The pants amendment?
We read:
"A Florida judge has deemed unconstitutional a law banning baggy pants that show off the wearer's underwear. A 17-year-old spent a night in jail last week after police arrested him for wearing low pants in Riviera Beach, Florida.
The law banning so-called "saggy pants'' was approved by city voters in March after supporters of the bill collected nearly 5,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
"Somebody help me,'' said Palm Beach Circuit Judge Paul Moyle, before giving his decision. "We're not talking about exposure of buttocks. No! We're talking about someone who has on pants whose underwear are apparently visible to a police officer who then makes an arrest and the basis is he's then held overnight, no bond."
"Your honour, we now have the fashion police,'' said public defender Carol Bickerstaff, who asked the law be declared "unconstitutional.'' The judge agreed with Bickerstaff immediately, reported the Post.
Source
The 1st amendment has previously been stretched to cover other non-speech activities such as pole-dancing and flag-burning so I suppose this decision is correct in terms of stare decisis. One wonders where the limits are, though
11 comments:
Visions of the Saudis and Iranians arresting inappropriately dressed women - the pot/kettle syndrome!
This law is/was so easy to get around! Don't wear underpants, wear Boxer Swimshorts. The guy stills gets the support that he likes, and they are just as, if not more colorful than boxer underwear.
And what wasn't mentioned, Cops like the low rider pants. A guy with pants that low, can't run fast, just think of a gal with a Tight skirt that is knee high running, they can do it, but now as well as someone with pants on!
Mobius
The fashion style looks ridiculous. That said, this case was a no-brainer. As long as he wasn't exposing something obscene, the mere fact that you don't like the fashion is no reason to attempt to criminalize it.
While I agree w/the decision - we don't need fashion police - I do have to wonder:
1. which constitutional principle was violated?
2. how does this constitutional principle tells the judge where to draw the line between, say, baggy pants and complete nudity?
3. if it was free expression, then can we count on this same judge to strike down campus speech codes and related laws?
While sitting near the front of a department store recently, I noticed a baggy pants fellow on his cell phone approaching. Phone in one hand, holding up his pants with the other. When he got to the door, he opted to let go of his pants to pull the door open. Immediately, his droopy pants dropped to his knees. I got a dirty look for laughing at his dilemma, but it was so comical to see.
While I find the style offensive and disgusting, I don't think it can be regulated with laws such as the one the judge had the good sense to rule invalid.
Great post and correct response amanbe3! We need more humor and freedom and less intrusive laws. When someone is acting stupid yet not hurting anyone then laughing is the correct response.
"2. how does this constitutional principle tells the judge where to draw the line between, say, baggy pants and complete nudity?"
Neither should be illegal, IMO.
Any law telling people (how) to dress is government intrusion into the private decisions of the citizens.
Doesn't it take a federal judge to declare something unconstitutional? It sounds like this judge over stepped his authority. Then again, it is FloriDUH!
I believe this law is perfectly valid.
However, I think it should be expanded to include the wearing of baseball hats with the peak to the side or rear!
"Doesn't it take a federal judge to declare something unconstitutional? "
Not on a state level. This judge that state law was unconstitutional in that state, not that a similar law would of necessity be unconstitutional anywhere.
" believe this law is perfectly valid."
It isn't. It limits peoples' natural freedom of choice just as much as Iran's laws requiring women to wear the Ni'qab or the old Afghan law requiring women to wear the burqah does.
We object to those laws, not to similar laws restricting (or requiring in places) what people wear in our own countries.
While I don't like seeing people in low hanging trousers, I respect their right to wear them like that as should any freedom loving person.
One word tends to "cure" rather quickly low sagging pants that exposes a person's underwear - "WEDGIE!!!!!"
Post a Comment