A lot of people here have a thing against baggy pants, the type that show off your underwear, and have voiced their disapproval, even going so far as to state that it would be criminal to allow such statements to be public. In some ways this is propelled by a fear of the youth culture that it appears associated with, whether it's wiggers attempting to be gangsta or, originally, those who have gotten used to the oversized cut of prison pants.
However I've always found it disturbing that in several counties in the US, that wearing such things makes you liable to be fined and jailed for up to six months. As the Florida justice stated in the article, this is fashion police overstepping their mark.
The question is what kind of mark is this and exactly in what way is such a measure deemed unconstitutional. One might argue that this is a democracy and in such, a 5000 person petition might actually count for something.
I for one am slightly prone to disagree. A petition may be a strong symbolic gesture but evidence is more likely to show that making things illegal is like digging your heels in or bashing your head against a brick wall. If you don't want kids wearing baggy pants that border on but cannot be demonstrated to be obscene (i.e. exposure of buttocks), then get involved as a whole and instill a culture of disapproval! I can think of several measures that would simultaeneously deal with some of the other social issues endemic to the US.
The question really is will people be bothered to try?
I guess it has something to do with indecent exposure. I heard that it was also a safety issue, I'm not sure how it could be, but that's what I remember when I first heard about that law. I also think it's because this is a law in Florida, which is like the retired people capital of america, and those retired people don't wanna see those young whippersnappers with their baggy pants, and their loud rap music, and their music television.
I would say it's a little bit easier for a thug to hide a pistol in baggy pants than it is in jeans.
In 9th grade my class was shown a video of this guy taking out tons of ridiculous stuff from baggy pants...(I kind of lived in the ghetto.)
Machetes, sawn-off shotguns, explosives. It was a little bit exaggerated, but it got the point across. I think it's pretty ridiculous that it was deemed unconstitutional though.
But you're allowed to wear baggy pants, you just can't wear pants that sag and show your underwear. and you're still allowed to wear trenchcoats, even though you could probably hide a german u-boat in one of those.
Oops, my bad. I meant saggy pants, not baggy pants. The keys are like, totally next to each other :P
But that aside, I think the latter reason was the most accurate Lige. Pretty much what I said here:
In some ways this is propelled by a fear of the youth culture that it appears associated with, whether it's wiggers attempting to be gangsta or, originally, those who have gotten used to the oversized cut of prison pants.
I was personally going to encourage a culture of fitness which would cause said saggy pants to ride either up or down as one moved, thereby discouraging their use through either wedgie or humiliation
I was personally going to encourage a culture of fitness which would cause said saggy pants to ride either up or down as one moved, thereby discouraging their use through either wedgie or humiliation
Haha, wow. That's pretty creative. But yeah, saggy pants are still pretty gross...I wear my jeans a little low for comfort, but I'm not giving others a show of my rear 24/7.
I think it's pretty ridiculous that it was deemed unconstitutional though.
What? It is ridiculous to even have such an unconstitutional law.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... Amendment the First
It isn't hard to argue to argue that clothes are a form of free speech, especially if they have printed messages on them.
No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property... Amendment the Fifth
These laws also take away the liberty to wear the pants, and they make the ownership of them rather superfluous and pointless, seeing as you can't wear them.
One might argue that this is a democracy
Pure democracy as expressed in laws like this oppress the minority. The majority of people in the South wanted slavery and segregation, that doesn't mean it was right.
The question really is will people be bothered to try?
People would rather just gripe about the rebellious youth and have the government do the work for them than actually get up and do the work themselves.
No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property...
...Except those who are deprived of life, liberty, or property.
People would rather just gripe about the rebellious youth and have the government do the work for them than actually get up and do the work themselves.
Hmm, what work would they do? They'd have to cut off all the sources which influence them kids.
