Activists Plan Nudity Ban Protest On Its 2nd Anniversary

SAN FRANCISCO—Body freedom activists will stage a protest against the city's nudity ban on the 2nd anniversary of what protest organizer Gypsy Taub describes as "this draconian legislation," and urges potential attendees to "Stand up for body freedom and freedom of choice!" "We will gather at Jane Warner Plaza on Sunday, February 1st at 12 noon," Taub wrote. "Please join us nude, dressed or anywhere in between!" "Let's keep the pressure on and let's show the city that we are serious about our fundamental human right to do what we choose with our own bodies," she continued "Let's stand up for our own rights and the rights of the rest of San Franciscans, as well as humanity as a whole—for what happens in San Francisco has a ripple effect on the rest of the country and the rest of the world. "We are deeply dedicated to defending our fundamental human rights such as freedom of choice and body freedom. 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are our basic rights according to the Declaration of Independence. "Not everyone in this world understands how important it is to be able to make your own choices about your own body. We are determined to break free from the prison of body shame, from this medieval oppression and from mind control that we have been brutally subjected to from the day we were born. We are determined to break free and to set everyone else free. "We will continue to protest in the streets, at the City Hall and in Federal Court until the nudity ban becomes part of shameful dark pages of history. "The people of San Francisco are overwhelmingly on our side and so is progress. We are not afraid because we know that we are going to win. We are going to win this battle locally and globally. Humanity is waking up to its rage and its power to change the world. Humanity is on a path of exponential liberation of the mind, body and spirit. It is the destiny that we have chosen and it cannot be stopped." Taub also relayed an update on the federal lawsuit that has been filed to overturn the law, quoting the First Amendment attorneys who are handling the case, D. Gil Sperlein and Lawrence Walters. "The litigation against San Francisco remains pending, despite efforts to dismiss the case by governmental officials," the attorneys stated. "The City and County of San Francisco filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, which contained six different counts. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one of the claims and the Court dismissed four others. However, the Court denied the City’s motion to dismiss one of the Plaintiffs' most important claims relating to unconstitutional enforcement of the ordinance against protestors. "Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint is a First Amendment claim based on unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Sometimes courts analyze this type of claim as a Fourteenth Amendment 'Equal Protection' argument, but the idea is the same under either analysis. The City and County of San Francisco has enforced the nudity ban against body freedom activists, but it has chosen to ignore violations of the ordinance by people participating in events sponsored by groups with political clout at City Hall. We believe this is both wrong and unconstitutional. "The best examples of this discrimination involve nude participants of the World Naked Bike Rides or Critical Mass demonstrations. It is common knowledge that the Bicycle Coalition has significant clout at City Hall. When individuals violate the nudity ordinance in order to bring attention to the cause of increasing bicycle safety, reducing oil dependence, or similar bicycle related themes, the City turns a blind eye. But when body freedom activists, engage in nude protests to object to the ordinance or to demonstrate their unwavering belief that the naked human body should be celebrated rather than hidden, the City dispatches large numbers of police officers to squelch the protests and arrest the activists. Thus, the City silences viewpoints it disfavors, and encourages viewpoints with which it agrees. This is not the role of government in the marketplace of ideas. "By denying the City’s Motion to dismiss this claim, the court acknowledges that the Plaintiffs pled sufficient facts in the Second Amended Complaint to reasonably infer that the City is liable for the alleged misconduct. Plaintiffs’ attorney D. Gill Sperlein said that while he is disappointed with the Court’s dismissal of some of the claims, he is confident the Plaintiffs will prevail on the remaining claim.  "I have a great deal of respect for the judge," Sperlein said, "but, I think this particular ruling contained a few mistakes in reasoning which would have a profoundly negative impact on Freedom of Speech if they were taken to their logical conclusion. However, the Court is certainly correct about the remaining claim. The City has been targeting these individuals because the City does not like that they advocate for body freedom. At the same time, the City engages in willful blindness when individuals undress to bring attention to a cause the City supports." "Lawrence Walters, a First Amendment guru from Florida who also represents the Plaintiffs in the case, said that an appeal of the dismissed claims is all but certain," Taub noted. "The City’s answer to the remaining claim is due shortly, and the case is now in the discovery stage. Parties will likely file motions for summary judgment sometime in the Spring or Summer, with a trial expected shortly thereafter." For more information, contact Gypsy Taub: (510)-495-9661, gypsytaub@gmail.com, www.MyNakedTruth.TV