The ban, approved Wednesday and expected to be signed into law this week, targets the public wearing of pants—and, oddly, skirts—that hang “below the waist” and “expose the skin or undergarments.” Violators will be slapped with fines: $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second, and $100 plus 16 hours of public service for each subsequent offense.
So is this a matter of racial profiling, government turned fashion police, a downright violation of the First Amendment, or just business as usual with (what is likely to be) a bunch of stuffy old white people (and Bill Cosby, possibly the most known opponent of saggy pants)?
I say it's targeting African American youth and personally, I agree with the one lady that voted against it. Her logic is impeccable.
Huh... how is it targeting African Americans ...
There are hundreds of teenagers here who do it and while they all look like idiots that can't dress themselves or afford clothes that fit, the large proportion are white skater kids.
Is it really only African-American kids that do it in US ???
No, it's never ONLY any one thing. Of course other races and genders do it other than African American males. But this is the South and these are legislators, which doesn't bode well for urban African American young men in terms of fashion and pop culture. It all reminds me of my high school days when my principal used to walk around with a ruler stick and measure your pants saggage or how short girls' skirts were, then hand out detentions and suspensions accordingly. The concept of such a ban revolves around targeting a specific group or culture, and that in itself is discrimination. I'd say this is more a generational dispute than a genuine concern. It's what can be referred to as a 'blue law'. Serves no real purpose other than to suite the times.
What about not wanting people to walk around with their asses hanging out? I understand how it targets a specific cultural group, but walking around with your breasts or genitals exposed will get you a fine. Here at the high school I am subject to all types of bare asses exposed from sagging pants. I like fashion and am all for it, but I don't understand the fully exposed crack and butt cheeks aspect and I see why that would want to be cleared up. Also, the look emerged from prison *****es who advertise that they are open for business by exposing their rear. I could see a strong solicitation argument!Youth can't be walking around looking like they are advertising themselves for personal use.
Oh yeah? What's next after they ban saggy pants? Yoga pants because they're too form-fitting? I will go to war to defend a (<35 y.o.) woman's right to wear yoga pants! WAR I TELL YOU!
My point is, is that the concept of the government acting as fashion police is unconstitutional. It should be more of a question of 'can we' versus 'should we'.
Going along with these legislators' logic, if these youths are emulating prisoner attire or supposedly idolizing aspects of criminals or otherwise 'morally bankrupt' individuals; wouldn't a ban on this style not only appear as a challenge but ALSO further perpetuate the style as it would be seen as more risque/badass?
How the hell is this racial profiling? Aside from this being in the South so automatically it's more racist (I guess, Georgia and Mississippi are both very black states..), it's totally fine. Fashion trends do get out of control. If I suddenly decided that it would be cool to start putting Swastika's all over my clothes I wouldn't be pissed if people got offended, as they rightfully should.
Seeing your underwear is offensive to my eyes. I may be bias because I went to highschool in 2005 and literally everyone who wasn't emo or a nerd was sagging their ****ing pants. So much underwear...Not to mention people walk like half as fast as they would normally when their pants are around their ankles. I have seen levels of sagging that have made me question how the pants are even on. Like upper calves level.
Yes you should get a fine for this ****.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
My underwear show all the time. It's only because I have no ass, it's either that or make my belt crazy tight. No thanks.
I see people walking down the street all the time with their pants at their knees, it makes want to puke. I only wish they knew just how stupid they look. Law and fine worthy? No, what a waste of time and effort.
How the hell is this racial profiling? Aside from this being in the South so automatically it's more racist (I guess, Georgia and Mississippi are both very black states..), it's totally fine. Fashion trends do get out of control. If I suddenly decided that it would be cool to start putting Swastika's all over my clothes I wouldn't be pissed if people got offended, as they rightfully should.
Seeing your underwear is offensive to my eyes. I may be bias because I went to highschool in 2005 and literally everyone who wasn't emo or a nerd was sagging their ****ing pants. So much underwear...Not to mention people walk like half as fast as they would normally when their pants are around their ankles. I have seen levels of sagging that have made me question how the pants are even on. Like upper calves level.
Yes you should get a fine for this ****.
