not get to dictate to everyone else
what the proper use of public space.

Libertarianism is not the right to do whatever you want, whenever and wherever
you choose. You have to respect the rights of others. The nudistas do not own
this space. Therefore, they do not have the right to decide what use it to be
made of it without taking into account the wishes and rights of others. You make
it sound as if the nudistas are the only ones with rights.

Again, why need government get involved? All merchants who feel the nudies are crimping their revenues, and all residents who would prefer a more traditional neighborhood, have to do is band together, hire private security, and make the exhibitionists' lives challenging at best. From a libertarian point of view, how about encouraging merchants and families, to quit depending on government force, and deal with matters as imaginatively as can be done under the law's radar screen. Or are we, for some reason, assuming only nudies have rights? Why would that be?


Good analysis. However, suggesting that nudies enjoy their right to go natural in private would not work, since the nature of exhibitionism, with which we are dealing here, is the need to catch as many eyes as possible.


Speaking of social conventions, Georgia Senator Senator Richard Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which
would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling
and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

What is the dress code? Burkas or bikinis? How about genital mutilation?
How much of our liberty will we trade to enforce social convention for no other reason than social convention.