Even a city as open, accepting and tolerant of flashes of flesh in public as San Francisco blanched when a group of men in the gay Castro District began going about their regular public routines without clothing. Although casual public nudity is not unknown in the city's streets, naturalists have become more prominent in public places of late and, consequently, more often in conflict with officialdom.

On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors decided to put an end to it. Sort of.

Before a raucous crowd of partisans, the board voted 6-5 to ban public nudity, except at designated parades, street fairs and festivals―like the annual gay pride event, the Bay to Breakers race and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures. 

Some fine points of the ordinance may still need to be worked out. For instance, what constitutes nudity? According to the Bay Area Reporter, the ordinance’s sponsor, gay Democrat Scott Weiner, told his constituents at a meeting in the Castro earlier this month that assless and assbaring clothing would be permitted at all times. However, the ordinance specifically bars the exposure of “genitals, buttocks, perineum, or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, parklet, or plaza, or in any transit vehicle, station, platform, or stop of any government operated transit system in the City and County of San Francisco.”

Under the ordinance, a first offense merits a ticket and a $100 fine. A second offense in the same year costs up to $200, and a third would bring a fine of up to $500. The third transgression could result in a misdemeanor charge punishable by up to a year in jail.

By state law, public nudity is a misdemeanor only when a person acts lewdly.

This is not the board’s first attempt at legislating nudity. A year ago, supervisors passed an ordinance requiring nudists in public to put something between them and a seat when they sat down, and banned nudity in restaurants. Under the new ordinance, exposed breasts are still OK and children 5 and under can be naked.

The ordinance, which still faces a second reading by the board and signature by the mayor, has already been challenged in court. A federal class-action suit was filed a week ago by lawyer Christina DiEdoardo on behalf of four nudists claiming that the ordinance would violate their First Amendment rights to free speech and association because its provisions are overbroad. They also claimed their Fourteenth amendment rights were impaired because the law would set up two classes of nudists: people who just want to get naked at sanctioned events—and them.

If the ordinance becomes law, a court decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is expected before its scheduled effective date on February 1.

–Ken Broder

To Learn More:

S.F. Barely Passes Public-Nudity Ban (by Neal J. Riley, San Francisco Chronicle)

San Francisco Orders Nudists to Put Their Pants On (by Josh Richman, Bay Area News Group)

San Francisco Officials Approve a Ban on Public Nudity (by Malia Wollan, New York Times)

SF Nudity Ban Won’t Cover up Buttocks, Breasts (by Matthew S. Bajko, Bay Area Reporter)

Nudists Fight SF City Hall for the Right to Bare All (by William Dotinga, Courthouse News Service)

Why No City Ordinance is Needed to Ban Public Nudity In San Francisco (Christina DiEdoardo)

Ordinance Prohibiting Public Nudity (pdf)