U.S. judge rules ban on saggy pants "unconstitutional"

[Adonis]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080916/od_afp/usfashionjusticeoffbeat
MIAMI (AFP) - A Florida judge has deemed unconstitutional a law banning baggy pants that show off the wearer's underwear, local media reported Tuesday.

A 17-year-old spent a night in jail last week after police arrested him for wearing low pants in Riviera Beach, southeast Florida.
I found this article interesting because 1) I happen to live in Florida, and 2) I wasn't aware of these ordinances being passed around the US because of this fashion trend - a trend that I'm not a particular fan of.

Anyway, I have mixed feelings about how some cities have already passed this law and on how other cities intend to enforce these laws if they are passed there. One of the things that bothers me here in the article was this:
Laws that ban low-slung pants are on the books in several US cities, including Delcambre, Louisiana, where offenders can be fined up to 500 dollars or jailed for up to six months.

Dallas, Texas and Atlanta, Georgia are among the larger US cities considering similar measures.

In Atlanta, they're still considering such a bill (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8r6scl80&show_article=1) that would ban not just saggy pants, but also make it illegal for women to show thong straps under pants, jogging bras in public and bra straps. I honestly don't think (hope) that anyone wouldn't be jailed for six months for showing part of their boxer shorts in public. However, the fact that people may receive jail time for showing off their boxer shorts or a bra strap is a bit obsurd. I also understand that some of these officials are justifying these measures by associating this fashion trend with criminal activity.

Do you think this is just another case of the "fashion police" going on the warpath or is this really a need for public decency to be reinforced by legislation?

[Moe]

I think it's pretty clear that we need a ban on men showing underwear. Thongs on attractive women however should be displayed for obvious reasons.

...seriously though, isn't this covered under freedom of expression?

[darkelf]

WTH? How could such a law be passed, are the law makers that stupid?

I am glad it was deemed unconstitutional, while I am no fan of dressing in that way it should under no circumstance be illegal. Any other decision would be absurd.

[TheWickedGerman]

LOL?

Ok it could be lol if it wouldn´t be so sad.

Edit: With bar straps you mean the straps going over the shoulders? So it would be illegal to wear a shoulder free shourt with bra, but it would be OK to wear no bra at all? Or is not wearing a bra also illegal? And Whats wrong with sports bra´s?

I always heard US is a bit prude, but that is far over the top. Are sure that its not a fake news?

[Starfisher]

I just think all citizens should be required to run 100m at random times, without holding their pants up. If their pants fall to their feet, they are fed to wolves. Simple solution, really.

The fact that people are considering legislation to tackle this problem is ridiculous. Especially considering that a bunch of red states are considering expanding government to regulate people's fashion choices. Vice and virtue squads anyone?

[Jivebologna]

I remember hearing about that happening in Atlanta. I also live in Florida, but I had no idea it was already enforced here. I think it's a little of the fashion police; it certainly has the ring of "What are we going to do about those kids riding their skateboards on the sidewalk?!?!" ring to it. I understand where officials are coming from, but I'd rank their reasoning right up there with assuming a particular race is a hallmark for crime. Even if it was a reliable indicator, $500 and six months in jail doesn't sound too threatening.

Perhaps the motivation is an economical one? Having a bunch of 'hoodrats' running around with their asses hanging out probably hurts tourism to a degree.

[darkelf]

However much it might hurt tourism it's not the state's place to dictate what you can and cannot wear in public. That is for each individual to decide.

[Jivebologna]

Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just wondering if this is yet another financial objective being paraded around as a moral imperative (as if that's any better). I can't help but notice that it seems to only be the red states pushing for more government legislation. Smooth.

[Adonis]

Perhaps the motivation is an economical one? Having a bunch of 'hoodrats' running around with their asses hanging out probably hurts tourism to a degree.
I don't think so, really. I remember a while ago that Ft. Lauderdale(?) passed a law on the wear of string bikinis on the beaches (they can wear them as long as they cover their rear), and that's one of the biggest tourist attractions for Florida.

I always heard US is a bit prude, but that is far over the top. Are sure that its not a fake news?
The article was by the Agence France-Presse and posted on Yahoo. I think it's pretty legit. ;)

[SubakuGaara]

Ban on saggy pants? GTFO. Slippery slope people, slippery slope.

[snrjefe]

I think we need to establish some kind of chargeback or punitive system for municipalities which pass obviously unconsitutional laws that then have to be repealed by a federal institution. How could anyone expect this law wouldn't be tested and overturned. This was a complete waste of time, money and resources.

[Aron_DeTomado]

What surprises me is that this got as far as the Supreme Court. What, legislators thought Tinker v. Desmoines only reaffirms freedom of speech in schools? Did they expect separate principles to govern separate pieces of clothing? I can see how existing precedents wouldn't necessarily have covered this from a purely legal stand-point and so getting it into the Supreme Court was only prudent, but in terms of principal and spirit of the law legislators should have seen this ruling coming from a mile away.

[Jivebologna]

I don't think so, really. I remember a while ago that Ft. Lauderdale(?) passed a law on the wear of string bikinis on the beaches (they can wear them as long as they cover their rear), and that's one of the biggest tourist attractions for Florida.

String bikinis on nicely tanned bodies is a little different from hairy man-ass creeping out of clown-sized jeans. :rofl:

[Johnny B]

You crazy kids with your baggy pants and your devil music! Turn that down I say, and get a haircut!

had to be said. :)

I don't know what the situation is like in Florida, but I know that certain styles of clothing in parts of the world can have gang connotations, so maybe that was part of it.

[SubakuGaara]

Hehe... whatever. I think in the 50s people were trying to get elvis banned. I mean really its just clothing and sure it looks silly but silly is a relative thing. I have things in my very own closet that if I ran thing would have banned (a lot of too tight pants and douchebag shirts), but its just a phase of fashion.

Personally I'd like to turn this thread into a discussion of the douchebag things we used to wear when we were younger. I remember for a while I used to sag my pants like mad just like the guy who was arrested in florida. Then I went into a phrase where I'd starch them up really hard so they basically stood up. Then I went into a phase where I'd wear nothing but skin tight jeans and popped collar shirts. I think now I'm just normal: kinda like the guy from the Mac commercials and thank goodness!

[/downslope\]

This gives me so much less faith in people in power.

[Ammon Ra]

it's not the state's place to dictate what you can and cannot wear in public.
UK: running around naked = jail
similar in most of europe & the western world. The state doesn't dictate what you can wear, but what you cannot: Nothing. Adding baggy pants to the list, isn't a problem.
Every time i see someone waling around with baggy pants, literally, down to their knees almost with long shorts showing, all i can think of is: "Wtf!?! don't show your long underwear in public, go wear a proper pair of trousers. ffs. >_>"

I'd disagree with the judge. sure, freedom of expression, but showing off your underwear sort of conflicts with indecent public exhibition, or whatever it's called, at least in the UK.

Sure, freedom of expression is one thing, but if you're offending people by showing of your underwear, then you have a mess of a problem.

[/downslope\]

Oh you're seeing someone's underwear. Get over it and grow up.

[Ravenhart]

LOL WUT

Shit's ridiculous. I agree, it's stupid to walk around with bigass baggy clothes like a gangbanger with all your shit hanging out, but people are entitled to be stupid. And I mind it too when someone goes streaking. Irritates me as to how stupid people are. But I say again, people are entitled to be stupid. Kudos to the judge, he damn well did his job.

[Ammon Ra]

It has nothing to do with "growing up" or getting a spine, balls, nuts, or however you want to express it.

[Neckbreaker]

The line between decency and freedom of expression has always been a fuzzy one. I still haven't figured out what truely seperates the classic Greek Nude from a skin magazine beyond subjective interpretation and a few arcane "rules" of art.

Although I would think that state and local governments have better things to do than out-law questionable fashion, I am not enthusiatic about the meddling in the affairs of local governments. One could make an argument that banning the clothing targeted certain groups which could perhaps justify intervention, but I do not think that was the case. I think that most communities are just tired of staring at peoples' asses. Regardless it doesn't phase me to watch idiots run around with their pants half down as long as they are thouroughly covered (most people I see with the sag pants actually have shorts, no just underwear, beneath the pants).

I don't question the questionable nature of the law to begin with but I am far more concerned about intervention into local affairs with what appears to be rule by fiat. I am curious to know what excuse he used to strike down the law and deem it "unconstitutional" as I don't see it mentioned in the rather brief and uninformative article on Yahoo!.

[Noble]

Sure, freedom of expression is one thing, but if you're offending people by showing of your underwear publishing communist literature, then you have a mess of a problem.

I hope my point is clear. You do not have the right to go through life without being offended. People taking offense is not a problem in and of itself. It's an intrinsic aspect of being alive.

Freedom of expression is bounded only by other people's safety, not by a select few people's idea of decency. Someone's underwear being visible does not jeopardize your safety in any way.

[TheWickedGerman]

Sure, freedom of expression is one thing, but if you're offending people by showing of your underwear, then you have a mess of a problem.

People who are offended by baggy pants need to have some serious problöems they have to take care of.

Oh those evil kifs showing their shorts! They want rip my heart outand steal my money!

[Pyro Paul]

it really isn't a real law... it is a stereotypical cumulitive law under the guise of 'public indencency'. That is why it is deemed unconstitutional.

they don't exactly enforce it, but rather tack it on after you are caught. this is because commonly gang members, shoplifters and other criminals in these areas wear baggy pants.

so while only 1 guy out of a group of 5 gets the blame for a robbery, under the law the other 4 guys still pay a price, under the hope that it will discourage them from doing illegal acts at a future point in time. and any law designed specifically to hurt stereotypes is an unconstitutional and wrong law regardless of what good it may do.

Oh you're seeing someone's underwear. Get over it and grow up.

so, when that 27 year old man with his baggy pants and underwear is showing is standing next to your 12 year old daughter... you should think nothing of it and 'grow up'?

[darkelf]

Well, yes, Pyro Paul, how other people dress is none of your concern whatsoever.

[Pyro Paul]

and that is the kind of thinking which causes the abduction and sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of children each year.

[Norsehound]

Why even bother wearing the pants if they don't intent on respecting public decency?

I mean, if you're not offended by someone who doesn't bother to wear a belt for his pants, would you also not be offended if the same person just wore boxers/briefs for his 'daily routine' every day? To work? Around schools?

Sometimes I think holding up the pants is as much of a fashion statement as having them excessively baggy to begin with. Maybe it's a political statement? Laziness?

[Noble]

Pyro: That's exactly right. Your daughter is not being harmed by someone's fashion choice. People who wear baggy pants and sag are not always criminally minded thugs out for a bit o' the ol' ultra violence. If your daughter can't handle being in the proximity of someone with a (not so) strange fashion choice, she is going to have no end of trouble once she enters adult life and encounters things that actually are detrimental to her.

Norsehound: Sagging comes from prison culture where the inmates were not allowed to have belts following a problem with inmate suicides by hanging. The same is true for laceless shoes.

[Mosh4Life]

Man am I glad I like in the more sane UK

Tbf if there was that law passed here
Most girls would be locked up as 99.99% of the time theyre undergarments are on show [sumtimes good, sumtimes bad. The fat ones look like gammon with the string still on...]

I myself would be in the slammer too
My jeans are nearly ALWAYS too low

Not to the extent of a local scene kid
Whoes traccys waist band actually goes under his ass
It helps him pull girls aparently...

Mosh4Life =]

[Langy]

If it's not illegal to walk around in your boxers (which, as far as I know, it isn't), then it shouldn't be illegal to walk around in pants at your knees and boxers.

[Adonis]

If it's not illegal to walk around in your boxers (which, as far as I know, it isn't), then it shouldn't be illegal to walk around in pants at your knees and boxers.
To elaborate on that, last I checked, it's not illegal for a woman to walk around and show off cleavage, whether a little or a lot, and they're showing off skin. I know some of the more conservative people out there would consider that indecent, but not necessarily criminal.

Imagine if a law like this made it's way to New York. They'd have to lock up The Naked Cowboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_Cowboy) immediately.

[TheWickedGerman]

Pyro a couple of my friends used to wear baggys. I garanttue they are not a harm for anybody and iwould let them everytime let take care of my 2 daughters.

For most people baggy pants are just - uhhmmm - pants. They wear it to look cool. The same reason people wear base capsor sunglasses. Suggesting that people who are wearing baggys are more likely criminals is just stupid, ridicilous and more stupid.

Im going to bed now, i hope will not be stabbed while slepp by evil baggy wearers.

[Exetus]

So if the laws were passed and then this one was deemed unconstitutional by a judge, can we expect to see lobbyists from Roca Wear, FuBu, Ish, Enyce and Sean John fighting for their customers to wear baggy pants?!?! =P

That someone made a law for this shows exactly how concerned people are with the issues that really plague this country. I want to slap the legislators that passed that law.

[rabb14]

I'm gonna walk around with baggy pants now, just to piss off the people who think like this particular judge.

Why is it that saggy pants are bad, but when it comes to massive cleavage, short tiny miniskirts, and see through blouses, everything is considered O.K.? Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but it's a bit silly. Well I'm not complaining when the above are done by females.

[Pyro Paul]

Pyro a couple of my friends used to wear baggys. I garanttue they are not a harm for anybody and iwould let them everytime let take care of my 2 daughters.

For most people baggy pants are just - uhhmmm - pants. They wear it to look cool. The same reason people wear base capsor sunglasses. Suggesting that people who are wearing baggys are more likely criminals is just stupid, ridicilous and more stupid.

Im going to bed now, i hope will not be stabbed while slepp by evil baggy wearers.


i don't care for the law, nor am i effected by it, so i am bias towards it.

i am telling you what the law in effect is.
police are not going to start stopping people on the street and arresting them because their pants are sagging to their knees. and your friends whom are only wore it as a fasion statement or perhapse out of laziness would not get picked up by the police for wearing it.


it is something to act as a cumulitive effect against people whom do commit crimes, because it is based off of a stereotype.


it is basically a double whammy thing to help punish bad people even more.


Drug dealer is selling on the corner.
police catch him arrest him. he barely has enough on him to convict. so he gets away with slap on the wrist and the next day he is doing the same exact thing on the same exact corner.

with the law, the police catch him. well he doesn't have that much drugs on him, but he is also wearing baggy pants which constitutes as indecency. the two crimes is enough to warnt some jail time (although not a lot) which means tomorrow he isn't going to be selling, he is going to be in a cell...


that is the idea of why the law was made.
it is like selling drugs with in 250 feet of a school...
when certian guide lines are met, your punishment becomes that much more severe.


it is unconstitutional because it is making its law off of a stereotype, and in turn the law can be used abusively against individuals because of the stereotype it is built off of.

[Lomax]

police are not going to start stopping people on the street and arresting them because their pants are sagging to their knees. and your friends whom are only wore it as a fasion statement or perhapse out of laziness would not get picked up by the police for wearing it.

Except if they feel like it.

[Pyro Paul]

which is why the law was deamed unconstitutional... as i said.

the officer shouldn't have the power to go pick on people because of what they are wearing.

[optimal_prism]

I think it ridiculous to set a law for this.. whatever happened to the land of the free(along with the other load of things that violate this)?

Though i would like to see those crackhead hoodie gangstas without those annoying pants.

[Norsehound]

I guess this is another example of asking the question, "What can we get away with in society nowadays?"

If baggy pants are illegal, than we're restricting the right of free speech and basic liberties since somehow loose pants represents these things.

If baggy pants are legal (despite people finding offense to it), then what about the legality of other obnoxious and potentially offensive actions?

Personally I'm willing to write off baggy pants as one of those annoying pop-culture trends that I hope will disappear or mutate into something else over time. I don't particularly care for that 'statement' in culture/fasion and won't miss it if it vanishes, but I don't feel so burdened to just ignore it at its present level. If everyone on my campus was doing it, then I'd go to another campus. If everyone was doing it in my city, I'd move to another city. If everyone was doing it in the state...you get the idea. I doubt it would come to that though (knock on wood).

[Starblade]

and that is the kind of thinking which causes the abduction and sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of children each year.

Did...did you just state that the guy was probably going to rape a child based solely on the evidence that he wears baggy pants?

[Chrome]

What I find most hilarious about it is that the US has an obesity epidemic.

Guess how many legitimate people are wearing baggy pants becuase tight ones just won't fit? :D

Uh huh.

Okay. Somebody tell me how many of these lawmakers have potbellies themselves? Wear 2XL? Uh huh. Those would classify as pretty baggy pants last I checked. :D I'd love to see the fashion police like these guys let loose in lawmaking halls and places of power for a change.

On a more serious level, this law is so utterly ridiculous as to boggle my mind as to why it's being passed in my damn country. I don't care if seeing a woman's bra strap in public grosses me out, or a guy walking around looking like a penguin.

People have the right to wear what they want. If they want to make themselves look trashy, gang-y, stupid, that's their deal. It's not the government's.

[JAL-18]

What's the problem with averting your eyes again? I mean, if there's something I don't want to see, I just don't look at it. I'm no doctor, but I'm willing to bet that takes far less energy and effort then getting a Public Decency Amendment passed.

[SubakuGaara]

I think that other guy said it best: if its ok to walk around town in my boxers, its ok to wear baggy pants below them if I wish. Whats next? It'll be illegal to wear stuff above your boxers too right?

[No Surrender]

Saggy pants are the least pressing of society's concerns. If you ask me, we should follow Russia's lead and ban Emo and Goth music (http://www.freemuse.org/sw29040.asp). Now that's oppression I can get behind!

Seriously though, I think it's quite silly that such a law would get banned in the first place. Yes saggy pants make you look like an idiot but there aren't supposed to be laws against stupidity (or god help most of us). If it's not hurting anyone, let leave it alone.

[Starblade]

The Moscow Times quoted drummer Dmitry Gilevich, 21, as saying:
“Expressing psychological emotions is not forbidden by law. I believe every individual has that right. People think it's an aggressive subculture for youth who cut their veins every day. First and foremost, emo is not a culture of the soul, but of music.”

Ahahaha. I don't think anyone thinks of emos as aggressive.

[TheWickedGerman]

At least the russian thing shows a concern I can understand, though i dont agree. Its just a classic case of dumb politicans knowing nothing about a subject but want show themself as a politican concerned about our children blablabla. We have here the same with high politicans demanding makin "killer-games" illegal. They want to ban all "violent" games.

But this law here he a complete different League. It´s the Champions League of stupidtiy, while the other examples are just 2nd nationaol division.

@Pyro:
So they better making watches illegal too, Im sure the drug dealers have all watches. Amd mobiles. And sneakers. So if we cant punish them for their crimes, we cant punish them for their clothing.