Actually it would be perfectly legal for me to walk up and down the street covered in swastika's and shout "Heil Hitler!". There is a big difference between it being offensive and it being illegal. Think of it this way... in that same town I could carry a sign saying that blacks should go back to picking cotton, gays are heathens that should be stoned to death, atheists are the devil's soldiers and that women should shut up and get back in the kitchen... legally nothing can be done. If however I did that with baggy pants! $50 fine.
Actually it would be perfectly legal for me to walk up and down the street covered in swastika's and shout "Heil Hitler!". There is a big difference between it being offensive and it being illegal. Think of it this way... in that same town I could carry a sign saying that blacks should go back to picking cotton, gays are heathens that should be stoned to death, atheists are the devil's soldiers and that women should shut up and get back in the kitchen... legally nothing can be done. If however I did that with baggy pants! $50 fine.
That's not necessarily true. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that activities are not protected by the First Amendment if they are likely to cause "imminent lawless action". The actual limits of the First Amendment protections are ambiguous to allow sufficient room for interpretation.
On topic, as a person raised in Mississippi, I find it obvious that this law is blatantly racially motivated.
Actually it would be perfectly legal for me to walk up and down the street covered in swastika's and shout "Heil Hitler!". There is a big difference between it being offensive and it being illegal. Think of it this way... in that same town I could carry a sign saying that blacks should go back to picking cotton, gays are heathens that should be stoned to death, atheists are the devil's soldiers and that women should shut up and get back in the kitchen... legally nothing can be done. If however I did that with baggy pants! $50 fine.
As I could respond considerably more thoroughly but for no good reason, I'm simply going to say no, and that is absurd and ignorant and perpetuates absurdity and ignorance, and not only of the law.
There are limitations to freedom of speech, and it can be argued that all of the above are not covered by the generally absolute right (it is, in truth, a limited right).
I have no idea what jurisdiction you're in but I doubt I'm entirely familiar with all of the law applicable to it, though.
That's not necessarily true. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that activities are not protected by the First Amendment if they are likely to cause "imminent lawless action". The actual limits of the First Amendment protections are ambiguous to allow sufficient room for interpretation.
Um, not exactly on the term 'ruled' or the phrasing as well as on the ruling.
At that level of abstraction anyway, it would be more reasonable to read that as dictum.
Regarding the OP and the law in that co. in LA, that's bad law. It'll do nothing but piss people off and waste taxpayer money in taking that to court.
Personally I find them making that a law to be a bit rediculous, even as much as I find anyone who wears their pants 1/2 way or more down their backside as being rather rediculous. I also do not find this in any way racially motivated. I actually have found more non-african americans that do this than anyone. Such a law would be a mess to deal with, and still may not accomplish what they may want.
As I could respond considerably more thoroughly but for no good reason, I'm simply going to say no, and that is absurd and ignorant and perpetuates absurdity and ignorance, and not only of the law.
There are limitations to freedom of speech, and it can be argued that all of the above are not covered by the generally absolute right (it is, in truth, a limited right).
I have no idea what jurisdiction you're in but I doubt I'm entirely familiar with all of the law applicable to it, though.
Umm... I fail to see the large difference between the scenario in my post and what Westboro baptist church does for it's rallies... Brandon is correct that if the offensive act/speech is being used to cause a riot or something similar that is different, but I hardly think that 1 guy walking down the street being anti-semetic is cause for imminent rioting.
The point being that being offensive, even if it is offensive to 99% of the population is not a reason to take legal action. It is in fact OK for people to be offended.
This is insane. If you want to show you "Under garments" go for it. We shouldn't be told what to wear. First they take away our guns, now we can't wear clothes we want to. What is this world coming to?
This is insane. If you want to show you "Under garments" go for it. We shouldn't be told what to wear. First they take away our guns, now we can't wear clothes we want to. What is this world coming to?
When did they take away your guns...?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
What a joke. The government(even at a state level) has to have better things to do than try and charge people money for wearing their clothing in a particular way.
Am I a fan of the way that people dress these days? Not really. I see way too much ass-crack. But it's also something that people will grow out of. They don't need to be fined.
