masterblaster72 0 #1 September 17, 2007 from here: QuoteIt's a fashion that started in prison, and now the saggy pants craze has come full circle — low-slung street strutting in some cities may soon mean run-ins with the law, including a stint in jail. Proposals to ban saggy pants are starting to ride up in several places. At the extreme end, wearing pants low enough to show boxers or bare buttocks in one small Louisiana town means six months in jail and a $500 fine. A crackdown also is being pushed in Atlanta. And in Trenton, getting caught with your pants down may soon result in not only a fine, but a city worker assessing where your life is headed. Personally, I find saggy pants abhorrent, but fines and time in jail -- a bit much, no? Not to mention -- isn't this completely unconstitutional? Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #2 September 17, 2007 Im with you. Pants worn like that drive me nuts but jail time is a bit steep. I propose that police departments have a "wedgie" division. Anyone caught with pants low enough to show underwear get a "tear inducing" wedgie. Common sense justice at work.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #3 September 17, 2007 Falls under freedom of speech I guess. If they want to wear their slacks hanging halfway down their ass that's up to them. I can't see how anyone can walk dressed like that, but that's their problem especially when they try to get a job. Hard to imagine anyone hiring someone who dresses like that. Most employers would shove that job application to the back of the pile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #4 September 17, 2007 Having poor fashion sense is crime now?! WTF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #5 September 17, 2007 A BIT steep? Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, we are talking baggy pants here! I can't wait for the first test case of this law. Imagine all of the money that will be wasted on this absolute bullshit. The ACLU will (rightly) get involved, and all this will add up to is a waster $10 million. If anything, we should make spandex on fat people a crime. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #6 September 17, 2007 I believe everyone has the constitutional right to make a complete jackass of themselves. It is helpful to be able to identify morons at a glance. And I doubt the cops are in favor such laws; Over the past few years I've read MANY stories of foot pursuits ending when the perps pants fell down while he was running from the police. I can't believe the cops would be eager to lose that advantage."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #7 September 17, 2007 In other news, the going rate for plumbing service skyrockets in response to shortage of plumbers.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #8 September 17, 2007 QuoteFalls under freedom of speech I guess. nonsense - it's simply freedom to dress as you like why is everything now categorized as "speech"? What "comment" is being made? I don't think this is what the founders were thinking of when Freedom of Speech was acknowledged. Freedoms are inherent, not given by the constitution. freedom to dress as you like (and it's nothing more or less than that) does not HAVE to be guaranteed by the constitution. The listed freedoms are just acknowledgments of stuff we already have and we just wanted to acknowledge them as particularly important. Can't we just note that this is a really stupid fashion? But that restricting what somebody wears is even more idiotic and an unnecessary control of our individual freedoms? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #9 September 17, 2007 QuoteFalls under freedom of speech I guess. If they want to wear their slacks hanging halfway down their ass that's up to them. I can't see how anyone can walk dressed like that, but that's their problem especially when they try to get a job. Hard to imagine anyone hiring someone who dresses like that. Most employers would shove that job application to the back of the pile. I got flamed pretty hard in a previous thread for making comments like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #10 September 17, 2007 While laws prohibiting certain styles of dress could be the start of slide down that slippery slope to mandatory dress codes, shouldn't local communities have the right to restrict certain behaviors that the majority of citizens find unacceptable? Isn't this along the lines of outlawing public nudity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #11 September 17, 2007 QuoteWhile laws prohibiting certain styles of dress could be the start of slide down that slippery slope to mandatory dress codes, shouldn't local communities have the right to restrict certain behaviors that the majority of citizens find unacceptable? No. I don't need to be arrested when passing through some shitstain town for wearing clothing perfectly OK in every other town. Quote Isn't this along the lines of outlawing public nudity? No. Nudity is nudity. This is not nudity. What this is is a giant waste of time and resources, and just about the stupidest thing I've ever freaking heard. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #12 September 17, 2007 QuoteWhile laws prohibiting certain styles of dress could be the start of slide down that slippery slope to mandatory dress codes, shouldn't local communities have the right to restrict certain behaviors that the majority of citizens find unacceptable? I believe this is the tyrrany of the majority, and is exactly what the Constitution tries to prevent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #13 September 17, 2007 QuoteWhile laws prohibiting certain styles of dress could be the start of slide down that slippery slope to mandatory dress codes, shouldn't local communities have the right to restrict certain behaviors that the majority of citizens find unacceptable? No. QuoteIsn't this along the lines of outlawing public nudity? No.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #14 September 17, 2007 QuoteHard to imagine anyone hiring someone who dresses like that. Most employers would shove that job application to the back of the pile. Yep. When I fill in a job application I always dedicate a portion of my CV to my fashion sense. I also wear my street clothes to interviews, I want them to get to know the real me.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #15 September 17, 2007 What you wear falls under the broad classification of Freedom of Speech. Though I despise those baggy pants I will argue that it is their right to wear them as an expression of who they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #16 September 17, 2007 >Hard to imagine anyone hiring someone who dresses like that. I'm sure the same things were said about men who pierced their ears, women who left their heads uncovered, and girls who wore pants. Fashion changes. Heck, ties are stupid; they serve no purpose whatsoever other than to get caught in machinery. But all 'respectable' people wear them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #17 September 17, 2007 Quote>Hard to imagine anyone hiring someone who dresses like that. I'm sure the same things were said about men who pierced their ears, women who left their heads uncovered, and girls who wore pants. Fashion changes. Yep. If the fashion holds for any length of time then baggy pants may well be right there with all you listed. Heck, ties are stupid; they serve no purpose whatsoever other than to get caught in machinery. But all 'respectable' people wear them. Since all "respectable" people wear a tie, that must mean those who don't...aren't? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #18 September 17, 2007 >that must mean those who don't...aren't? Well, I don't wear one, and I'm definitely not respectable! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #19 September 17, 2007 Quote "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest" So...have you registered as a Democrat yet? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #20 September 17, 2007 Quote Im with you. Pants worn like that drive me nuts but jail time is a bit steep. I propose that police departments have a "wedgie" division. Anyone caught with pants low enough to show underwear get a "tear inducing" wedgie. Common sense justice at work. Best post of the week! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #21 September 17, 2007 QuoteWhat you wear falls under the broad classification of Freedom of Speech. Though I despise those baggy pants I will argue that it is their right to wear them as an expression of who they are. I think I made it clear that "my" opinion is that interpretation is a total crock. It dilutes the original intent that people with reasoned political objections to the way government is run should not be forcibly silenced by that same government. And has nothing to do with the inherent (and unstated) right of people to express themselves, about themselves, in whatever goofy way they'd like. The current bastardization of Freedom of Speech pretty well makes the whole concept just a big whine fest - when the original intent was very important. Edit: I'll put another vote into establishing "Locally" funded wedgie enforcement divisions. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,537 #22 September 17, 2007 The ninth amendment says: Quote The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people I think we can include the right to bad (or good) fashion sense among those that don't have to be specifically enumerated. I kind of like that -- that way we continue to have precedent for that concept of un-enumerated rights Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #23 September 17, 2007 Quote The ninth amendment says: Quote The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people I think we can include the right to bad (or good) fashion sense among those that don't have to be specifically enumerated. I kind of like that -- that way we continue to have precedent for that concept of un-enumerated rights Yep, a nation that only specifies what you can't do will tend to be more free than a nation that specifies what you can do.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #24 September 17, 2007 How do they know who's wearing baggy pants.... unless they are also wearing baggy trousers ... Jeeze you foreigners need to relearn our language. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #25 September 17, 2007 Quote think we can include the right to bad (or good) fashion sense among those that don't have to be specifically enumerated. thanks, Wendy. That's my point. We/I/They have the right to dress stupid and we don't have to completely mis/redefine FoSpeech to justify that position. It's a bit ironic that we have to have a statement to validate "un-enumerated" rights But it has to be there for the stupid/obtuse people. They know who they are - (or maybe they don't). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
