San Francisco, the Nude Ordinance, and the Limits of Expression

A friend recently remarked that she was headed to California and “back to the 21^st Century”.  Given all the hue, cry, and gnashing of teeth over the repeal of San Francisco’s nude ordinance, one would have thought she was headed back to prehistoric times, when humanoids wore skins and not much else.

San Francisco, several years ago, adopted an ordinance allowing one to be nude in public.  There were certain conditions, but basically one could head out to the local coffee shop au natural.  But then, San Francisco encountered the excesses of the new ordinance, among which were naked activists staging a “nude-in” near a line of school children, waiting to see “the Sound of Music”.  Classy.

Other incidents in the heavily gay Castro district of San Francisco soon convinced the residents that the nude activists were to the ordinance what James Egan Holmes or Jared Loughner were to gun ownership.  The tourists weren’t much better as they prowled the streets of the Castro looking for photo opportunities involving themselves and the nearest naked miscreant, sitting right smack in the middle of a public sidewalk.

When it became too much, many gay men protested the outrageous behavior to their elected Supervisor.  The result was a 6-5 vote to repeal the ordinance.  That set off the usual, well worn, overly abused civil rights rhetoric such as “freedom”, “bigotry”, “intolerance”, “fascism”, and “hate”.  Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney must have been rolling in their graves.

I am certain there is a far greater evil than the repeal of the nude ordinance.  That would be the complete diminution of and disrespect for courageous people who were blow torched in the remote forests of the Segregated South, because they sought equal service at a lunch counter or the right to vote.

The nude activists charged, with great consternation, that repeal of the nude ordinance would “Peoria-tize” San Francisco, a comparison, I am sure that will not cause the Peoria Chamber of Commerce to lose any sleep.

The late philosopher, Christopher Hitchens, remarked that gay marriage was not a radicalization of society, but an embourgoisement of the gay lifestyle.  The fact that gay men led the charge against the nude ordinance because they found the outrageous behavior to be antithetical to family values and the healthy upbringing of children certainly confers much credence on the observations of Hitchens. 

But we still need to note that the 6-5 vote is clear indication that San Francisco is not anywhere near Peoria, or Planet Earth, for that matter, when it comes to culture, manners, or expression. If I were in Peoria, I wouldn’t sweat it either.

And so, while children are enslaved in factories in Southeast Asia and the Middle East teeters on yet another round of mass murder, the nude activists are planning to resume their fight for “freedom”, “justice”, “diversity”, “tolerance”, and my personal favorite, “social justice”.

All of which brings to mind something my mother used to say: “There’s nothing in this country that can’t be cured by a good famine”.