Tweet
The crusade to retain the right to be naked in the streets of San Francisco marches on as a federal judge has whittled down a lawsuit brought by nudist activists against the City of San Francisco, but allowed it to move forward to trial in the new year
-
-
Reading the report - it looks like the judge sliced their defensible point to one -- basically "Why are you picking on us? you stood around and let OTHERS break the law, yet you busted US. How come?"
But the question as to whether the city can pass an anti-nudity ordinance looks like it is not open to debate.
So NOW - those people may very well get out of this one, but the police will be in a position where they will have to universally enforce the law in the future.
--- Want to take legal action? Fine. Be careful what you ask for. You might get it. -
Even if there is a strong likelihood that they will lose, I still support them taking this issue to court. Similar to gay marriage, they could lose one-hundred times and then find themselves in front of a sympathetic judge who rules that the government has no compelling interest in enforcing a law that allows social conventions to trump individual rights.
Comment
-
Well in this case, that's not the issue. It's already been confirmed that the laws are held to be valid. Their defense is restricted to "selective enforcement". So - even if they "win" - in the future, the laws will be strictly and consistently enforced.
Comment
-
So is it better to proceed in a lose/lose situation or to acquiesce? Some say it is better to stand up even if you know you will lose. Others say to never to provoke those with power. Pretty much the same choices as dealing with bullies.Comment
-
^^ Gay marriage lost one hundred times before it started winning.
Comment
-
I believe that 'pushing the envelope' is a good way to advance at times when the offense is 'merely being nude'.Comment
-
-
^^ Backfire? You mean the courts might take away a right that would otherwise exist in theory as long as nobody exercised it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mosquito_Bait View Post
No, of course not.
BUT - the legislatures, law enforcement, etc., may wind up setting up "bullet proof" laws. Which means no more WNBR, no more topless protests, no more, etc. etc. etc.Comment
-
Gay marriage = civil right.
Racial integration = civil right.
Going naked down main street = NOT a civil right. Probably never will be.Comment
-
^^ So we all need to keep our clothes on so that we won't lose the right to take our clothes off?
Comment
-
Why shouldn't choosing the state of one's dress be a civil right? A government that claims the authority to set dress codes could some day require all men to grow beards and all women to wear burqas. Regarding gay marriage, it wasn't considered a civil right until very recently, and still isn't considered a civil right in some states. If you go back fifty years, racial integration wasn't considered a civil right either.Originally posted by usuallylurk View PostComment
-
Originally posted by Mosquito_Bait View Post
Ah, but there's the flaw!
You DON'T have the right to take your clothes off in public. Anti-nudity laws have been upheld by nearly every court!
Where nudity is permitted in public, it's a privilege, not a right.
What I'm saying is - there is an anti-nudity statute in SF. It was occasionally ignored for things like the WNBR, perhaps a parade, what have you.
Now - there will be universal - and total enforcement going forward.
No one is dictating dress codes here. Being nude is not a "dress code" -- Nudity as a civil right? Well, see if the ACLU will help you on that one.
Why not contact the ACLU and see what they say about public nudity?
I know what their answer will be.. it might surprise you.
Now, getting serious.
Black people, and other minorities did get their rights - via the 13th and 14th amendment, and over the years through legislation, and court rulings.
But - the differences between them, and those who want to go nude in public
a) Nudism is a behavior, not a circumstance of birth
b) The majority of people in this country recognized that minorities deserved to be on an equal footing - thus the rights were granted
c) Minorities represented a highly significant portion of the population.
d) They wanted the same rights to BE equal
e) They were NOT trying to push unconventional behavior on the American public and demand that it be accepted as "normal" - they wanted to be accepted as equals.
Ditto gay / Lesbians - it took longer but we accept those groups for who they are.
Nudism / nudity - is not a circumstance, it's a chosen behavior. And the majority of people in this country - at this time - find it unacceptable.
Good luck with trying to get nudity declared a civil right by the courts and legislatures --- and before you can accomplish that, you've got to convince the court of public opinion. Good luck with that.Last edited by usuallylurk; 01-01-2015, 09:16 PM.Comment
-
^^ Until very recently, claims were made that being gay was a behavior, not an innate quality worthy of civil rights. Also, the claim was made that gays were not discriminated against because they had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as heterosexuals. Regarding nudity, the fact remains that having the government set dress codes is an intrusion into peoples private lives. There is no reason that people shouldn't have a civil right to choose their own state of dress.
Usuallylurk, There is a definite pattern in your posts. You frequently criticize any nude activity outside the walls of nudist resorts. For many years, there was criticism that AANR was unwilling to support any nudist activity that didn't directly put money in the pockets of nudist resort owners. This is part of the reason that TNS now exists. AANR has attempted to change and I'm glad of it. You seem to know a lot about AANR politics. I get the feeling that you are part of the AANR old guard that is happy to see nude recreation confined to nudist resorts.Comment
Comment