US town set to ban saggy trousers

[Drewbie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6751777.stm

 

Shocker

 

Some guy in Va wanted similar to that but didn't pass.

[Ieshwar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6751777.stm

 

Shocker

 

Some guy in Va wanted similar to that but didn't pass.

 

Not because this is my type of dress code but ... I'm thinking of gays in that town! It's like a ban on eye candies (well, the underwears were good for our fertile imagination)! Poor them.

 

And why did the mayor say 'wear dress instead?' It's not feminine at all. Or does he think that dresses 'reveal intimate parts'?

 

Ieshwar

[Lugh]

ok...

if this law is going to outlaw the showing of one's underwear does it include women's upper foundational support?

 

Granted I understand that it is aimed at male's drawers, but depending on how it is worded then any undergarment can become suspect. Hell go with out the underpants and just show your upper cheeks and a bit of pubic hair... or would that be considered indecent too?

 

damn there goes clubbing.

 

Lugh

[The Reaper]

f*ckin people in america need to mind their own damn business. Thats the problem with today's world, people dont mind their own damn business.

[Dio]

That's not so bad. I once lived in a suburb where it was forbidden to paint your garage purple. Now THATS criminal.

[colinian]

It's easy enough to defeat the intent of this stupid law: don't wear any underwear that shows! To keep from being being charged with indecent exposure, guys would have to shave off their pubes. They'd also need to wear something like a skin-colored bikini jock strap in case their pants slipped too far south.

 

Methinks the city council and mayor of Delcambre, LA have WAY too much time on their hands!

 

 

Colin

[Camy]

Total insanity.

[rknapp]

f*ckin people in america need to mind their own damn business. Thats the problem with today's world, people dont mind their own damn business.

 

On the contrary, we need more laws like this! The last thing in the world that I wanted to see when walking into class at 7:45 this morning was the maintenance guy's asscrack as he cleaned the TV stand! This man redefined the term "Cram Canyon"!... Okay maybe my old VP doing a strip tease is the last thing in the world I would ever want to see, but that's beside the point.

[Graeme]

There's another simple way to beat the ban -- wear shorts or bathers underneath, instead of underwear. You'll get a similar look, but you can easily argue that they aren't underwear and hence isn't banned.

 

New fashion -- wearing speedoes under trousers!

[The Reaper]

The Constitution reads that if your government does wrong, you have the right to do anything to stop it. If a law is bad, you dont have to follow it.

 

Im sick of these prissy people who follow stupid laws because its a law. If you personally think some law is stupid, its up to you to not follow it. I dont follow very many laws because i think they are unlawful, wrong, and illogical, if they throw me in jail then so be it.

 

If its against the law to wear low hanging pants, id wear no pants until it was changed. Every time you people (adults of the nation, i only say adults because as much as id like to help, no one gives two shits about minors in a court appealing a law), follow these stupid rules, the more you kill what the founding fathers wanted for us, freedom.

 

And plus, the law is unconstitutional. It infringes on our personal rights to style our clothing however we want to, wearing my pants to my knees isn't hurting anyone. If any pig...i mean police officer, stops and tells me to pull up my pants, ill take them off and hand them to him, and i suggest everyone does that. If i cant wear my pants the way i want (not that i wear them baggy or that its a bad thing), then i wont wear pants at all.

Edited June 14, 2007 by The Reaper

[Demetz]

It's easy enough to defeat the intent of this stupid law: don't wear any underwear that shows! To keep from being being charged with indecent exposure, guys would have to shave off their pubes. They'd also need to wear something like a skin-colored bikini jock strap in case their pants slipped too far south.

 

Methinks the city council and mayor of Delcambre, LA have WAY too much time on their hands!

Colin

 

 

See... this is solved very easily... don't wear underpants. At all. Ever... and you probably shouldn't wear pants either

[TalonRider]

On some guy's, I find this style offensive. On others, additional eye candy.

 

I've seen some of those cop show's where suspects are chased where that style. It tends to make them easier to catch as they run very fast and wind up falling down. They also can't seem to run very fast while trying to hold up their pants either.

 

Jan

[JamesSavik]

The Constitution reads that if your government does wrong, you have the right to do anything to stop it. If a law is bad, you dont have to follow it.

 

 

Actually- the Constitution does NOT read that way. You are required to follow any law, local, state or federal, no matter how bogus, until it is overturned by a superior court or appealed by the legislature.

 

You don't have the right to do anything to stop it other than lobby local, state or federal officials or sue and bring the law to court.

 

Even if the law is bad, you do have to follow it or they will send little men with guns to take you away.

 

 

 

I do however agree with you on this particular law. It goes too far. The purpose of law is to protect the public and maintain order. It is NOT meant to regulate a fashion trend that some people might find objectionable. If the statute of limitations on baggy britches is the one big problem that lawmakers must address in this town, apparently they don't have a whole lot to do.

[Razor]

Hehe, silly people. I could understand if they had a group of men running around slapping people in the face with their wangs or something... now that's reason to create a law. It'd read something like "All the cute ones go to Jamie's house, and the rest of you guys get the hell out,".... but that's beside the point.

 

This is just kinda stupid. Waste of time and effort... if all you have to do all day is draft a law concerning how I wear my pants, then I believe you should be volunteering at a homeless shelter or something worthwhile.

[Menzoberranzen]

I think the law is a good idea. Despite what you may or may not consider to be worthwhile, I think that an appropriate dress code for an entire city is just an expansion of an ages-old tradition in private and public institutions like schools and businesses.

 

I won't go into the possible constitutional issues (I'm not really up on American law) but people really, really need to stop bitching about how they have the right to do whatever the hell they please. Guess what, you don't.

 

Menzo

[Razor]

I DO reserve the right to do exactly whatever the hell I please, so long as it does not harm anyone else. If that happens to be outside the law... well I gotta make sure the f**kers don't catch me then, don't I?

[Menzoberranzen]

I DO reserve the right to do exactly whatever the hell I please, so long as it does not harm anyone else.

 

You've hit the nail on the head. Who decides what hurts someone? Maybe seeing ugly people wearing baggy trousers harms my moral sensibilities? Of course it doesn't, but you see how this easily descends into a war of opinions. I don't usually support 'censoring' but this is a case where people don't have the choice not to look. I can just stop listening to a radio station with profanity, if I feel offended, but I do not have the luxury of holing myself up away from all the saggy-pantsed louts wandering the streets.

 

menzo

[Andy]

Can I have a law enacted against people having visible piercings? I think they are barbaric and they offend my moral sensibilities.

 

And you Can not look at some guy with his jeans round his knees. Pretty easily actually

 

Its called looking at their face, or someone else.

[The Reaper]

Actually- the Constitution does NOT read that way. You are required to follow any law, local, state or federal, no matter how bogus, until it is overturned by a superior court or appealed by the legislature.

 

 

Even if the law is bad, you do have to follow it or they will send little men with guns to take you away.

 

 

 

Well, what if the people with guns are wrong? Would you still follow their rules and do what they say just because they threaten you? What if EVERYONE was wrong? Would you still follow the rules set by the majority?

 

I know i wouldn't. my life is not about you or him or my neighbor, its about me. That may sound selfish but its true. My life is about ME and what I want, not about the common good. I do believe that i should contribute to the common good, but im gonna do what i damn well please and id like anyone to try and stop me form doing so. If a country wants to call itself "free" i should be able to do whatever i want as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else, and ill use that law till the end.

 

 

As for baggy pants, my pants stay around my waist thank you very much lol.

 

 

And as for everyone, i should say to you that i hope you do what is right and not let ANYONE stop you from being happy. "Self sacrifice is the greatest honor you can behold."

Edited June 15, 2007 by The Reaper

[Razor]

You've hit the nail on the head. Who decides what hurts someone? Maybe seeing ugly people wearing baggy trousers harms my moral sensibilities? Of course it doesn't, but you see how this easily descends into a war of opinions. I don't usually support 'censoring' but this is a case where people don't have the choice not to look. I can just stop listening to a radio station with profanity, if I feel offended, but I do not have the luxury of holing myself up away from all the saggy-pantsed louts wandering the streets.

 

menzo

 

 

If it doesn't make you bleed or cry, it doesn't hurt you. Offending moral sensibilities is not harm. If someone doesn't want to look at something, they can damn well avert their eyes. That's like someone telling me I can't kiss my boyfriend because they're a Christian and they don't believe that's morally acceptable. Well, guess what? I just don't give a f**K what anyone finds morally acceptable.

 

Like I said, no blood, no tears, no harm.

[Graeme]

Robert Heinlein had an interesting concept in his The Moon is a Harsh Mistress novel. One character declared themselves to be a Rational Anarchist. They were willing to put up with any laws someone required to make themselves feel safe. Making laws to regulate other people, however, they objected to.

 

Making laws to regulate others moral behaviour would fit this perfectly -- it's wrong. Public obscenity, however, is a grey area. What some people find offensive, others do not. This is where community standards have to take part. If the majority of people find something offensive, then it should be prohibited. I don't see that underwear showing fits the bill, though....

[MMandM]

This Mayor is trying to make a name for himself. I'd tell him to go pound sand. Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be offended. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, central to achieving individual freedoms and real democracy. It increases the knowledge base and participation within a society and can also secure external checks on state accountability.

 

Yet freedom of expression is not absolute. The extent to which expression ought to be protected or censored has been the object of many impassionate debates. Few argue that freedom of expression is absolute and suffers no limits. But the line between what is permissible and what is not is always contested. Unlike many others, this right depends on its context and its definition is mostly left to the discretion of states. If a law like this ever passed then challenged by the USSC it would be declared void by due process of law.

 

Beware the tyranny of the majority who would eviscerate your rights in order for them to impose their morals and religious beliefs on you and others through oppressive laws.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Mark_Marciano

[JamesSavik]

Well, what if the people with guns are wrong? Would you still follow their rules and do what they say just because they threaten you? What if EVERYONE was wrong? Would you still follow the rules set by the majority?

 

The guys with guns are usually wrong. So much about our system is back-assward at the moment. Our laws have gone far afield from their original purpose, to protect the public and maintain order. Now they infringe on everyones private lives, constutional liberties that were once sacrosanct now just plain don't exist.

 

I won't tell you NOT to fight this state of affairs. Just pick your battles carefully.

[Krista]

What in the world? Lol, well I don't find it offensive at all to see saggy pants on guys. It's only a fashion trend and it says nothing about these girls wearing low cut pants with their thongs pulled into view? I would say the law covers that as well, but the article doesn't go into detail as it only seemed to be targeted at the male sex and their fashion trends. To be fair any underwear should fall under that law. No V-necks that show the bras of women as well or halter tops.

 

I feel sorry for the people in that place. I would hate to be held down by laws when it comes to fashion... As long as people are covered where it counts and they're happy with themselves then I don't see a problem with the way people dress.

 

 

Krista

[BeaStKid]

guys...U.S is still a bit better. if you come n see the type of laws here in india, u'll rip ur hair away.

 

There's a law which criminalizes contraceptives!!!(it is the same law which criminalizes homosexuality)

There's a law which states that the govt can regulate what the people watch on the tele.

There's a law which requires a chief of the Punjab Police to report to the Police station in Lahore. The point?? Lahore is NOT in India!!

The police, here, is free to put a person in jail; bash him/her up; if it thinks that those people are not being decent enough in public. That's called moral policing, i think.

 

So you see, every country has stupid laws which may or may not be to the liking of some people. But, some of the laws mentioned above are being questioned in the court(the first one is). So, for every stupid man, there is a sensible one too, who counters the formers stupidity.

 

 

hot_bsk