We read the challenged ordinance as focusing on the goal of regulating conduct which the city council has determined to be injurious to health, safety and morals, i.e., the prohibition of public nudity or indecent exposure not intended as a protected symbolic or communicative act. Id. at 82.
In other words, the court specifically acknowledged an exception to the ordinance in order to protect symbolic or communicative acts (the other alternative would have been to declare the entire ordinance unconstitutional, as it's fairly well established that no-exception bans on public nudity violate the first amendment), which this clearly was, so he should be fine.
Of course, all bets are off since this happened in an airport, because terrorism.
The relevant bit there:
We read the challenged ordinance as focusing on the goal of regulating conduct which the city council has determined to be injurious to health, safety and morals, i.e., the prohibition of public nudity or indecent exposure not intended as a protected symbolic or communicative act. Id. at 82.
In other words, the court specifically acknowledged an exception to the ordinance in order to protect symbolic or communicative acts (the other alternative would have been to declare the entire ordinance unconstitutional, as it's fairly well established that no-exception bans on public nudity violate the first amendment), which this clearly was, so he should be fine.
Of course, all bets are off since this happened in an airport, because terrorism.