Not to be disrepectful don but....who cares.  This law has nothing to do with school, cops are running up on kids pulling up their shirts and giving them summons.  As if minority youths did'nt already have to worry about cops harrassing them for just standing or walking.  Now a cop can harrass you and if anyone says its wrong 'hey you were sagging thats why I'm harrasing you'.  I guess they should walk around in suits and boyties with preapproved haircuts. 

There's a difference between Nazi armbands, gang colors and baggy pants. The first two are safety issues, so they're often banned in places like schools as a security measure. We probably go too far sometimes with banning both in public when they aren't connected to violence, but that's another discussion.

As Withrow writes, we're not talking about schools here, we're talking about criminalizing clothing in public. Your distaste for baggy pants is a preference and not a crime - nobody is suggesting that baggy pants might incite violence or crime. I have no problem if you choose not to hire someone who shows most of their underwear - I wouldn't either in an office setting.

But we don't have to legislate preferences.

The answer to gang colors and nazi arm bands is a uniform dress code implemented in schools.  Rules like this will typically pass a test of constitutionality if they don't single out one or a few people. 

And I agree with the other replies, if you don't like how someone expresses themselves, don't associate with them.  Simple as that.

Does anyone really understand where the baggy pants syndrome came from? It came from prison because prisoners are no allowed to wear belts and if your pants are too big and those are the only ones they have when you arrive, oh well. When we allow our children to emulate these negative stereotypes, freedom of expression is not the issue here. Everyone talks Constitution but do yo really understand it. You have the right to free speech as long as your free speech does not impose on the freedom of others. The same goes for self expression. Until a child turns 18 and has the right to vote, your parents are your constitution and what they say goes. End of story.
Why is it okay for our inner city youth to copy negative stereotypes and we pass it off as freedom of expression but when they display their true creativity and artistry, their respect for themselves and country or anything positive, NO ONE is yelling from the roof tops "You go brother do your thing!" We have turned into a society of backward thinkers that believe a little wrong is alright.
We need to stop, put a belt on, pull our pants up and face up to this - no one wants to see those Calvin Klein's on our behind.

Wouldn't this all be solved if kids pulled up their pants?  I mean, c'mon, pull up your pants! Problem solved.  This should be a non issue but for the fact that liberal nutjobs want to protect every action as if it's a form of expression. Gimme a break, pulling your pants down isn't expression.  Pull your pants up!

I'm not taking a position on the proposed law here, but school dress codes are different than public law. Schools receive federal and state money and are required to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning (which is all but impossible, but that's another post entirely).

On a somewhat related tangent, I'm much more offended by the window sticker on the pickup in front of me at the traffic light throwing me a middle finger or urinating on a disliked automotive logo than I am by sagging pants. But that's just me.

I have a wonderful idea Don.  If you don't like baggy pants, DON'T WEAR THEM!!!!!!!!  With all the problems facing the youth of America and our country as a whole should legislatures and the criminal justice system be bogged down with this crap?

Wow! First post is a Godwin!

Sir, you have missed the point entirely. 

This is about singling out a group of people based largely on race for what they wear.  You don't have to hire the person who's wearing baggy pants.  You do need to tolerate him. 

Some really good comments here.  I agree that if you don't like baggy pants, don't wear them.  My son wore them when he was a teenager.  By day, he attended private school and wore a uniform.  When he wasn't involved in sports or school functions- and no, he most certainly was not a gang-banger, he wore baggy pants.  Who cares?  I sure didn't.  If he had worn NO  pants, I would have cared.  That indeed is indecent exposure.  The people who think this is worthy of legislation need to get a life and work on something like saving kids from drugs and sexual predators.

Monica Morton, you have said it beautifully, although I would have suggested different alternatives for those without lives, such as reforming drug laws so that those with minor infractions aren't subject to the same type of criminal-justice-system cycle that would happen with clothing violations.  Or working for a really good health care reform program to help improve the health of all our citizens and prevent us from going bankrupt as a society by spending ever more money on medical bills (which are going up much faster than other bills).  Not to stray too far off topic, my basic point is that this should be a nonissue.

To clarify my last post: "this" being a nonissue refers to the bagginess of the pants; not the legislation of the clothing preferences of adults.  As for minors: parents, schools, and students can fight it out, IMHO, as long as rules are consistent and not discriminatory based on ethnicity (which I prefer to "race", as I believe humans are all one race), religion, or culture.

I have nothing racial to say about the baggy pants nor do I tell others what to wear. My personal preference in my business. People need to stop falling back on the old statement "It's because I'm black isn't it?" NO! It has nothing to do with what color you are or how tall you are or any of the other differences in people. "WE JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE YOUR BUTTS OR YOUR UNDERWEAR." That is why they call it "underwear"! It is to be worn "under" your clothes. Not "instead of" pulling your pants up. And YOUR EXPOSED BUTT is called "indecent exposure"!
Don't FOG the "real issues" with things that only make an attempt to divert attention away from the real issues.

"Following this thought pattern, are we going to allow the gangs in L.A, N.Y., etc., wear their gang colors to school?"

YES because the first amendment has no "buts or excepts in it"

the solution is not stopping the wearing of COLORS its stopping the GANGS to begin with. Your trying to eliminate a problem by eliminating a RESULT of the problem without actually eliminating the CAUSE of the problem. This is what people do who want to HIDE from a problem and CONVINCE themselves that if they can not see it then it must be fixed.

"Are we going to let Ayrian kids wear Nazi armbands to their schools?"

YES again no BUTS of EXCEPTS in the first amendment. You are either FREE or you are NOT. there is no middle ground. There is no grey. Freedom is ABSOLUTE or its NO EXISTANT. as soon as you have  BUT BUT BUT in freedom you are at the MERCY of whoever DEFINES the BUT. ie you have no freedom.

"If parents aren't able or willing to censor their childrens' apparel"

How? does free will not enter you calculations here? you tell him to Pull his pants up. when he gets on the bus he pulls them down. Exactly what is the parent to do about this?

EMPOWERMENT is what we need not more laws. LESS LAWS. we need to empower and educate out populace not demonize and criminalize.

"then laws should be enacted to protect those whom they offend"

Over my dead body. If your offended THATS YOUR PROBLEM. not mine. How pathetic and weak a person are you that something as simple as a clothing style "OFFENDS" you to the point where you want a nanny government to regulate away freedom so you don't have to be offended by it?

how sick a person must you be to desire this sort of outcome or how WEAK a person.

I think the drooping baggy pants is silly distasteful and odd. But offensive? how weak must one be to find this offensive?

"People perceive others from their first impression, usually clothing, hair, dialect. When you see a young man baring the top end of his posterior in pants below his hip bones, what do you think?"

