So, do you have a right to wear saggy pants? Or do cities have the power to say that you can’t? In cities across America, bans on sagging pants that reveal underwear or skin have provoked firestorms of Constitutional controversy. Those who oppose these bans claim that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
They believe that wearing saggy pants is covered under the First Amendment because wearing them is showing your personal identity- perhaps a little bit too much, in my opinion. Anyways, what does wearing your pants low say about your identity? Nothing, or at least nothing good. Even if they did somehow say something about a person, that is not necessarily covered under the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech, even symbolic speech, does not include what you wear, unless your dress actually has something to say, and knee-huggers do not.
As for the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t include any new rights; it only mandates that existing rights cannot be abridged, with specific regard to discrimination. Therefore, using the Fourteenth Amendment to claim a law is unconstitutional only works when the law discriminates, which these laws don’t.
Which brings me to the next point. Civil rights activists have claimed that these laws discriminate against blacks, because more blacks wear sagging pants than other groups. That argument is quickly becoming outdated, as the saggy pants trend has been growing more and more popular with teens of all races. Even in rural, mostly white, communities, a large proportion of teen boys wear this style. Even if blacks were the exclusive members of the trend, it wouldn’t mean that the laws are automatically discriminatory; if the law doesn’t single out a particular group, then it isn’t discriminatory in 99% of cases. If the bans said that no male between the ages of 15 and 30 could wear these pants, then it would be discriminatory, but they don’t.
Finally, there is government precedent for outlawing obscenity, and I would say that teens walking around with their butts hanging out of their pants constitutes obscenity. We don’t allow people to walk around in bathing suits or naked, and these bans are basically the same concept.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
unless there is nudity involved, I don't think that the federal government has a 'right' to determine what I am wearing. They shouldn't be in the business of picking out my clothing for me.
While I detest people who walk around with their pants sagging down, and view it as a big show of how silly they are, I don't think it is something that ought to be 'illegal'
In poor taste? Yeah. but illegal? eh.... nah.
Now, as it stands, some towns have made these laws... I don't have much of a problem with that, since (as you noted) the laws are not based upon race, but action.
I don't think it is a WISE law, but I think they're going to have a hard time (especially since towns and cities can determine for themselves 'public decency' regulations) making it stick that the law is somehow unconstitutional.
I know what you are saying, but I do believe that cities have the authority to make such an ordinance if they feel that it is necessary. This trend is bordering on nudity, and as Mary Gray put it, "You got to leave something for the imagination. I'm tired of looking at people's behinds."
To me, as long as the federal or state governments (especially the federal government) aren't involved I don't have a problem with it.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
I think we're in agreement, we're just wording it differently.
The origin of the baggy look might be skaters. The loose pants save riders from road rash when they crash and slide. Since they have No Skateboard signs everywhere it seems appropriate that they also want to ban the styles associated with it.
Pants that show your underwear came from sissies in prison.
So can we assume these bans are homophobic, and anti-skateboard?
My understanding was that the baggy pants look was to emulate the very poor urban families, where a kid gets 'hand-me-down' pants that are too big, so they droop down.
Then it became popular in the rap and urban culture for even the richer folk.
Then it became popular in the suburban areas, with kids trying to emulate the rap folk, who are trying to emulate the poor urban folk.
however, all of it is a silly way to dress.
As for being anti-skateboard or homophobic... i haven't heard either of those claims...
It has a mixed background I believe. Obviously in predominatley black areas the "hand-me down" effect is common and that is where most attribute the "style" originating from.
However skaters did wear incredibly baggy clothes to avoid road rash, they didn't sag there clothes as that would just make it harder to skate...skaters like wide leg pants, but not sagging pants.
We could say that skaters popularized the wide leg pants which then became saggy pants after the "hand-me down" effect.
That way they are laws againist everyone!!!!
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Actually, the trend originated in prisons. Prisoners get uniforms that don't fit too well, so they are usually too big, rather than too small. They also don't get belts, since those could be used for assaults (like a whip) or suicides (like a noose). Hence, pants that are too big, and sag really low.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
I've heard both things.
Both make sense.
I've actually heard more than just two things.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is it about your argument that makes it totally 100% the actual place "saggy pants" originated?
I'm definitely curious which answer is "correct..." but I've heard them all, and everyone seems to be saying, "Actually, they came from here."
Besides, don't they usually get jumpsuits in prison?
All I've seen other than jumpsuits is sweats... and usually those have an elasticy waist band. I'm not an expert on jail or prison or anything... but... yeah. You know what I mean, right? [-(
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
The truth likely is that it is a combination of all of it.
That's what I was figuring. I think it's cute that everyone says, "actually..." :-) Everyone is very serious and sure of their answers. It's...
refreshing
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
ACTUALLY.....
well, nothing. I just wanted ot use the word again.
heh.
Well, yeah, they do get jumpsuits, but there is still a waist line. And it is usually below the waist, hence saggy. And where do you think that the skateboarders got the idea for baggy clothing?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Actually the sagging pants trend came from jails but if you read college criminal justice textbooks, it isn't because the clothes were just too big, but because it is a sign that the person is single. It is a big, "stick it right here" symbo. Crude yet effective, and still no one knows that. So we have people going around telling all guys that they are single.
True, skaters do tend to wear looser baggier clothes, but I've always said that the best way to avoid road rash is leather.
Just isn't cheap. heh.
But picture this.... one of those big biker dudes clad all in leather, skateboarding. HEHEHE that would be fun to see. 8-}
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
A must for motorcycle riders.
Few things are stupider than someone riding one of those racing-style bikes, going down the road without a helmet, wearing dockers and a button-up shirt.
That's actually not uncommon around here, though the button-ups are generally covered by a leather jacket or similar outerwear. The real indication is the dockers...and the briefcase strapped behind them. =D
You'd be surprised how many "stiff" businessmen (probably people, but I've seen more men than women) are bikers at heart. =)
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This is the biggest, dumbest wastw of law enforcement funds and legislature time that I have ever heard. Let these people wear what they want. Does anybody actually believe that baggy pants cause crime, or that some kind of public dress code would lessen it?
This is a useless law, and we should have as few of those as we can. Laws that infringe on our personal choices, no matter how insignificant , for no reason other than that YOU DON'T LIKE THEM shouldn't be allowed.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Agreed.
There are so many better things we could be spending our time and tax dollars on. It's ridiculous that we still have such battles about proper punishment but we make ridiculous laws like this.
We could spend our time making sure real criminals get what they deserve. Instead, we're ticketing those who follow a certain clothing trend.
Ridiculous.
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
I know what you guys are saying, but I think that cities do have the authority to pass these laws if they want to, and no one outside of the city has a right to tell them they should repeal them (unless of course the law is unconstitutional). Basically, is it the best use of tax dollars? No. Is it illegal? No.
I can also see where they are coming from with these bans. Seeing these guys' underwear is a little obscene.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Some that would bash such laws for being a 'waste of money' often are NOT the ones who bash cities that pass 'non-binding resolutions' that condemn the war on terror.
Spending city money to sit around and whine about what the president is doing, then spending time and money on making a resolution that has no authority or power....
blech.
A non-binding resolution isn't a resolution at all. Why anybody would even believe that something like that should be in our vocabulary is beyond me.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
How is it obscene? Suddenly, because there is a layer of clothing above a piece of clothing it is obscene to see? Plenty of shorts are comparable to boxers. Shorter shorts on guys aren't in style anymore, but boxers as obscene, really? They are basically shorts, why do your personal preferances for the dress of others warrant legislation?
OBSCENE! Seriously? SERIOUSLY? We are legislating dress zones. Legal on the beach, not on the street. Legal on the street, not in the office or in restaurants. Anything more stringent than, "No shirt no shoes no service," is pushing it.
I don't think cities have, or should have, the authority to pass laws like this. It is a pointless display of authority. It doesn't address a problem other than the abstract offense that mostly older people take with mostly younger people's dress. This is legalizing the generation gap. It's a legal diviide based on fashion sense. You really feel that people should have the authority to fine other people because of what they wear? Hopefully nobody is being put in jail for this bullshit.
Bringing the generation gap into the legal and political arena is a dangerous move. To turn something like personal rancor at essentially harmless decisions into a matter of law is a gross abuse of power.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
How is seeing somebody else's underwear not even a tad obscene? Besides, not everyone wears boxers. What about those that wear briefs or even thongs? There's a reason that we have another layer of clothing.
And what you wear is a choice. No one's punishing you for being you, because what you wear does not make who you are.
You can choose whether or not to go to the beach, and when you make your decision, you know that people will be in bathing suits. When you are going out of your house, you don't have that knowledge or that choice.
On this just being legalizing the generation gap: it's not just old people pushing for these laws. Some of them have been put foward by young people.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
It's underwear! and nobody is sagging their pants down around their man thong! Yes people wear thongs. Those people don't sag their pants below their asses. Thongs are entirely beside the point. Almost all who sag their pants wear boxers.
Look, I am saying that this is a gross abuse of authority and power. It's a pointless punishment of insignificant choices that have no impact on anything but your delicate sensibilities. We have rules for determining legal obsceneity. Exposed underwear does not fit the criteria at all. Either find a real reason or strike the law and any law resembling it. I can't believe that anybody would support some kind of legally enforced dress code. The flesh is covered, and the flesh shouldn't even be that big a fucking deal. People are required to cover their naughty bits in public, do we really need to start cracking down on certain styles?
For the record I don't find exposed underwear the least bit obscene, nor exposed ankles, bellybuttons or faces. I wouldn't even use obscene to describe just being in your underwear. Tasteless in public, sure, but obscene to the point of legal recourse? I don't think so. Stop trying to legalize your tender sensibilities, it offends me. I find it obscene. Far more obscene than seeing one layer of cloth between nudity, rather than two.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Why is this such a "gross abuse of authority and power"? It is perfectly legal. It is constitutional.
It is not up to you to decide what is obscene, it is up to voters and lawmakers in their respective states, cities, etc.
Furthermore, I have never said that I support these laws. I, in fact, don't. I beleive that it is offensive when people wear their pants like that, but not to the point where it should be illegal. But that's for me. Apparently, enough lawmakers in these cities find it obscene enough to outlaw it. That's their call.
I do, however, believe that they have the authority to pass these ordinances if they wish.
Stop making assumptions about my "tender sensibilities" and making personal attacks, it offends me. "I find it obscene."
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
The entire idea that people should have authority to dictate how people dress themselves for no reason is horrible. Forget it. You are right. As long as enough law makers think something is objectionable or annoying it should be made illegal. Tenuous as the protection of the first amendment may be for speech without political/artistic value it sets a precedent of personal freedom and choice that should be respected in even small matters. Until there is some kind of public safety reason to ban baggy pants a city or state has no authority to ban them. The legal authority of such entities is to be used properly. It is to be used to protect the public good.
Any law that does not serve the public good is not within the authority of a city or state to pass or enforce. Since this law does not serve the public good in anyway that I can see, it is beyond the authority of any democratic body to pass.
Simply by supporting the authority of lawmakers to pass useless laws for no practical reason you sre supporting this law. Any law of this kind shouldn't ever be considered. Laws should serve the public good. That's the point of laws. This law, and any similar law, serves only the tastes of the majority. It doesn't matter whether you specifically believe that saggy pants should be banned, or tight pants, or mini-skirts, or whatever. It freaks me out that anybody would think that their tastes can and should become matters of law as long they have enough popular support.
In conclusion: these laws do not support the public good in anyway. Lawmakers have the ability to pass laws only in that they properly support the public good. Therefore these laws are outside the authority of lawmakers to pass.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Wait, hold up a minute. Perhaps you should examine your assumptions before basing your arguments on them. In your comment, you make the assumption that the City Council that passed this ordinance did not beleive that it would have any affect on the public good. That, however, is not necessarily true.
It could be that they believed that it would draw more industry to a struggling economy because it would improve their image. Maybe they thought that it would reduce gangs and crime rates because it was made clear that that lifestyle is not acceptable. Maybe they just thought that the number of accidents caused by tripping on one's own pants would be reduced.
I'm not saying that all of these are good reasons, or that any ot them were what they were thinking, though I do believe that the first one was their justification.
And before you start making claims about authority, perhaps you should take a look at their state constitution and city charter. If that sort of thing (making laws outside of the public good) is not addressed, then there is no legal ground to challenge the law. Just because you don't think that they should be able to pass a law doesn't mean that they can't.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Authority is only to be used to protect the public good in any democracy. It's one of the underlying principles of democratic government. If a government is no longer protecting the public good with its laws it is an authoritarian government. Any democratic government derives its authority from the people on the theory that that authority will be used to benefit the people. If it is used improperly then the people have a responsibility to remove that government and the power to ignore its authority, but you already knew that because you took a US History course in elementary school.
Thinking a law is for the public good does not make it true. Unless industry increases dramatically in the area then the law is bunk and should be struck from the record. I am also inclined to believe that "improving the image of our town to industry," was kind of an excuse. Do businessmen ever list, "too much pants sagging," as a reason for not doing something. That's flimsy at best.
Besides, sagging pants or not, all of the problems that you listed would be basically unaffected. Sagging pants are a symptom, not a cause. Do you really think that this law would have any kind of real, positive impact beyond a minority of people feeling more comfortable? Do you think sagging pants causes crime, or gang violence?
Just as I keep saying, it is an ineffective law that extends governmental authority to a place that it should not and need not go. It's banning a symbol without trying to remove what that symbol stands for. Taking down christmas trees doesn't make fewer christians and raising waistlines does not make fewer criminals.
Tell you what, what if I wanted to ban neckties because I felt that would cut down on white collar crime, or simply make poorer people feel better because they wouldn't have to see better off professionals walking around all the time. Would that be an acceptable use of governmental power? Exact same law but targeted at something that doesn't bother you. Targeted at the middle class, instead of, generally, the lower class.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Like I said, what is in the public's best interest is often a matter of opinion. Just because their opinion is different from yours doesn't make theirs wrong.
