From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
New police tricknology, vs SF nudes
To harass and intimidate nude demonstrators in SF, police may charge them
under a different [ and more vague] state law...
under a different [ and more vague] state law...
To the SF Bay Times:
California state law prohibits going naked in public,
IF one does this "lewdly" [Penal Code section 314].
Since 1972, our California Supreme Court has defined the meaning of "lewdly" [ see IN RE SMITH];
so that simple, non-sexual nudity
isn't covered by PC 314.
The law is aimed at sexual exhibitionists ["lily-wavers"],
not most sunbathers, political picketers, B2B runners, etc.
In recent years,
San Francisco police have often charged nude political demonstrators with PC 314.
But our SF District Attorney has routinely
refused to prosecute non-lewd nudes for PC 314.
Now the SF cops may try a new tactic --
accusing nudes of creating a
"public nuisance" [PC 370-372];
presumably by being "indecent".
[A public nuisance is defined in 370 as
"Any thing which is injurious to health, or is
indecent, or offensive to the senses..."], et cetera.]
Does SFPD hope to confuse juries
by the vagueness of the term "indecent"?
If so, they might succeed.
And they may well intimidate SF nude protestors,
including the undersigned.
So SUN asks the Northern California ACLU to study
this new police-state "tricknology".
Does it inhibit freedom of political, spiritual, cultural, or artistic expression?
Is 370, in the context of nudity,
void because of vagueness?
For freedom until death,
Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
for Senior Unlimited Nudes of SF
San Francisco
August 2010
.....
California Penal Code Section 370 [et seq.]
> Public Nuisance
>
> Public Nuisance
> 370. Any thing which is injurious to health, or is
> indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to
> the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
> comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire
> community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of
> persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in
> the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay,
> stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street,
> or highway, is a public nuisance.
>
> (Amended Ch. 614, Stats. 1873.)
> -------------------------------------
California state law prohibits going naked in public,
IF one does this "lewdly" [Penal Code section 314].
Since 1972, our California Supreme Court has defined the meaning of "lewdly" [ see IN RE SMITH];
so that simple, non-sexual nudity
isn't covered by PC 314.
The law is aimed at sexual exhibitionists ["lily-wavers"],
not most sunbathers, political picketers, B2B runners, etc.
In recent years,
San Francisco police have often charged nude political demonstrators with PC 314.
But our SF District Attorney has routinely
refused to prosecute non-lewd nudes for PC 314.
Now the SF cops may try a new tactic --
accusing nudes of creating a
"public nuisance" [PC 370-372];
presumably by being "indecent".
[A public nuisance is defined in 370 as
"Any thing which is injurious to health, or is
indecent, or offensive to the senses..."], et cetera.]
Does SFPD hope to confuse juries
by the vagueness of the term "indecent"?
If so, they might succeed.
And they may well intimidate SF nude protestors,
including the undersigned.
So SUN asks the Northern California ACLU to study
this new police-state "tricknology".
Does it inhibit freedom of political, spiritual, cultural, or artistic expression?
Is 370, in the context of nudity,
void because of vagueness?
For freedom until death,
Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
for Senior Unlimited Nudes of SF
San Francisco
August 2010
.....
California Penal Code Section 370 [et seq.]
> Public Nuisance
>
> Public Nuisance
> 370. Any thing which is injurious to health, or is
> indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to
> the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
> comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire
> community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of
> persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in
> the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay,
> stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street,
> or highway, is a public nuisance.
>
> (Amended Ch. 614, Stats. 1873.)
> -------------------------------------
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This country has drifted so far to the right that it's capsizing and taking us all down with it.
What a shame that we are regressing while even some formerly backwards nations are now making more progress... and an even bigger shame to see this kind of puritanical right-wing nonsense infecting San Francisco. I suppose it's to be expected as SF is now so gentrified that only the wealthy can live there. And those who control the wealth control the laws/people.
What a shame that we are regressing while even some formerly backwards nations are now making more progress... and an even bigger shame to see this kind of puritanical right-wing nonsense infecting San Francisco. I suppose it's to be expected as SF is now so gentrified that only the wealthy can live there. And those who control the wealth control the laws/people.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network