Does not matter what I think. its not my body and not my image. NONE OF MY DAMNED BUSINESS. Get over yourself.

"I know I wouldn't hire this person for any type of employment."

Well now THIS is your perogative. its the ONLY sensible and intelligent thing you have said yet. you see in an EMPLOYMENT environement the conditions change. now your employee's REPRESENT YOU. they are IN YOUR IMAGE to the rest of the world. Clearly now it DOES make sense that something you find distasteful should NOT represent you.

"Expression or impression?"

Irrelevant. Expression is protected and none of your business and Impression is none of your business except when it represents you (employement) so get over yourself and leave them alone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Don, but wasn't it the Nazis who made everyone dress and act the same?  How is that different from what you are arguing?

A law in itself banning baggy pants, especially that can result in a prison sentence, is ridiculous. however, i do think that they look stupid and should be included in indecent exposure. i don't want to see that and certainly don't want my children to! also, natasha, baggy pants started in prisons because prisoners who wear them baggy are advertising to others that they're "open for business".

actually, clothes *don't* make the man; otherwise George Bush would really have been a fighter-jet pilot (as he was dressed at his "Mission Accomplished" photo-op) and Ronald Reagon was really a Nazi (he wore a Nazi uniform for a movie he was in).

So you've got that maxim wrong, to begin with.
And secondly: the prohibition on baggy pants is not limited to work environments or school--but just WALKING AROUND. I mean come on guy! Let people wear whatever the hell they want; you don't like how they look? Don't look at em! You don't like the style? Don't dress the style!

You need to understand that the world is composed of lots of different people and you should not be trying to force others to behave as you want them to; since they are not harming anyone by wearing baggy pants you do not have grounds for denying them their freedom.

WHY do you suppose "laws should be enacted"?  As you pointed out, if someone wears baggy pants, they may not get hired; thus is seen the law of cause-and-effect.  You can't get a better law than that!

I am sick of people claiming a "right" not to be offended!  The bill of Rights does not include this, and no politicians should, either.  Yes, there are certain standards of decency that should be upheld, but should I try to get laws passed banning bikinis because I find THEM offensive?

If there were to be any laws passed how about ones banning "trucker butt", which is seen  on too many drivers, whose pants are too TIGHT, and which come up only to the bottom of the "crack"? 

Where would all these laws stop?  Whose standard would be imposed?  If I banned bikinis, there'd be some people who found THAT offensive, so who has more "right" not to be offended?  I hope you can see how ridiculous ANY attempt to legislate any "right not to be offended" is, whether it is in dress or speech or belief.

T-shirts used to be concidered underwear. Time was, a man wouldn't leave the house without a hat. Ben Franklin used to wear silk stockings, frilly collars and shoes with big buckles. In some places a little bit of hair hanging seductively below the edge of your burka is an invitation to rape or stoning to death. So who should set the fashion standards in America today? The police? Can America really afford a War on Underpants?

The person effected by a piece of clothing is the person wearing it, who I think is more than capable of protecting themselves from the man-eating sweater.  It only effects other people if they let it.

To Don and others who agree with him ~ I personally do not like this fashion statement, but fully realize that "clothes DO NOT make the man." The soul makes the man/woman! Notice how nicely our government officials dress? And these black hearted people take the time to pass this ridiculous law, while Americans struggle with  the financial ability to survive. Regulate the Federal Reserve, punish the top men for supporting laws that allow torture, bring industry back to America to create jobs! This would be time and tax payer's money well spent, instead of blinding yourself to the big issues with baggy pants laws!

Okay let's be a little more theoretical here.

Let's say that it becomes popular for inner-city youth to wear puple sequins on their nose.  The reason is unimportant. 

In addition to lots and lots of anglo kids (anglos kids DO wear baggy pants BTW) who think purple sequins are cool, members of minority groups wear the trend as well.  These people come from poor neighborhoods where there is organized crime and violence.

Soon, purple sequins on your nose becomes associated with "bad" kids and gang activity and violence.  Because of this association purple sequins seems distastful, offensive, inappropriate, and disrespectful to parents groups, school administrators and law enforcement.

So eventually people are so disgusted with these kids wearing these purple sequins on their nose, that they decide to outlaw them even though the sequins themselves pose no actual risk to the public.

I am afraid that what I am referring to here is Fascism. 

Baggy Pants on BOYS!
I see hand-me-down Poverty.
Is poverty going to be illegal?
This legislation is a joke or
    the city counsel is stupid.

IF it's a fashion statement, it is SILLY and looks Stupid, no matter the guys age or color.

Don:
Your argument is ridiculous.  You are comparing a style you don't like the look of to clothing items that actively encourage violence.  Schools ban these type of things all the time; they can, they're allowed, they can mandate uniforms too if they feel like it.  However, in the general public, we CANNOT legislate clothing.  The KKKers are still wearing their hoods, and if we let them do it, then anyone can.


Betty H:
You are just being unrealistic.  Baggy pants IS NOT indecent exposure, unless the child in question is not wearing underwear.  Seeing the waistband of someone's Calvin's is perfectly legal.  It's BARE SKIN that constitutes indecent exposure, not tight boxer shorts.

One more point:  If you're going to punish kids for baggy pants, will you please also lock up my plumber and electrician?  Because I have seen THEIR buttcracks way too often for my taste.  As opposed to the kids who wear baggy pants, who usually have a baggy tee on too, which covers up the underwear anyway.  BTW, I teach in the inner city, so I see a lot of baggy pants, and NONE of the kids have ever "indecently exposed" themselves.

Fred, Dude...
For the most part - I'm probably just as much against the 'war on drugs' as you are - but there's a place for that argument/discussion, this isn't it!

No offense man, But this is blog/post is about a laws making what is essentially a "school dress code violation" into a "public or indecent exposure" crime.
Lets try to stay on topic (if you really want people to take you seriously), Please?!

"BUFFALO CHIPS"!!!!!!!

I don't get it.  I teach in the inner city, and I don't see ANY butcracks.  You know why?  Because most people wear underwear underneath their clothes.  The worst we ever see is the kids underwear, and you can't even see that unless you actively lift the kid's baggy tee or hoodie up.  Why would you do that?  That's creepier than the baggy pants thing by a long whot.

If it gets that far. Sometimes the supreme court simply declines to hear cases and thus the lower courts rulings, whatever they may be, stand.

That's easy. The majority of the opressors are dead so there influence over then is non existant. (yes there is still some oppression but not nearly on the level it was 50 years ago or more)

I will agree that Cultures inter-mingling is all part of social freedom.  I just find it despicable when laws are created to perpetuate racism, and division, don't you?

I must say something here yet I am risking being bawled out by Bryan like he did to Fred, but when are we actually going to just be called "humans" instead of black, white, etc?  And this whole baggy pants thing is ridiculous.  What about all those women that show their thong underwear?  I swore I would never wear that style yet now I do sometimes and I feel very sexy when I do it.  Unless those baggy pants are full of hard drugs or guns they have no leg to stand on.  Next they will be banning cleavage.  What do you think of that?

Not necessarily. This bill is only as racist as we make it be, because white's would be persecuted too if this was passed. The bigger crime is violating freedom of expression.

Since they could never throw all the saggy pants wearers in jail. I would imagine the cops would use the law to target people who they already wanted to bust but couldn't, because of the difficult of actually investigating and finding proof of their alleged crimes.

So the application of the law would only be as racist as the methods they use to profile people they see on the street. Which is, from what I hear, pretty racist in some cases.

While this bill may be "only as racist as we make it," Somehow I suspect it would mosty be people of color who are effected by it.  Much the same way cops use "broken light over license plate" or some other ridiculous excuse to make driving while black a crime.

Listen to this ray of sunshine.

Dina Yazdani's insightful comments gives hope to this women of the 60's.

Bryan,

i would like to point out that back when my mother was going to school and probobly while I was going to school 1983-1997, you where expected to dress decently or you were indeed sent off until you made yourself look decent. O and by the way to the person who thinks tat they can walk around in their just their underwear I suggest you just try that some day. I hope your a guy wearing boxer short no undershirt and trying going into a store! I am tired as hell of seeing peoples butt cracks. I also make it a point to saying so. If more people would speak up then maybe people would not dress badly. Is it free expression maybe, but it is also indecent exposure and I would like to see an end to it. Mind you though in all of this, my dad used to not wear anything at all in the house! So please excuse me a little if I am tired of people not dressing properly!!! I also think body piercing is just wrong! A co- worker of mine knew that she would have to wear a bandaid over her lip ring during work hours, but got it anyway. now she complains that she needs to cover it up! It also look dumb! This is a problem of culture, and I think our world not the nation is going to hell.

Rebekah

"The world is passing through troubling times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."

So said Peter the Hermit around 1110 AD. That's the kind of talk that got the first Crusade going, I was hoping America's crusading days were over.

Rebekah:
"i would like to point out that back when my mother was going to school and probobly while I was going to school 1983-1997, you where expected to dress decently or you were indeed sent off until you made yourself look decent."
Your point being?  Mom and you probably went to suburban schools with a dress code.  Where I teach, we're lucky if we can get them to show up for class.  I don't care if they come in a toga as long as they come to class.

"O and by the way to the person who thinks tat they can walk around in their just their underwear I suggest you just try that some day."
People do that all the time when they go to the beach or the pool.

"I hope your a guy wearing boxer short no undershirt and trying going into a store!"
Most stores have the written policy posted on the wall that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service."  Since that's their place of business, it's their right to dictate the dreess code.  It is NOT alright to legislate a dress code.

"I am tired as hell of seeing peoples butt cracks. I also make it a point to saying so. If more people would speak up then maybe people would not dress badly."
I'm tired of seeing cracks too.  Let's arrest all the plumbers.

"Is it free expression maybe, but it is also indecent exposure and I would like to see an end to it."
No, it is not indecent exposure.  These kids are fully clothed.  The oh-so-helpful diagram has them not wearing shirts.  The same kids with the baggy pants have huge baggy tees too, that easily cover the space not covered by the pants or underwear (showing your underwear is not legally indecent exposure.)

"Mind you though in all of this, my dad used to not wear anything at all in the house!"
Well, that's creepy and weird.  No wonder you're neurotic about the human body.

"So please excuse me a little if I am tired of people not dressing properly!!!"
That's your perogative.  You just can't legislate it.


"I also think body piercing is just wrong! A co- worker of mine knew that she would have to wear a bandaid over her lip ring during work hours, but got it anyway. now she complains that she needs to cover it up! It also look dumb!"
So you work with a dumb girl.  Who doesn't?


"This is a problem of culture, and I think our world not the nation is going to hell."
Um...huh?  Weirdly off-topic.  Plus the baggy pants thing is kind of an American tradition so where did the rest of the world enter the conversation?

profiling at its best

You forgot to capitalize "Master."

Your intentions are well-oriented, however your conclusion falls short and simply ends up lieing in stereotype.

My conclusion is my personal experience, so I'm unsure how it can fall short- of some standard you have set for replies? I wish I could tell you otherwise that these young men I see with the sagging pants (not baggy as I've noticed in comments below) were on the corners being productive with their lives and making a difference in society.

The truth is that many of these young men, could drastically benefit from more programs that encourage them to dress better and develop  confidence in themselves.

As I stated,  sagging pants should not be criminalized. Yet, I still think that its a disgusting style for young men and they will continue to be targeted, profiled and arrested until the there is a fair and just legal system and/or they start to change their ways.

its a really easy thing to just say yes master and continue being a slave too. A lot easier than fighting slavery (ask all those that died trying)

YOU of all people by your image avatar should know this.

its always 100% of the time easier to submit than to fight.

Nice try with the race card Chris. This law has racial undertones and the police will CONTINUE to harass these young men and women.

The best thing that you & these young people can do is to start rebuilding broken communities. Do you really think that NOT having the laws in place is really going to make a difference when the police want to go in and raid communities- so that they can fill their monthly quotas? Do you think that not having this law is going to prevent people from being unfairly targeted, arrested, beat up etc?

Frankly, I think that you wouldn't want anything better for these young people anyway, but you just want to use them as an excuse to hoot and holler about FREEDOM all day and night.

You think you are but you're not doing any good by encouraging this lifestyle.

There is no NICE TRY about it. unless your avatar is wrong you are a black person. Being black you have very likely done at least SOME superficial research into your history.

Being a black person with SLAVERY only a few generations seperated from today and with racisim still very rampant it amazes me that you would suggest

SUBMISSION to a wrong as the preferred path over CORRECTING the wrong as the most sensible answer.

you would still be a slave today if everyone thought that.

quite a few people DIED to try and change that for you.

It was just shocking hearing that come from someone like you. That is all.

I hear people give the same lame excuse when I discuss how with the patriot you can be swooped up off the street for any reason someone wants and "vanish" and they say

well can't the government do that anyway? Don't they already have the POWER to do this.