I think there are two important questions we need to ask:
1. Are indecent exposure laws unconstitutional?
2. Are 'saggy pants' (where underwear is visible) considered indecent exposure?
It is important to note that this is not the first time a law like this has come up. There are a few cities that carry a hefty fine for women with exposed gstrings or 'whale-tails.' This is not a new precedent in state law. However, I am inclined to be against legislation like this because of how the United States government has an interest in steadily creeping into our daily lives. I'm against the idea on principle, even though I think saggy pants (especially the more extreme examples) look completely idiotic. I don't think people should dress like that out of common sense, not because papa government says 'no.'
How does this turn into a debate about our rights as Americans? Where do you draw the line? Sagging your pants is completely idiotic and often times even unsafe for the person sagging their pants. You ever try to walk while doing it to the extent some people do? It's unsafe.
There. Indecent exposure completely countered by the goverment. What about protecting the innocence of children? Is the color of your underwear gang related?
I can do this all day. You can argue rights and amendments all you want but it doesn't change the fact that a law was passed simply because it looks ****ing stupid. We should pass the same law for Fidora's and usage of the word YOLO or SWAG and I'd gladly vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I can do this all day. You can argue rights and amendments all you want but it doesn't change the fact that a law was passed simply because it looks ****ing stupid. We should pass the same law for Fidora's and usage of the word YOLO or SWAG and I'd gladly vote.
Looking stupid is not a reason for someone to go to jail.
Neither is using stupid slang.
Being that any store front can display underwear models publicly, it's allowed on day time network television and is no worse than what is allowed on public beaches... I dont think you can count it as indecent exposure. Neither this nor the "whale tail" counts as indecent.
I can do this all day. You can argue rights and amendments all you want but it doesn't change the fact that a law was passed simply because it looks ****ing stupid. We should pass the same law for Fidora's and usage of the word YOLO or SWAG and I'd gladly vote.
Touch a nerve? You can't inherently put someone away for being a moron, otherwise a large(er) chunk of our population would be incarcerated. If the government was meant to operate as 'fashion police' why was nothing done about mullets? Or tube socks? Or snuggies? Or speedos, ffs? I agree that they look "****ing stupid," but something being "****ing stupid" shouldn't hold water in a court of law.
Fedoras don't count. Don't hate on my legitimate love for them.
Touch a nerve? You can't inherently put someone away for being a moron, otherwise a large(er) chunk of our population would be incarcerated. If the government was meant to operate as 'fashion police' why was nothing done about mullets? Or tube socks? Or snuggies? Or speedos, ffs? I agree that they look "****ing stupid," but something being "****ing stupid" shouldn't hold water in a court of law.
Fedoras don't count. Don't hate on my legitimate love for them.
No nerve touched, I just sometimes like to argue a stance even if in the back of my head I know it doesn't make sense. I just really hate sagging and am trying to find a way to justify getting a fine for doing it. How am I doing?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So is this a matter of racial profiling, government turned fashion police, a downright violation of the First Amendment, or just business as usual with (what is likely to be) a bunch of stuffy old white people (and Bill Cosby, possibly the most known opponent of saggy pants)?
I say it's targeting African American youth and personally, I agree with the one lady that voted against it. Her logic is impeccable.
No, it's never ONLY any one thing. Of course other races and genders do it other than African American males. But this is the South and these are legislators, which doesn't bode well for urban African American young men in terms of fashion and pop culture. It all reminds me of my high school days when my principal used to walk around with a ruler stick and measure your pants saggage or how short girls' skirts were, then hand out detentions and suspensions accordingly. The concept of such a ban revolves around targeting a specific group or culture, and that in itself is discrimination. I'd say this is more a generational dispute than a genuine concern. It's what can be referred to as a 'blue law'. Serves no real purpose other than to suite the times.
[Clan Flamingo]
My point is, is that the concept of the government acting as fashion police is unconstitutional. It should be more of a question of 'can we' versus 'should we'.
What's next? No t-shirts with sarcastic insults because we dont want to hurt people's feelings?
Those regulations are all well and good in a school where distractions are a problem but in a public setting that's just not ok.
The principle is stupid though, why would they fine someone for a fashion choice?
Seeing your underwear is offensive to my eyes. I may be bias because I went to highschool in 2005 and literally everyone who wasn't emo or a nerd was sagging their ****ing pants. So much underwear...Not to mention people walk like half as fast as they would normally when their pants are around their ankles. I have seen levels of sagging that have made me question how the pants are even on. Like upper calves level.
Yes you should get a fine for this ****.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
I see people walking down the street all the time with their pants at their knees, it makes want to puke. I only wish they knew just how stupid they look. Law and fine worthy? No, what a waste of time and effort.
Actually it would be perfectly legal for me to walk up and down the street covered in swastika's and shout "Heil Hitler!". There is a big difference between it being offensive and it being illegal. Think of it this way... in that same town I could carry a sign saying that blacks should go back to picking cotton, gays are heathens that should be stoned to death, atheists are the devil's soldiers and that women should shut up and get back in the kitchen... legally nothing can be done. If however I did that with baggy pants! $50 fine.
That's not necessarily true. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that activities are not protected by the First Amendment if they are likely to cause "imminent lawless action". The actual limits of the First Amendment protections are ambiguous to allow sufficient room for interpretation.
On topic, as a person raised in Mississippi, I find it obvious that this law is blatantly racially motivated.
As I could respond considerably more thoroughly but for no good reason, I'm simply going to say no, and that is absurd and ignorant and perpetuates absurdity and ignorance, and not only of the law.
There are limitations to freedom of speech, and it can be argued that all of the above are not covered by the generally absolute right (it is, in truth, a limited right).
I have no idea what jurisdiction you're in but I doubt I'm entirely familiar with all of the law applicable to it, though.
Um, not exactly on the term 'ruled' or the phrasing as well as on the ruling.
At that level of abstraction anyway, it would be more reasonable to read that as dictum.
Regarding the OP and the law in that co. in LA, that's bad law. It'll do nothing but piss people off and waste taxpayer money in taking that to court.
Could you please elaborate as to how my post was inaccurate? That would be more helpful than simply declaring it incorrect without explanation.
Umm... I fail to see the large difference between the scenario in my post and what Westboro baptist church does for it's rallies... Brandon is correct that if the offensive act/speech is being used to cause a riot or something similar that is different, but I hardly think that 1 guy walking down the street being anti-semetic is cause for imminent rioting.
The point being that being offensive, even if it is offensive to 99% of the population is not a reason to take legal action. It is in fact OK for people to be offended.
When did they take away your guns...?
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Am I a fan of the way that people dress these days? Not really. I see way too much ass-crack. But it's also something that people will grow out of. They don't need to be fined.
1. Are indecent exposure laws unconstitutional?
2. Are 'saggy pants' (where underwear is visible) considered indecent exposure?
It is important to note that this is not the first time a law like this has come up. There are a few cities that carry a hefty fine for women with exposed gstrings or 'whale-tails.' This is not a new precedent in state law. However, I am inclined to be against legislation like this because of how the United States government has an interest in steadily creeping into our daily lives. I'm against the idea on principle, even though I think saggy pants (especially the more extreme examples) look completely idiotic. I don't think people should dress like that out of common sense, not because papa government says 'no.'
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
There. Indecent exposure completely countered by the goverment. What about protecting the innocence of children? Is the color of your underwear gang related?
I can do this all day. You can argue rights and amendments all you want but it doesn't change the fact that a law was passed simply because it looks ****ing stupid. We should pass the same law for Fidora's and usage of the word YOLO or SWAG and I'd gladly vote.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Looking stupid is not a reason for someone to go to jail.
Neither is using stupid slang.
Being that any store front can display underwear models publicly, it's allowed on day time network television and is no worse than what is allowed on public beaches... I dont think you can count it as indecent exposure. Neither this nor the "whale tail" counts as indecent.
Touch a nerve? You can't inherently put someone away for being a moron, otherwise a large(er) chunk of our population would be incarcerated. If the government was meant to operate as 'fashion police' why was nothing done about mullets? Or tube socks? Or snuggies? Or speedos, ffs? I agree that they look "****ing stupid," but something being "****ing stupid" shouldn't hold water in a court of law.
Fedoras don't count. Don't hate on my legitimate love for them.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
No nerve touched, I just sometimes like to argue a stance even if in the back of my head I know it doesn't make sense. I just really hate sagging and am trying to find a way to justify getting a fine for doing it. How am I doing?
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible