You all know the joke: What did the unsuccessful lawyer who joined a nudist colony never have? (A suit. LOL. Sort of.)
But a successful lawyer just filed a detailed suit trying to stop San Francisco from enforcing a ban on public nudity,  and it makes a lot of interesting points. You can read the filing here (pdf) . I'll get beyond the fact that a legal argument over nudism uses the terms "prong" and "thrust" and "penal" all in a few short paragraphs, and get to the substance:
Attorney Christina DeEduoardo claims that her clients use nudity as a form of free speech and protest -- and given who they are, it's a pretty good argument. You've got a guy who ran as the nudist candidate for mayor and a woman who took her clothes off at a Board of Supervisors meeting for political reasons, and they contend that they have the right to appear naked in public.
The claim seeks a restraining order prohibiting the Board of Supervisors from enacting the law, but a federal judge already nixed that, according to City Attorney spokesperson Matt Dorsey. Instead, all parties have to wait unitl the supes approve the law, at which point this will become a motion for an injunction against the law taking effect.
So banning a handful of people, mostly older guys, from hanging out naked on Castro Street is going to become a legal battle that will cost the city a bunch of money. Unless sanity prevails and Sup. Scott Wiener, the city attorney and the nudists can reach a deal, which might be pretty simple:
It's cool to get all nekkid (although it won't be happening much in the next few months, way too cold). But maybe the Castro Guys can agree not to wear cockrings that attract attention to their dicks (and seem to be the proximate cause of all the fuss). Just be natural when you go au naturel, and we can all stop fighting over this.