There is a VERY CRITICAL difference between DOING SOMETHING illegal because you have the power and doing the same thing with it now being OK with it now being LEGAL.

in MY world when they make those raid's they are illegal. So for as little as I can DO about it I at least have the word of law and RIGHT on my side.

in YOUR world I must keep my mouth shut because it would be perfectly LEGAL and RIGHT.

I do not ENCOURAGE this lifestyle. but I also will not DEMONIZE and CRIMINALIZE it.

The fact that you can not see this very clear distinction is very telling about your bias in this regard.

I think the idea of being GAY is disgusting. Its outright repulsive and disgusting to me. Seeing two men kiss each other in public makes me sick.

Should I have the right to CRIMINILIZE THEM for it? should it be illegal?

What harm are they doing me or anyone else?

I am a 6'4" 400 pound 32 year old white male. Your never going to catch me dressing like this.

I think its silly and stupid. I also think beater tops are silly and stupid too. I also think Burqa's are silly and stupid too.

Should we outlaw them as well? where does it stop?

The moment you outlaw one form of expression you open the door to outlaw ALL of them.

the phrase you can't have your cake and eat it too comes to mind.

You can not have just the GOOD side of freedom. You have to take the bad side as well.

you see we all have different ideas of good and bad so if you outlaw the bad eventually you outlaw everything because somewhere someone can find anything you do "bad"

and YES I like to holler and hoot about FREEDOM all day all night in my sleep on line at work on my drive whenever possible because I see my freedom FRAKING VANISHING on a daily basis.

I HAVE BEEN in situations to EXPERIENCE prejiduce and bigotry. I got a tiny small TASTE of how oppressed people feel regardless of the oppression.

When someone with authority ABUSES there power its a very belittling and destructive experience on one's life.

When they abuse there power and cause dozens if not hundreds of citizen's around you (big convention) to suddenly look DOWN on you to see you as FILTH as a CRIMINAL for doing nothing wrong. Well that has a tendency to change your life and the way you see the world. When you wave back to some kid who waves at you and the mother pulls him behind you and looks at you as if your some monster come to eat her child. Well that has a way of changing how you percieve "authority" in a very big way.

Your either naive or just plain STUPID and I mean REALLY stupid if you think this law will prevent people from being unfairly targeted. All this will do is make the unfair targeting LAWFUL.

Just like the patriot act.

Oh its ok now. Its the law so its ok to target innocent people now.

WE CREATED a crime where before there was none.

Yeah for us.

Chris, the more you write, the more you agree with me.

Whether or not there is a law, these people will still be targeted, profiled and arrested for more than just baggy pants. These kids have to stop making themselves targets, fair enough, UNTIL the system has changed. What's needed is a law that prevents police officers from abusing these kids at will.

Next, I don't say to NOT stand up for human rights, why else would I be a part of this site? What I did say is that I'm not making a coalition or task force to support people who choose to wear their pants falling off their butts with their boxers in plain view. If they want to wear it that way and feel that they are being unfairly targeted then they should make their own coalition. We all have our own causes and this is NOT one of mine.

Lastly, do not presume to know me or where I'm from because of my avatar picture. That's stereotyping at best.

Nice try but you could not be further from the truth.

Either you are agreeing more with ME (not the other way around My point if view is unchanged) or we can not be further apart on the issue.

I don't care what your point of view is the IDEA that the innocent should bow down to the corrupt no matter how small the issue OVER correcting the corruption is about as far from agreeing with me as its possible to get. It violated every fiber of my being.

I bow to no man. Neither should anyone else.

I will repeat the same 1946 poem I always repeat in this situation


"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

I oppose and suport any effort against corruption and abuse of power EVEN FOR SOMETHING I DO NOT LIKE OR RELATE TO because ONE DAY it will be ME and then who will be left to stand with me.

STOP looking at the sagging pants and START looking at the abuse of power and corruptions

THIS IS THE FRAKING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

When did it become possible to get a FINE and JAIL TIME for the way one dresses in THIS COUNTRY of all countries!

Right on Chris!  This is supposed to be the "land of the free."  We should NOT be legislating peoples pants!

kenneth-"I work in a prison and the wearing of sagging pants is a statement that the person is homosexual and is inviting sexual activity"

hahaha ya right this isnt true at all.in fact this only attracts homosexuals which is obvious.

apparently, this article is'nt about the inner workings of the prison system....

also, apparently, people who don't live their lives exactly the way you see fit don't have self respect or respect you... come on....... seriously?

I've only heard about that "sagging pants" worn in a prison is inviting... whatever, once.

And that was from someone who worked in a prison as a guard, and that was the only time I've ever heard it mentioned - prior to your post.

I'm sorry but this isn't about prison culture or what goes on there - this is about a dress code with criminal repercussions, that might lead to someone (According to the article = it would be the parent of one of these young people) going to prison...

At that point, well then THAT person -  might indeed have to worry about the "statements" or "meanings" of wearing closes a certain way.

It reminds me of growing up and the whole 'issue' of what males getting a certain ear pierced (right or left) having a "meaning" - specifically sexual orientation.
Later on in college, I had my left ear pierced (just the one simple earring) mostly because a girlfriend of mine suggested it - I still wear an earring from time to time, just because...
I don't wear chains, or rings - it's basically my only convenient "jewelry option" at this point. Or at times as a fashion statement (a peace symbol earring, or that sort of thing).
Anywho, there were plenty of old folks (my parents included) that were "less than thrilled" by it - and thought it was distasteful, rebellious, or even 'specifically worn to tick them off'...

Which was semi-true, I would pick/wear a particular earring from time-to-time, as a "statement" of sorts. Like... the peace symbol one - when I was taking classes at a local Jr. College that held some of the classes in buildings at the local Airbase. *shrug*

I'm sorry but wearing distasteful, disrespectful, or inappropriate clothing - does not = Criminal Behavior, if it bothers you that badly - IDK what to tell you. Don't look?  Maybe, focus your attention on something else?

The bigger deal 'You' (and others that share your opinion) make of this, the bigger deal other people will make of it, especially young people!

I work with males who have been to prison, either state or federal or both. One of the men brought up the wearing of baggy pants by young men and adolescent that exposes their underwear. According to my male clients, wearing pants in the fashion we are talking about was started and still used to solicit sex in prison. The men in the group identified this behavior as a problem as the youth that are wearing their pants this way do not know what the meaning is. These men are working at changing their lives for the better and they want to help their communities change also.

They do not want their children or the children in their community to become involved in sexual solicitation. They want the children to live healthier lifestyles.

Just because society does not know that men and boys wearing their pants so they expose their underwear is sexual solicitation does not make it un-true, only partially true, or semi-true. What it does mean is most people do not know that wearing of baggy pants by young men and adolescent that exposes their underwear is soliciting sex.

The question then is, do we attempt to control sexual solicitation through our laws. The answer is yes. Most communities in the US have laws against sexual solicitation at least for profit, i.e. prostitution. Most communities also have laws against indecent exposure in the public. Since men and boys wearing their pants so they expose their underwear is specifically meant to solicit sex, it is at least indecent exposure and may be prostitution. While we have been talking about men exposing themselves in public by wearing of baggy pants that exposes their underwear, women tend to be as guilty. I wore hip huggers when I was younger but they could not expose the split in the butte cheeks much less underwear. I believe that women and girls should be held to the same standard as the men and boys.

This is ridiculous to me.  "Wow...80% of boys age 14-24 wear their pants baggy.  Don't they know that that is soliciting sex?"  Soliciting sex to who?  A very small portion of the population?  If you ran up to a group of guys with saggy pants and said "Boys, Boys!  Don't you know you've been soliciting sex from each other!?", it wouldn't suddenly make it true.

If the majority group is doing something as a fashion statement, and that is meaningful to the minority group in a different way, that doesn't make it meaningful to the majority group.  The views of the minority group do not have to be imposed on the majority group.  If we all painted out nails green and then someone decided that that means your a vegetarian, it wouldn't make us all vegetarians.

Did you know that in Vietnam a motion with your index finger is meant for animals?  If a Vietnamese person came to the US and said "Everyone here points with their finger instead of their whole hand.  Don't they know what that means?"  What would you say?  Would you think that EVERYONE in the US has been making a disrespectful gesture and is somehow ignorant of it?  Or would you explain the difference in culture?

That's what it is.  It's a difference in culture.  Just because saggy pants is soliciting sex in the culture  of a prison (which I don't think is widely accepted either.  I'm sure this might be true in SOME prisons, but in most prisons it's fashionable, just like on the street) doesn't mean that this is true on the street.

You talk about indecent exposure in prostitutes.  Someone mentioned this already, but cleavage is not illegal, because it's a personal choice.  Just because prostitutes use it to advertise, doesn't make showing cleavage a solicitation of sex.

To LS Hope,
Sorry for the racial overtones!  I interrupted the article to be slanted toward "blacks"..almost like profiling..I totally agree that "white butt cracks" should be included, but this law has gone too far!  I find "piercings" offensive but there are no laws, I'm aware of that are arresting and jailing the "piercee".  Again, let's get on with creating some "Green Collar Jobs" and getting Health Care coverage for Americans and again "the Hell with some Saggy Britches"....

Not only are these laws unconstitutional, they single out a (for the most part) racial minority.  And they don't change behavior. 

Anyone remember the zoot suit riots in LA during WW2?  It's more than a great song.  PBS has a lot of good info (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/). 

The urge to criminalize what's one considers offensive is a flaw in the American character.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.

Seriously? You want to legislate good manners? That's the argument, if saggy pants are equivalent to chewing with one's mouth open (which is about accurate). Honestly, we should be so lucky to have a world with NOTHING more important to think about than criminalizing fashion! If the issue is "hoodlums" then catch them for doing something actually HARMFUL (like selling drugs, robbing a store, mugging someone, etc) and stop trying to Band-Aid the problems by going after a clothing style.

My *CAR* gets harassed by the cops even when I'm dong nothing wrong because it's a Scion with carbon fiber body panels. So yah, it's a bit "Fast and Furious" looking. But it's entirely legal and legit. Should I always be under extra scrutiny just because of that? NO. I got no argument if I'm stopped for speeding or failure to stop at a sign or whatever, but "looking like a racer" isn't a valid reason. The same is true for saggy pants.

Sheesh!

very very true.its all profiling

This whole discussion is hilarious, except for the fact you are talking about actually putting people in jail (ruining the lives of whole famiies at taxpayers expence) for fashion crimes.

As usual this law is just a tool to allow the police to harass people they don't like. It's only as racist as the the personal bias of the enforcers.

As to the shocking rebelliousness of our youth today, its nothing new. To quote Hesiod, the Greek poet of the 8th century BCE:
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint."

I think we'll survive even this baggy pants crisis.

kenneth,you never see any butt cracks.you just see underwear.admit it.it only offends you because its different than what you do.everybody cant be like you so get over it.but ill bet you stare like a peeping tom when you see a hot girl showing cleavage or some tight clothes.(i do).you just need to get over the fact that not everybody is the same and not everybody thinks the way you do.and isn't indecent exposure when you flash your package or something? or your naked? lol sounds to me like you just don't like rap music lol

this law is only being considered so cops can have a reason to stop and search you

well not wearing a bra can also be indecent exposure. i, for one, would rather not see any headlights, be they on a young woman or an ugly old... thing... (the latter usually being the case around here)

LOL!  I'll vote for it!

its not about being poor jenn.you profile people and you have no power to judge.only god does

that is, if you posit that god exists, from the multitude of deities that have been prayed to between the world's inception to now

Most schools already have dress codes that don't allow sagging pants. 

The United States on the other hand, does not have a dress code.  You must cover your genetalia and your anus.  Women must cover their breasts at and below the nipple.  That is all.  If it were up to me.  It wouldn't even be that much.

very true.i love this post

Right on, Linda. Baggy pants are comfy!

Exactly my thoughts. How can one run, if his pants are falling down around his knees? Will he cry "police brutality" when he falls, scraping on his face on the concrete?  It is just another stupid law. Let the idiots take a few falls on the pavement and the fad will pass! 

I think they look like they are less intelligent if they want to wear pants like this.  But, it is a free country and if they want to look stupid, it is their right!  There are more important issues that need to be addressed.

i wear baggy pants and i dont run from the cops.why? because im not doing anything wrong.you cant assume that whoever is dressing like that is doing something wrong.your a profiler

Oh, now THAT'S an idea that would WORK!! Plus, it'd be fun as heck to run around telling the world that we don't have enough sense to even put our pants on right, so, hey...don't expect me to be worth anything! Seriously.We could slack off all day.
IF only they could really see themselves. They wear baggy shorts that have huge legs, making their own legs look like pencils...guys, you're not wearing shorts-you're wearing SKIRTS! SKORTS! Culottes!!
I guess rich white women aren't the only suckers to silly "fashion" trends (think muffin tops when wearing low cut tight jeans...ewwww...).
 
 So, let's try it, older people! Let's get someone to make some baggy SKORTS or CULOTTES in contemporary cuts and designs, wear them for a week or so, and see what happens. Oh, wait...that's right-they already DO make them! Well, there ya go! We can get started anytime :).

Meri, you are so right-we don't realize how quickly trends will fade once we older people pick them up.

profiler.

that isnt true.its a style.some people like tight pants some people like baggy pants.

cody are you serious?  It's a trend with older shildren and white kids, but people really do save money by buying clothes a little big, thus extending the life of them.  Heck, i was wearing my cousin's baggy hand-me-downs when i was a little kid.  Cast-off shoes too.  If they didn't fit yet, you stuffed tisues in the toes and sucked it up.  Don't make assumptions about things you know nothing about.

"I find this disturbing because it unfairly singles out minorities - particularly poor, inner-city minorities"

what a racist thing to say...

Mr. Conerly

Oh, are we being racist by being concerned that a minority group is being discriminated against?  I don't think so.

This sounds like another example of right wing extremists deflecting criticism about prejudice by claiming that to criticize constitutes prejudice in itself.  That viewpoint must be recognized for the garbage it is.

sjl

If over 90% of the people illegally entering our country across our southern border are of Mexican or Central American descent, is it racist to try to stop them??  Of course NOT..  First and foremost they are criminals, their national origin is a secondary affair!

So what does people immigrating illegally have to do with this topic?  I fail to see the relevance.

sjl

If the majority of the offenders are minority, you're suggesting that's it racist to go after the offenders??...

get real

"If over 90% of the people illegally entering our country across our southern border are of Mexican or Central American descent, is it racist to try to stop them?"
Frankly, yes.  Not because they're of Mexican  or Central American descent, but because border controls are racist to begin with.

I guess that since I'm labeled a right wing extremist, that's supposed to mean I'm stupid, too? Mexican, Hispanic, and Latino... NONE of these are races!!  Get a grip!!  There are only 3 races..  Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid and most of the masses entering our country illegally from the south are Caucasoid (some call that WHITE) Stop being prejudiced by skin color, and recognize a criminal by their actions...

Mr. Conerly

All your statement about the 3 "races" of man shows is that you have 2nd grade proficiency on the subject.  Divisions along these three general races turns out to be very limited in terms of human genetics, particularly because of intermarriage.  When you look at genetic diseases, you sometimes have to look at ethnic groups and geography in finer detail.  Even such a disease as Sickle Cell Anemia is not solely a disease of those of African descent as you find an increased prevalence around all mediterranean countries.  Same with the thalassemias, which you find along the Mediterranean but not in Northern Europe.

You definitely have a very limited outlook if you look at things only by "race".  What you really need to be looking at are ethnic groups.  And be accepting of differences.

2nd grade...  you don't have to put me on a pedestal like that.

racist was the word...

based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race (race - NOT ethnicity, genetic or geographic diversity)

maybe you just skimmed the previous posts, or maybe it's a comprehension problem...

Your reply, like all your other posts, is very disingenuous.   Either that, or you are off in some other world.

Racism, as used generally, IS prejudice against ethnic groups.  And as such is bad.

And the way you attempt to limit the term to the most narrow of definitions clearly defines you as a racist.  It is like an anti-semitic Arab claiming he can't possibly be anti-semitic because he is a semite.  Being that anti-semitism is a 19th century pseudoscientific European word describing antipathy to what was declared, at the time, the Jewish Race, that statement is simply ridiculous.

Likewise, the term Racism comes from a similar time when ethnic groups were considered "Races", a time when "Race" was considered a degree of humanness, and when this consideration was given a pseudoscientific veneer.  Its attitudes stem from this period.  No amount of whitewash by trying to link it to current definitions can erase its ugliness.

sjl

racism is a catch word for pretty much any high level prejiduce. Its like Velcron and Kleenex.

racism is not intrinsically bad. part of its natural most of its LEARNED in our societies.

ACTING on it is whats bad. Or at least I hope undesired in our society.

BUT until greed is under control racism will NEVER be put under control. Period.

99.999999% of all of societies problems are related or begin as GREED.

Black people were not carted off in ships as slaves because they were inferior.

They were carted off in ships because THEY WERE inferior (technologically) so they could easily be captured and enslaved as cheap labor and cheap labor means a lot of profit.

IE GREED. the "inferior race" card was just an EXCUSE to justify the greedy intentions.

Eliminate greed and you eliminate almost all of mankinds problems.

Thats impossible though.

We can ALMOST get there though. Eliminate NEED and most of WANT and you eliminate "most" of the problems that result from greed and empower those left over to "deal" with greed and keep it in check.

sadly the only solution do that is matter replicators. Seeing as how the only place your going to find one of those anytime soon is an episode of star trek we have a while to go yet :-(

Racism is simply tribalism, the old my people are better than your people thing.  As such, it is very primitive, as are its practitioners.

We need to grow out of this.

sjl

Money may be the root of all problems, but GREED is what keeps the wheels of commerce in any industrialized civilization turning.  If hard work and dedication don't get me better stuff than the lazy bum sitting on his ass.... why work hard?..!!!  ENVY is the killer! the ACTUAL 99.999999% troublemaker.  And when the government gets into the picture to 're-distibute' the money ENVY,  it's the end.  Greed is the workaholic, employing thousands...  Envy is the bum, living off welfare, food stamps, quota systems, EEOC, HUD, fannie, freddie, etc.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"

I'm not racist, I hate everybody...  I'm a realist and a natural selectionist.  For far too long we've been trying to keep the dregs of society on pace w/ the rest of us.  Any teacher will tell you by mixing academic levels you NEVER bring up the less advanced kids, you only diminish the bright ones to the lowest level.  You can only progress at the level of the slowest...

Africans were being sold off to Europeans for centuries before the US imported it. Most black people carted/shipped off from Africa were sold to the Dutch after being captured by thier own tribal leaders, envious of what the Dutch had and what they wanted for themselves.  You do realize that "Roots" is fiction..   Images of white city folk traipsing through the jungle trying to catch the natives is quite amusing, though.

Winston Churchill said during World War II: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost."

White people have been very racist, many still are.  New Orleans is the perfect example.  Whites created a welfare state that was beholding to the Democratic Party for 'Public Assistance" in exchange for votes. After 3 or 4 generations of subservience and laziness, you have a people that cannot take care of themselves, they EXPECT the government or 'someone' to take care of the problems for them. They lose the ability to take care of themselves.. This experiment is easily re-created in any natural environment. You take the noble hunter, the wolf.  You keep them locked up and fed for generations on end, they lose the ability to hunt for themselves.  They're domesticated, they EXPECT to be taken care of, they know nothing else...

The only reason we have seat-belt laws, or motorcycle helmet laws is MONEY.  The govt. doesn't give a shit about you, they just don't want to pick up the tab for a vegetable for the next 30 yrs..  and they shouldn't.  If you don't wear a helmet and get hurt and don't have the money to pay for your injuries, OH WELL!! One less idiot in the gene pool.  It's not MY responsiblity to take care of your stupidity..

Just because something becomes common place, does not make it right..

Money may be the root of all problems, but GREED is what keeps the wheels of commerce in any industrialized civilization turning.  If hard work and dedication don't get me better stuff than the lazy bum sitting on his ass.... why work hard?..!!!  ENVY is the killer! the ACTUAL 99.999999% troublemaker.  And when the government gets into the picture to 're-distibute' the money ENVY,  it's the end.  Greed is the workaholic, employing thousands...  Envy is the bum, living off welfare, food stamps, quota systems, EEOC, HUD, fannie, freddie, etc.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"

I'm not racist, I hate everybody...  I'm a realist and a natural selectionist.  For far too long we've been trying to keep the dregs of society on pace w/ the rest of us.  Any teacher will tell you by mixing academic levels you NEVER bring up the less advanced kids, you only diminish the bright ones to the lowest level.  You can only progress at the level of the slowest...

Africans were being sold off to Europeans for centuries before the US imported it. Most black people carted/shipped off from Africa were sold to the Dutch after being captured by thier own tribal leaders, envious of what the Dutch had and what they wanted for themselves.  You do realize that "Roots" is fiction..   Images of white city folk traipsing through the jungle trying to catch the natives is quite amusing, though.

Winston Churchill said during World War II: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost."

White people have been very racist, many still are.  New Orleans is the perfect example.  Whites created a welfare state that was beholding to the Democratic Party for 'Public Assistance" in exchange for votes. After 3 or 4 generations of subservience and laziness, you have a people that cannot take care of themselves, they EXPECT the government or 'someone' to take care of the problems for them. They lose the ability to take care of themselves.. This experiment is easily re-created in any natural environment. You take the noble hunter, the wolf.  You keep them locked up and fed for generations on end, they lose the ability to hunt for themselves.  They're domesticated, they EXPECT to be taken care of, they know nothing else...

The only reason we have seat-belt laws, or motorcycle helmet laws is MONEY.  The govt. doesn't give a shit about you, they just don't want to pick up the tab for a vegetable for the next 30 yrs..  and they shouldn't.  If you don't wear a helmet and get hurt and don't have the money to pay for your injuries, OH WELL!! One less idiot in the gene pool.  It's not MY responsiblity to take care of your stupidity..

Just because something becomes common place, does not make it right..

Envy is not a problem. There are many things and many people I envy. But I do not think I am greedy.

Envy can turn into greedy actions but your not HURTING anyone until it does turn into greedy action.

Greed is the core problem.

Seatbelt laws have nothing to do with safety and nothing to do with footing insurance bills.

Helmets is a different story. THEY truly do save lives and your pretty much assured to be dead if you DON'T wear one but its still none of the states business.

Seatbelt laws have one purpose. to usurp your 4th amendment rights by ELIMINATING any need for valid probable cause. you can simply claim I did not see a seatbelt.

NOTE not you were not wearing one but I did not SEE it.

that is why as predicted most secondary offense seatbelt laws are now PRIMARY offenses. That was the objective all along. Making them secondary offenses was to appease the weak that knew this would happen but accepted it when they claimed it would be a secondary offense (Ie they had to pull you over for something ELSE other than the seatbelt IE 4th amendment intact they still needed probable cause)

Now they don't. THAT is why we have seat belt laws. any other reason is a smokescreen or outright misinformation.

if you are sagging it attracts homosexuals.doesnt mean you are one.dont belive everything you hear on tv

Well said, and I'm also fairly in the nudist radical direction: my time IN PRIVATE is often spent unclothed, and I agree that the U.S. connotation of sex as "dirty" is harmful.  You are right, victimless "crimes" need to be regulated socially, not through the criminal-justice system, which should be focusing on violent crimes, embezzlement, war and torture in the name of U.S. citizens, etc.  Passing the sort of law discussed in the article strikes me as repressive at best, and unconstitutional at worst.

Excellent post!  I agree with your priorities, and would add passing a national single-payer public health plan passed to them, for both health and fiscal reasons.

The sky is beautiful, I must say.

Catherine, I totally agree with you.  WHY they actually WANT to look SO ridiculous is beyond me, but hey, if it feels good do it!  But HOW on earth can that FEEL good??? HOW?  You can hardly walk, let alone run, your trousers are constantly almost falling down to your knees?  I simply don't get it, but - let the poor souls get on with it if they feel good about themselves!! 

I try not to look - not because it offends me, but because it looks so damn . . .   well, SILLY!!

Pulease!!! Catherine, as a "left-over Hippie" myself it really pains me to hear how square you are now. When you furled up your Freak Flag did you really think that all the other youth would stop rebelling? Did you renounce your Hippieism and join the side of "The Man"?

At 52 I'm still a bit of a Freak and my boys rebel by wearing polo shirts, golf shorts and Old Spice Cologne. The very things I rebeled against.

The saggy pants kids will move on as soon as you squares stop being shocked, and before you know it you'll be complaining about how tight the kids pants are these days.

BTW all fashions look silly from a cultural distance or after a time and the more seriously people take them the sillier they look.

Um, it's not about me being an aging hippie or not. It's about reporting what the New York City prison system thinks about this, and where the "fashion statement" came from -- prison sub-culture -- like it or not, which the author surely is fully aware of -- and didn't see fit to complain about there, at home, but when lurching around to hate on little communities in the south in Missouri.  So there's something pathetic in all that.

In fact, it's my "hippie" ideals that would prompt me to say that if a locality wants to pass an ordinance in this fashion because they are less impressed with ghetto New York City prison culture than you are, that's fine. Let them. Go see them in court.

I personally fail to see why I need to elevate coercive prison sub-culture to the level of a celebrated or tolerated fashion statement, any more than I'm supposed to celebrate "heroin chic". It's not about freedom, but unfreedom.

If you enjoy looking at butt cracks and guys packages, just say it. I don't and don't feel I have to and I believe it is indecent and perverse. The intent is to not just shock but to stick their 'asses in your face.' These guys have to constantly grab at their groins to temporarily pull up their pants. They can do that in the privacy of YOUR home if need be, but it is for the general public. It is very provacative and can be intimidating. 

Terry:  Thanks for your thoughts. I am 72 so I get the last word, maybe my LAST words. It is apparently true that the endeavors that would uplift humanity fall through the cracks. I advocate an INFORMING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE, NOT PROPAGANDA, and that means that Head Start should be available to all young people. It was the design, as you will recall from OEO, that no matter you station of birth the playing field would be leveled because America cared. It was that we were to fight the war on poverty, not the creation of a Harvard/Stanford cabal such as the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You see, I am one of those small town folks clinging to my wallet and dignity, born to farmers in Northwest Oklahoma. When I read my parent's burth certificates I found a slice of America in all its confusion. My grandparents are listed as either Black, Colored, Negro or White. They all sat on the back of the bus.

Hence, I took Ashley Montagu's hint and gave up th notion of 'race.' I choose to identify myself as a 'culturalist' working to help, with your able assistance, create a world that works for everyone.  As Bishop Desmond Tutu remarked when asked about Christianity and apartheid, "You can not get anything but corruption from a corrupt system."  So, I had to agree that a share of a corrupt system was not in the best interest of humanity. That allowed me to part company with Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. Wall Street will always dominate and corrupt Main Street. We need a new paradigm. We need INFORMING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES, not propaganda.

All Blessings,

Charles MCGee
"From the Back of the Bus"
Andalusia, Alabama
973.851.2325

Jenny: People's underwear is intimidating?

Damn.

Yes it is. Please read my further posts. These fellows are constantly grabbing at their crotch, obstensibly to pull up their pants, but as far as I'm concerned they are stroking their genitals and that is a sex crime.

Your just a prude and self centered. I see woman "grab and stroke" there breasts all the time. I guess thats NOT a sex crime to you right?

sex crime? too many things are sex crimes today. Do you realize how much that legal label ruins people's lives. Otherwise innocent people with NO predilection to be a predator?

we need LESS rules not more.

Its people like you who ruin people's lives.

Stroking there genitals? what gutter is your mind in when you see these people? a gutter so dark and freakish that you lash out and assume they too are in your dark gutter.

NO they do not and YES they do. Citizens have no right to infringe on the rights of other citizens.

Since when? since we created a CONSTITUTION and decided democracy along with facism was rightly a VERY bad idea.

"This is a prime example of the self-absorbed self-actualization-above-all mindset that places "individual expression" above collective community values."

Here let me fix that for you

"This is a prime example of the self-absorbed self-actualization-above-all mindset that places "Collective Community Values" above Freedom and a fundamental right from wrong."

These types of laws are limitless. There is a reason the first amendment states very clearly SHALL MAKE NO LAW.

Not shall make SOME law
Not shall make law in the name of decency
Not shall make exceptions in the name of public values

but SHALL MAKE NO LAW.

Our founding fathers realized it was people like YOU that are the beginning of the end of freedom.

Right now its "gang colors" then its hair styles then its sagging pants. it goes on and on little by little until its your color or your religion or beliefs.

Look how your POLITICAL beliefs are already being CRIMINALIZED defacto if not legally.

There is a great 1955 poem with history going back to 1946

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

THIS is how this kind of thing starts. but its even WORSE. your IMPLICIT in it.

you SUPPORT the oppressions.

anyone with a mind SO WEAK that saggy pants bothers them.... I feel sorry for you.

A bit more I forgot to add.

The REASON the first amendment is for the most part ABSOLUTE without exception (clearly you can not HIDE behind free speech to break the law)

is that once you put a dent in it for any reason there is no stop to the number of dents that can then be put in it till it looks nothing like its former self.

Let me give you an example of how absolute it is and should be.

Yelling fire in a theatre?

Think its illegal? Think it should be?

It is not (any law that says otherwise is unconstitutional and will die the moment it challengs as many such laws have already been challenged and killed)

and I would die to protect your right to yell fire in a theatre.

NOW lets be clear here. there are TWO acts (and this is where the laws screw up) happening here.

ONE is yellig fire.
This is legal and CAN NOT BE INFRINGED.

what part of SHALL MAKE NO LAW is unclear here?

NOW the second act is Causing a Panic in a crowded dark theatre.

Now some simpletons might say but yelling fire caused the panic.

DOES NOT MATTER. the crime is and should be CAUSING A PANIC not YELLING FIRE.

Yelling fire is protected speech.

Causing a panic is not. HOW you cause that panic is irrelevant.

let me give you an example. Lets say I have a Concealed Carry Permit. I am legally carrying a gun in a theatre (thats another issue since CCW's are also illegal and unconstitutional but thats another thread)

I stand up hold the gun in the air and fire off some blanks.

Whats my crime? the 2nd amendment says I can have that gun. My Illegal CCW says I can carry it on my person. The bullets are blanks and no danger to anyone.

I caused a panic.

Does not matter HOW I caused that panic. THAT is the crime.

The point? free speech MUST be absolute or it non existant.

the moment you create EXCEPTIONS you are at the MERCY of those that define the exceptions.

IE the right is GONE.

No the answer is Mind your own damned business to things that do no ACTUAL harm in any way to you.

I think its distasteful and even a little rude.

Distasteful and rude are not illegal and its unconstitutional to make them illegal.

Thats bullshit Daniel Zellers. Let me clarify for you.

You talking about making these kinds of things illegal effects me in a very big way.

SO should the law step in and stop you from doing it?

Do you not see the problem here? EFFECTING someone should be an ACTUAL effect not a percieved effect.

Otherwise WHO DEFINES what effects someone.

Next I won't be able to wear oranges pants and shirts.

Next I will be restricted to select colors because others are offensive.

Next the KIND of clothing I wear will be restricted.

Next forms of affections will be limited. On and on.

What do you think of he restrictive laws in arab countries?

TO THEM a woman out without cover or without a family member is TRULY honestly offensive to them. IT EFFECTS them on a very core level no mater how much it disgusts us.

By your logic there laws are sensible and should be enacted here as well.

Its called a slippery slope for a reason. Freedom is either absolute or its effectively an illusion at the mercy of the current mob mentality until someone DEFINES AWAY you freedom as offensive.

so chris, if i want to buy or sell child pornography (where no-one was actually 'harmed' in the actions), this is OK?

Child pornography violates the child's right to privacy, and has also been shown to be harmful to the children involved.  Only an idiot would call it harmless.

sjl

sar·casm [ sr kàzzəm ]

noun Definition: cutting language: remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride


Underwear doesn't bother me, however, having to be in line 'behind' someone at the grocery store (or anywhere) with them dropped trou and ass showing... I find this a violation of MY rights to their privacy!!

No, this is a violation of your sensibilities.  I don't find that situation pleasent either, but I put up with it.

Someone's privacy, much like their life or their body, is their own to do with what they will.

Actually, Head Start has been shown to provide only short-term improvements in childhood education (Freakonomics).  Better to start a campaign to get parents involved in schools and school-lunch programs (see Freakonomics for factors influencing educational results and Two Angry Moms [film] for the disaster that is the typical school-lunch programs and what alternatives are possible).