|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Admin |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 01:15:32 AM
From CNN.com - Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Naked yoga OK in San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- Nudists, grab your yoga mats and head for San Francisco.
City prosecutors Wednesday said it was not illegal to perform naked yoga in the city—even at the crowded tourist destination of Fisherman's Wharf.
Prosecutors dropped charges against a limber nudist, known locally as the "Naked Yoga Guy," who made a habit of striking yoga poses in the buff in order to promote a book and his lifestyle.
The Naked Yoga Guy, whose name is George Monty Davis, had stripped to stretch nearby Fisherman's Wharf, prompting a public complaint. But prosecutors decided they had a weak public nuisance case against him because local laws do not bar public nudity.
"Simply being naked on the street is not a crime in San Francisco," said Debbie Mesloh, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office.
"To bring a case, a person would have to exhibit lewd behavior, block traffic or impede pedestrians on a sidewalk, something along those lines."
In another case involving a Los Angeles teenager who dropped his pants to expose his bottom, or "moon," passing motorists from a nearby sidewalk, a California appellate court ruled nudity itself is not a crime, Mesloh said.
Davis could not immediately be reached for comment. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| FireProf |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 8:54:13 PM
Bob,
You are probably right. Too bad they didn't.  |
| Bob S. |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 4:54:28 PM
I'm wondering if the prosecutors decided not to go ahead with the trial with the thought that if they were to fail, caselaw would be created.
Bob S.
|
| Stu_Fox |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 10:44:17 AM
Dave
Your posting is rather off-topic, but I will respond.
OK, so you're suspicious. That's partly my own fault because I haven't put anything about myself on my profile. I will remedy that when I get a minute. Just for now, though, I can tell you that I live in Yorkshire and, although I am reasonably well-travelled, I have never visited the US or Canada. Shortly after I registered here, I had problems logging on, so I re-registered (from StuFox to Stu_Fox). Whilst we agree on most things, if you think that Doug and myself are one and the same, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. I note that Doug has participated in nudist recreation in the past - that is something I would never do. I have viewed this site now for a long time before I decided to register and post. I didn't realise that Doug and I had registered on the same day. I just assumed he'd been coming here for ages. Maybe, and this is just speculation, Doug has done the same and, on seeing my input, he's decided to do the same and voice his agreement Or maybe it's just a co-incidence. I dunno.
As for seeming to be "almost militantly against nudism" - I am nothing ofthe sort. I have not said a single word against responsible nudism, but rather expressed support for it. What I am opposed to is inflicting nudity upon those who do not consent to seeing it.
Stu
|
| DougK |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 10:21:18 AM
SailorDave,
How would you get the idea I am against nudism? I support people WITH consent doing things like this. I've been a nude beach-even a couple swims. I just take exception to imposing it on others.
Stu and I are NOT the same people. I am here in N America-Stu's in England.
I previously listed as "Datona" but for some odd reason-I think there is a glich in my pc-the cookies didn't carry over. So, I went back in-but I really didn't like the handle-so I just changed it to my name.
I've been to SF several times-a few years ago-I spent about 10 days around the SF, Petuluma, San Rafael, SanJose areas. Never encountered one instance of nudity-I don't think it's accepted there.
Anyway, I sent an email to that spokesperson for the Attorney General-and hopefully I will hear by tommorow or Tues. |
| sailordave |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 06:41:20 AM
It's odd that the member profile of StuFox, Stu Fox, and DougK do not have any information other than member since date. It's also odd that Stu Fox and DougK were both members since October 22, 2004 and StuFox is listed as a member since only a few days before the previous two names.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful. |
| sailordave |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 06:35:28 AM
I have a suspicion about StuFox and DougK. Seems odd that after so long of either people curious about nudism or actual nudist, whether at home or at clubs, we've had at least two who seem almost militantly against nudism. I suspect DougK is also from the UK or somewhere outside the USA. Many who live within this country know of the events, parades, and protest within San Francisco conducted either topless or nude without arrest. Enjoying a good debate is one thing, but I'm beginning to wonder if either they or he is here with some agenda or is being intentionally the counter point simply because he enjoys debating or being the counter point.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful. |
| DougK |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 6:34:25 PM
Cheri,
I tend to think the SF Police would respond if someone was laying out naked in a park-and if not-I think the public might respond-as well. If public nudity was a continued problem-and the Police couldn't act-legistlation would be introduced to address it. Lawmakers just aren't going to allow something like that.
I sent an email to the SF Attorney General for clarification as well. If I hear back, I will post what is said-and with an email address for any verification. |
| Cheri |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 5:43:02 PM
Stu,
My husband is an attorney, I used to be an LEO. You may have found it to be so in the countries in which you live, but not in southeastern USA.
Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
| Stu_Fox |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 12:14:47 PM
Cheri
I have spent many years teaching law both to cops and to lawyers - it's what I do. In my experience here in the UK, the lawyers have a far better grasp of court procedures, sentencing etc than the police. But when it comes to having a precise understanding of what behaviour does and does not constitute a criminal offence and what police powers exist, a clued-up cop wins every time.
Even if there is no specific offence that expressly forbids a particular type of behaviour, the police wil normally make some other piece of legislation 'fit'. If they are unable to achieve this, and the behaviour is of a kind generally considered to be unacceptable, the police are usually able to get a local law created or amended by the legislative authorities.
Legislators can not always predict how people are going to behave in the future, so they don't always succeed in formulating laws to cover every eventuality. But make no mistake - if some kind of behaviour becomes identified as a nuisance or is otherwise unacceptable - then at some stage the authorities will address it by rectifying any legislative insufficiency.
Stu |
| Cheri |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 11:55:58 AM
Doug, Often the police don't know the actual laws. For instance, they often will ask to search vehicles and don't have warrants. People just offer their privacy too easily.
The police/authorities often at certain venues including the Carolinas, do NOT know what the laws read.
Regards, Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
| DougK |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 10:27:33 AM
Randy,
Didn't say they were-but the point I tried to make is these others places wouldn't tolerate nudity-and SF wouldn't either.
Stu posted from the SF Police Dept-yet-you seem to put more stock or want to believe, against logic, an article written 3rd-4th hand is correct and one can walk around the streets of SF nude-and nothing could be done. I would tend to believe the Police. |
| nudeisntlewd |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 03:32:08 AM
Those laws/ordinances are all for municipalities in the San Francisco area, but not for the city of San Francisco.
Randy |
| DougK |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 02:09:19 AM
I found these laws on the web in the SanFrancisco area:
San Jose Municipal Code 10.12.030:
A. No person over the age of ten years shall be nude and exposed to public view in or upon any public right-of-way, public park, public lands, or in or upon any private property open to public view from any such park, right-of-way or public property....
B. As used in this section, "nude" means devoid of any opaque covering of the genitals, pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus or anal region of any person; or any portion of the breast, at or below the areola thereof, of any female person.
Mountain View Ord. No. 22.73, 7/30/1973
SEC. 21.42. Prohibition against the display of female breasts.
Every female is guilty of a misdemeanor who, while participating in any live act, demonstration, or exhibition in any public place, place open to the public, or place open to public view, or while serving food or drink or both to any customer;
Exposes any portion of either breast below a straight line so drawn that both nipples and all portions of both breasts which have a different pigmentation than that of the main portion of the breasts are below such straight line, or
Employs any device or covering, which is intended to simulate such portions of the breast, or
Wears any type of clothing so that any portion of such part of the breast may be observed.
SEC. 21.43. Prohibition against display of private parts.
Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who exposes his or her private parts or buttocks, or employs any device or covering which is intended to simulate the private parts or pubic hair of such person, while participating in any live act, demonstration, or exhibition in any public place, place open to the public, or place open to public view, or while serving food or drink or both to any customer.
Santa Cruz County Chapter 8.16 Nudity on Beaches
8.16.010 Purpose of provisions.
The presence of persons who are nude and exposed to public view on beaches in the urban portions of the county is offensive to members of the general public unwillingly exposed to such persons. The provisions of this chapter are enacted for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, morals and general welfare of all persons in the county. (Prior code § 8.52.010: Ord. 2052, 9/3/74)
8.16.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
A. "Beach" means all of that area lying along the coast between the mean low water line and the bluffs or high lands which rise above the sandy areas of the beach.
B. "Nude" means devoid of opaque covering which covers the genitals, pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus or anal region of any person.
C. "Urban area" means the unincorporated portion of the coast of the county bounded on the northwest by the southeasterly border of the city of Santa Cruz and bounded on the south by the Pajaro River. (Prior code § 8.52.020: Ord. 2052, 9/3/74)
8.16.030 Nudity prohibited.
No person shall be nude and exposed to public view in or on any beaches or water adjacent thereto in the urban area of the county as defined in this chapter. (Prior code § 8.52.030: Ord. 2052, 9/3/74)
8.16.040 Chapter not exclusive.
It is the intention of the board of supervisors in enacting this chapter to provide an additional remedy to meet a particular problem in a portion of the county. It is not the intent of the board to supersede any other applicable laws or regulations relating to nudity or to grant a license or permission to the public to appear in a state of undress in violation of pertinent provisions of the Penal Code or other laws. (Prior code § 8.52.040: Ord. 2052, 9/3/74)
8.16.050 Violation--Penalty
Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of an infraction and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars; provided, however, that any offense which would otherwise be an infraction is a misdemeanor if a defendant has been convicted of thr |
| DougK |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 01:44:32 AM
Stu,
I have been to SanFrancisco several times-never seen any nudity. It would be a serious mistake to assume nudity is legal in Frisco.
If there is any doubt-get naked on a textile beach there-and then-when the police come-see what happens. |
| Jochanaan |
Posted - 10/22/2004 : 5:00:41 PM
Reminds me of what New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said about nude protests during the Republican convention: "People were naked on Sixth Avenue. So what's the problem?"
(That may not be a verbatim quote. My memory's pretty good, but it was a few months ago.) |
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