On the most likely reason for the ban, economic growth: Given two otherwise equal towns, which would you rather locate a business in, one where the majority of young people wear their pants around their knees, or one where that sort of thing is non-existant? True, companies do not have "saggy pants" on some official list, but that sort of thing does leave an impression, and it's not a good one.
Your comparison of banning neckties to banning saggy pants is not valid. Saggy pants are symbolic of crime, among other things. Neckties are symbols of work ethic and prosperity. How are bans on one or the other at all similar? Banning neckties could not possibly serve any interest, and there isn't even any basis for taking offense at them. Besides, many saggy pants wearers are middle class, not just lower class, anymore, so your implication of economic discrimination has no basis.
(By the way, I happen to be an AP student in both U.S. History and American Government, so please knock off the snide remarks at my supposed ignorance.)
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
If these forms of dress are--as you suggest--symbolic, then they would seem to me to be covered under the Supreme Court's longstanding protection of symbolic speech. The government may not limit symbolic speech simply because it disapproves of the conveyed message.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The symbolism of neckties, saggy pants or button up shirts is entirely up for debate. I can come up with as many negative readings for the necktie as you can positive. Believe me I can find neck ties just as offensive as you find saggy pants. Just because the people who dislike saggy pants are more influential than the people who dislike neckties doesn't mean that you can ban saggy pants.
It is a perfectly workable metaphor. One group of people finds another group of people's style choices to be offensive or harmful and tries to make it illegal. You are invalidating my metaphor because you personally view neckties positively and saggy pants negatively. The only difference between the situations is yours and the majority's view of the item being banned. Which was part of my point in the first place.
What if the city were trying to ban tight shirts on men because they felt it projected an image of homosexuality, or ban skirts shorter than mid-thigh because it projected an image of sluttiness? People should not be forced to constantly project an image of professionalism and prosperity. Banning saggy pants is a way to try to force people to look professional at all times without wording a law so broadly that it becomes unconstitutional.
If many of those sagging their pants are actually in the middle class then they don't symbolize poverty and crime. They would be a symbol of fashion or perhaps identification. A homogenization and co-opting of fashion ideas rather than an indicator of poverty and crime. If the reason that they were being banned was to make the town look more prosperous, but prosperous people are wearing the fashion as well as less prosperous people then it seems to me that people should start changing their ideas about saggy pants. The fact that the middle class is as likely to wear the fashion as the lower class actually hurts your argument that the fashion projects a poor image for businesses. Businesses should love to be in middle class areas, since they represent a huge amount of consumer cash and a well-educated work force, regardless of their pants level.
The coherence of your argument is falling apart piece by piece here. The government apparently only has the authority to ban styles that you find offensive or negative and in order to avoid a charge of economic discrimination you have pointed out that the middle class wears the style as well, which waters down or destroys the negative symbolism that was the basis for the ban in the first place. If the policy isn't economically discriminative then it isn't having an effect, and if it is, well, it's discriminative and therefore illegal.
You are right, public good is a matter of opinion, more accurately interpretation. Banning saggy pants because of an incidental and nebulous effect hardly seems to be strong enough grounds to justify legislative authority in the matter. Saggy pants pose no direct danger to the public. They might have an immeasurable, subconscious impact on economic concerns, but that hardly seems reason enough to authorize legislative intervention.
I would much rather that you held this particular view about the reach of governmental authority out of ignorance rather than intelligence and good education. Let me ask then, at what point does government authority stop? How small must the justification be before the public good is no longer being served sufficiently to justify a law? Right now it seems that majority opinion and a nebulous, subconscious impact on theoretical economic speculation is reason enough to outlaw a style of dress.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
~I believe tha comment "Burning Example" gave was adequate, because everyone has heard about these origins of "sagging", but tha most popular, is the prison one...an instructor told me long ago that this was tha possible answer to why ppl choose to sag their pants, but now that I've grown up and developed my own opinions, I cant just stick to one theory or idea unless some hard copy of this origin is brought to my attention...so all I know is, I'm honest about my style and I dont mimic anyone else, I TRULY feel that way...and "sagging" is something that MY PARENTS dislike, but I just want to be real with myself and to ppl around me...~
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080916/ts_alt_afp/usfashionjusticeoffbeat;...
Florida court finds baggy pants laws unconstitutional! Now whine to all your fascist friends that cities should be able to make their own laws without some oppressive, liberal institution telling them what to do.
Legal minds weigh in on an actual case, and according to the quotes, seem to take this style of law making as an absolute joke that should be rejected out of hand.
Stop worrying about fashion and start worrying about things that matter.
“Existentialism means that no one else can take a bath for you” - Delmore Schwartz
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles." - George Jean Nathan
I think that they are, and incidents like THIS only support that conclusion.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
X-([
That made me so angry I wanted to vomit! That cop was completely out of line. And even worse was the female cop giggling on the sidelines. And people wonder why there's such mistrust between the Black community and the cops?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman