Jeff Chiu/AP
Bad news for anyone who equates public nudity with public speech: The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a federal court has dismissed a First Amendment challenge to the city's new anti-nudity ordinance:
"Nudity is not inherently expressive," [U.S. District Judge Edward] Chen wrote. "The ordinance's general ban on public nudity for the most part regulates conduct only."....Chen noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that nude dancing and other artistic expression is entitled to some constitutional protection but nudity itself is not a statement of anything.
I am reminded of the John Updike quote: "Being naked approaches being revolutionary; going barefoot is mere populism."
Leave a Comment:
Don't worry the GOTP will make this President Obama's fault somehow just give them time....
Its Obama's fault she can't afford clothing,he gave all her money to the bankers?
Looking at her I was reminded of a cartoon in Playboy. It was a drawing that showed a comparably pretty lady standing naked in front of a judge and the cop is telling his buddy "It is the judges birthday."
In other words...If you want me to think that nudity is a bad thing then arrest fat old men!
She is speaking loudly by going naked! She is saying "I am not ashamed of my body. I ,like Eve, was born naked . Not until Eve disobeyed god and ate the fruit of prudes,uh knowledge, did she feel shamed by her nakedness!"
On the other hand,she could cause a few wrecks!
Actually, this sight would be more likely to cause a few wrecks...
Nudity is not expression? WTF. Anything with shock impact has political value. The MSM eats up a story with nudity.
Only if nudity were mundane would Chen's ruling make any sense.
Next up for the prude police: Banning mini skirts deep cleavages or spandex crotchwear from political demonstrations.
Or Black Adder codpieces.
Or Tri corner hats with teabags dangling from them
His ruling states that the ordinance only regulates conduct. But would the same logic apply to giving the finger to a cop? I believe the courts have ruled that it is a form of expression. The judge's logic is flawed.
What's wrong with running around naked?
The only thing I can find wrong is the perverts who make it a nasty business for everyone, and it's a bit unsanitary.
Bus seats would have to come with handi-wipes.
Just sayin'
There you go-perversion is in the eye of the beholder.
Wait a minute before you wipe the seat she just vacated, I need to give it a sniff test.
Thus I give pause to those who defend public nudity. If you allow public nudity as free speech then expect A) old geezers to talk trash to the women B) young geezers to embarass you with huge hard.....C)Men with lesser salutes to become introverted as he...
You've seen one, you've seen them both; breasts, that is.
She made a couple of very good points and got a rise from the judge no doubt.
LOL, one of his hardest cases.
Let's face it -- historically, any society with an appreciable number of people over 30 will require it's members to wear clothing. Clothing was optional in ancient Egypt, Minoan Crete, and ancient Kampuchea and the average life expectancy for all these cultures was 25-30 years. Once people began to uniformly live longer, such as during the Roman Republic, the sight of naked older guys prompted statements along the lines of 'There outta be a law...'
This is not to promote modesty, but to prevent blight.
Yeah. See, there's the thing. I don't WANT to see most people naked. Unless we convert to a Logan's Run based society. In which case, I'm already dead, so it still doesn't work for me.
So all those pictures in National Geographic...
Note that as aboriginal groups, such as those in New Guinea, get access to outside health services (such as immunizations) and the life expectancy goes up they start desiring western clothing...
Now, that is the kind of free speech I wouldn't mind hearing... Course, I'm a little deaf, so I might have to use Ludwig von Beethovan's method of listening...
Great comments on here, you GUYS. (Ahem!) I can't think of why this would be wrong, in and of itself. But let's face it. It's a big adjustment for a large (no pun intended) segment of our society. They're just getting their heads around equal rights for LGBTQ. Give 'em a chance for the dust to settle before we bring this one on, too, 'K?
"'[Money] is not inherently expressive,' [U.S. District Judge Edward] Chen wrote. "The ordinance's general ban on [private contributions] for the most part regulates conduct only.'"....
I'd like it better as a campaign finance decision.
What bothers me is that her face looks disturbingly like what I would expect a former (as in 40 years ago) lover to look like today.
And, no, I don't want to see more of her. Any way you want to read that.
Thank god I moved away from San Francisco 40 years ago. The loonies run the asylum up there now.
Not like back when in the Summer of Love.
I don't understand the judge's decision at all. Does he mean it's OK to be nude as long as you're expressing yourself artistically at the same time? Who decides what is artistic expression? I'm not advocating everyone walk the streets naked, but this decision makes no sense to me. Anyway, if I had been in the room when the woman appeared naked, I probably would have been giggling like a schoolgirl. Shows how mature I am about this stuff.
Love the John Updike quote!
Nude dancing is expression, nudity is not? The only way to beat the morality police is to make sure you're always dancing.
Or displaying artistic tattoos?
O San Francisco, I miss you
I so hate this puritanical society. A naked body does not equal sex. But even some people equate nudity with sex, how can this be seen as somehow more dirty or more indecent or worse than glorified images of real war, guns, and killing (I don't mean movies/ games here, I mean celebrations of wars, cheering about killing other human beings, protests which include waving guns, death penalty, murder stories on the news, etc.)
I just can't wrap my mind around this. It's madness.