# Who Else Thinks This Is Racism?



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

I saw this on cnn and immediately thought that this was a way for older white people to try and get black men in trouble. Is this any different than some of the laws that were passed following the end of the Civil War in certain areas in the South? How can this be constitutional? I am certainly no legal expert, but to me this is a heinous violation of civil rights, especially considering that this crack down is on a "style" favored by minorities.

I'd be curious to see what you guys think, especially some of the more conservative members. I also would like some of the lawyers on the forum to chime in as well.

https://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/04/kaple.baggy.pants.arrest.wpbf


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Right. Black men also commit a majority of murders; are laws criminalizing homicide unconstitutional and racist, too?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Am I missing something? _*Her *_video and pictures show him with saggy pants.

What's the problem?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

The question for me is whether it would be ruled constitutional for the local authority to make such law. If that answer is yes, I would not care if the outlawed style was worn by a variety of ethnicities, or just one.

The style of wearing pants cinched halfway down the butt cheeks (with boxer shorts up at the waist) is fairly common at the university my two daughters attend. 

I find it equally distasteful whether adorning black or white kids (both of whom can easily be seen around campus). Still, passing a law to ban it, while appealing, is a bit problematic for me.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Racist? How so?*

Wearing baggy pants has been explained as a vestigal nod to hand-me-downs, but there is no racial predisposition. There is a correlation to thuggery though.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*How I think its racist.*

It is an "urban" look. Many times urban is also interchangeable with "black". I am well aware white kids wear their pants like this as well, but it is a style that hip-hop culture has helped promote. Hip hop being a predominatntly black industry, i feel its an attack on a culture.

In the early days of emancipation, laws were passed not allowing blacks to vote, or participate in any kind of government program, including school. While this is something that is not nearly as serious, its still a law that will predominantly affect minorities in a negative way.

Why is showing a bit of undergarment ILLEGAL? It may be reprehensible satorically speaking, but ILLEGAL? Whats next, making it against the law to wear a hat sideways? Or to wear a shirt three sizes too big?

What if it was your ethnic group being persecuted? How would Wayfarer feel if kilts were made illegal? What about exposure on a beach? This is why our country has a system of checks and balances. Imagine what would happen if a group of racists all decided to move to a certain city, vote into law a series of bills aimed at any minorities, and then use the muscle of the law to enforce it? Oh, wait a minute...whats that smell? It's Mississippi burning all over again, this time in Florida.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Right. Black men also commit a majority of murders; are laws criminalizing homicide unconstitutional and racist, too?


Turk, I respect your opinion, but comparing the two is a little extreme. Murder is not a cultural issue, a style of clothing is.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, all right, since you gave a level-headed response.

No, this law isn't unconstitutional. It doesn't say _black people cannot expose their underwear_, it just says that nobody can.

Does it have a disparate impact? Probably. But that doesn't mean anything without real discriminatory intent. Is this a law to "get" black people? No--it's a law to keep people from exposing themselves in public.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I'm against these laws. First, allowing freedom of dress, like freedom of speech, makes it pretty easy to quickly pre-judge the individual. Saves time. 

Also, it is nearly impossible to conceal a handgun in your waist band or holster when your pants are constantly falling down. Likewise, the young alleged felon's selection of firearm is limited to handguns (less powerful and accurate than long guns) since it is impossible to shoulder a long gun while, at the same time, holding up your trousers. Fire and maneuver becomes impossible. Furthermore, once the alleged felony has been committed, it is difficult to run with your pants around your ankles, which probably accounts for the higher arrest rates amongst certain segments of our population. What else could it be?

So I say keep it legal!

One warning, though. Several years ago I read about a young scholar being blown away by the cops after being told to put his hands on his head. When his pants started falling down, the poor soul reached down to snatch them back up and BANG. The cop thought he was going for a gun!


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Lib. Ship has a good point

I say keep it legal for the sake of distinguishing class

These "long guns" you speak of, do you mean rifles?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Lib. Ship has a good point
> 
> I say keep it legal for the sake of distinguishing class
> 
> These "long guns" you speak of, do you mean rifles?


Yes. Rifles and shotguns. Those must be reserved for so-called "drive by" shootings where your trousers can not fall down since you are seated. In the event the long gun had to be deployed afoot, however, I suppose a loyal "ho" could support the trousers for her man as he gallantly shoulders the weapon to defend her honor.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And to give you an idea of why there's no "discriminatory intent" present here--

The "no exposing your underwear" law was approved by 72% of the voters in the city.

Racist ********, right? No, the city is 68% black.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> Yes. Rifles and shotguns. Those must be reserved for so-called "drive by" shootings where your trousers can not fall down since you are seated. In the event the long gun had to be deployed afoot, however, I suppose a loyal "ho" could support the trousers for her man as he gallantly shoulders the weapon to defend her honor.


Very interesting


----------



## skillet (Aug 28, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> Yes. Rifles and shotguns. Those must be reserved for so-called "drive by" shootings where your trousers can not fall down since you are seated. In the event the long gun had to be deployed afoot, however, I suppose a loyal "ho" could support the trousers for her man as he gallantly shoulders the weapon to defend her honor.


Ship,
Props for composing the funniest post on AAAC that I've read to date. I'm having difficulty typing this because I'm still laughing so hard.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*Whats that saying about statistics?*



PedanticTurkey said:


> And to give you an idea of why there's no "discriminatory intent" present here--
> 
> The "no exposing your underwear" law was approved by 72% of the voters in the city.
> 
> Racist ********, right? No, the city is 68% black.


I think legally, you may be right. However, i feel that there is an underlying current here that to me seems racist. I also think that those voting statistics may be a little warped. Was the vote 72% Yes to 28% No? Or did 72% of the ENTIRE population of this small Florida town vote Yes? If you really broke the stats down, you'd probably find that of those 68% black residents, a disturbing amount did NOT vote.

I also don't think that southerners are "********". I love the south, and I love the culture, both black and white. I fully support southerners who want to fly the Confederate Battle Flag in support of their heritage. I just think that underneath all society in America, there is a racist current that most of us would not even recognize. Combining that racism and the previously mentioned low minority voting percentages, I fear that this may be Barack Obama's downfall in November...but thats a topic for another thread.

And congrats on post 1000...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

The undue fascination with behavior of other people leads to stupid laws and stupid behavior. Sort of like trying to ban books at a library.

If someone wants to walk down the street with their britches at knee level then so be it, as long as the citizens have the right to snicker and call it tacky.

Harumphily,
A.Q.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I don't believe it is racist. I have two brothers who wear their pants like that, while they try acting "urban" they're from a white middle class family.

Do I agree with the law? Yes and no, but do I think it is racist no.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Getting law enforcement to chase around people for sagging pants is a waste of time and money. It's not a public safety issue, so why drag the police into it? 

Maybe next they should start arresting people for wearing suits without ties.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Or next they could start arresting people who run naked through the streets!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Aren't some of the people passing these laws black themselves?

I don't know if I would call it racist, although I admit that it can appear that way to some. I see no reason for laws regarding how people should dress; I also think employers and owners of businesses should be free to establish dress codes for employees and customers if they want to do that.

I think the style is tacky, but people should be free to dress that way if that is what they really want. Both the left and the right try to use laws to force people to do what they think is right. A better solution would be to educate people, but also force them to live with the consequences of how they dress. If the prison pants thing limits their job opportunities, etc., let them live with the consequences. 

However the government should not be intruding into how people dress in any official way.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

unconstitutional as a violation of civil rights? (racially discriminatory) no
unconstitutional as a violation of free expression? (1st amendment) probably (up until the point that it becomes obscene)

This is not the first that I've seen of this type of law. The backstory as I understand it is that it is a backlash from within the African-American community against what is colloquially known as "thug culture". I don't have specifics with regards to the community in the news clip linked by the OP.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

omairp said:


> Getting law enforcement to chase around people for sagging pants is a waste of time and money. It's not a public safety issue, so why drag the police into it?
> 
> Maybe next they should start arresting people for wearing suits without ties.


I doubt it is costing the police money. They said they ticketed 4 people so far for violating this law.

I doubt they're actively chasing someone about it. I imagine it is just another ticket to add on if they're going to ticket them on something else. Just like here in WI the police don't pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt, but if they pull you over and you weren't wearing one you'll get ticketed for it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It's not racist...it just makes sense. Why should others, or their children or grandchildren, be forced to view some fool's underwear. Hillary claims, "it takes a village to raise our children" but, in this instance, we have a community trying to 'save their idiots!' I, for one, wish them every success in their efforts!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> However the government should not be intruding into how people dress in any official way.


I think that to a large extent this depends on which "government" we are talking about. No, the Federal government should not regulate dress. Perhaps not even State governments. These are both governments established by the Constitution.

Local communities, on the other hand, are a different breed entirely. As long as they aren't violating one's Constitutional protections (and I doubt that a dress code would), local communities have a lot more leeway in matters such as this. Even no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson gave his blessing to individual States establishing their own religion if they chose to do so; he just said that the Federal government couldn't do that. Pennsylvania I believe was originally a Quaker State. Of course we know what has happened to the original idea of separation of Church and State over the years.

I believe that folks should be free to band together into small groups and adopt rules for their group, whether this be a home owners association, the Boy Scouts, a township, whatever; as long as those rules don't violate the basic rights conveyed to folks by the Constitution.

Having said that, I do think it is a goofy law. But there are a lot of goofy laws. I don't know about now but it used to be illegal to wear high heels in Atlanta. Of course this law was only enforced if you tried to sue the city for injuries incurred by tripping on a sidewalk while wearing high heels. Sometimes goofy laws are there for a reason.

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The city government, which was elected by the people, decided to put the ordinance to up a direct vote by the people of the city. They voted for it overwhelmingly. I don't see how this is possible without the support of at least a majority of the black population in the city. And this is hardly the first time I've seen public dress ordinances proposed or advocated by black leaders. This is one of those things that primarily affects black people, and so they do take an interest in it.

As to casually exposing your underwear or worse for no particular reason being "free speech," give me a break! What are these kids trying to say that they couldn't say without exposing themselves?

The federal government would have no business regulating dress codes--but it does, you know. It would be much easier to make a case against a private employer who regulates this sort of dress on the job under the so-called "Civil Rights" Acts than it would against a government for making it a crime! States, of course, have police powers and retain the authority to say what is and isn't proper attire in public. Whether this is a wise law or not isn't really the question.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I think that to a large extent this depends on which "government" we are talking about. No, the Federal government should not regulate dress. Perhaps not even State governments. These are both governments established by the Constitution.
> 
> Local communities, on the other hand, are a different breed entirely. As long as they aren't violating one's Constitutional protections (and I doubt that a dress code would), local communities have a lot more leeway in matters such as this. Cruiser


Absolutely agreed. That is basically what I was getting at with my first post on this subject: 


Relayer said:


> The question for me is whether it would be ruled constitutional for the local authority to make such law. If that answer is yes, I would not care if the outlawed style was worn by a variety of ethnicities, or just one.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

You mean the Boeing commercial? I don't think it's racist at all.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Howard said:


> You mean the Boeing commercial? I don't think it's racist at all.


Boeing commercial, what are you talking about?


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

The practice originated amongst gentlemen of a darker hue, who were involuntary guests of governmental extended-stay resorts, as an indication of amourous availability to other extended-stay clients. 

Yeah, that's something to be encouraged on mean streets. Just what a degenerate pop-society needs to venerate and protect. Fix Brooklyn first, then....


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> Boeing commercial, what are you talking about?


He's referring to the commercial that plays before the clip.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Here I come to save the day! 
(Chunga-chunga-chunga)
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way!
(Chunga-chunga-chunga) 
Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right, 
(Chunga-chunga-chunga) 
Mighty Mouse will join the fight! 
(Chunga-chunga-chunga)


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think that law is ridiculous,Why not arrest women for wearing "muffin tops"?


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I don't think it's racist but it is an example of how law makers have horribly misplaced priorities. LA is a prime example. With all the problems LA has like gangs, traffic, etc. our elected officials are trying to prevent fast food chains from expanding in certain areas where obesity is high as well as trying to get established fast food restaurants to put the calorie contents on their food wrappers. They are also trying to increase the non-smoking ban to more areas. It seems like the real issues that need to be dealt with are swept aside since nobody wants to even attempt to tackle them so to look like they are earning their tax subsidized salaries, they come up with these lame brain laws.

I think it also shows a disturbing trend of how government is slowly creeping into every aspect of our lives. Now when one looks at the media and it's obvious liberal left slant, it's easy to presume that this is how the country feels. This country was founded on less government not more. Yet is seems that so many people are more then willing to let the government start controlling more and more of our lives. When we start giving up small freedoms like the freedom to dress like a thug if we wish, it sets in motion a series of attempts by government to intrude even more into our lives. This is not good.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> He's referring to the commercial that plays before the clip.


Oh. I don't see anything wrong with the ad either.


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't know that its racism, but its a huge waste of time and energy that could be used to stop real crime.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Come to think of it, I find the law scary; they must see no end in sight of this trend if they would be willing to make a law to stop it. What does this say about the future of men's dress? Are we only experiencing the tip of the iceberg of ****wear? What is in store for our children?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Come to think of it, I find the law scary


I think one thing that is being overlooked is that this is not a law passed by a Constitutionally ordained body such as Congress or a State Legislature. It is an ordinance voted on by a local community and a local community government is actually more a corporation than a government, although we refer to them as governments. If a local government goes too far the State legislature can overrule it with the stroke of a pen.

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I think one thing that is being overlooked is that this is not a law passed by a Constitutionally ordained body such as Congress or a State Legislature. It is an ordinance voted on by a local community and a local community government is actually more a corporation than a government, although we refer to them as governments. If a local government goes too far the State legislature can overrule it with the stroke of a pen.
> 
> Cruiser


Most states have explicit constitutional provisions granting authority to counties and municipalities.

Also, the prevailing opinion (and the present reality) is that there is no law a state government can pass that cannot be overridden by a federal law, regulation, treaty (including executive agreements!) or court.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> I think one thing that is being overlooked is that this is not a law passed by a Constitutionally ordained body such as Congress or a State Legislature. It is an ordinance voted on by a local community and a local community government is actually more a corporation than a government, although we refer to them as governments. If a local government goes too far the State legislature can overrule it with the stroke of a pen.
> 
> Cruiser


I meant in terms of the direction fashion seems to be going, not that I fear the government


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Come to think of it, I find the law scary; they must see no end in sight of this trend if they would be willing to make a law to stop it. What does this say about the future of men's dress? Are we only experiencing the tip of the iceberg of ****wear? What is in store for our children?


If we allow this law to stand and the demographics continue to shift, our grandchildren will be stripped of their ties, Navy blue blazers, and Harris tweeds as they are shipped off to sartorial re-education camps. They will return unrecognisable to their burqua ensconced wives and girl friends dressed in prison garb -- like saggy pants and crocs.

No legal dress codes! Let the sediment settle to the bottom of the social septic tank so we can recognize one another! Strength and honor!


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> If we allow this law to stand and the demographics continue to shift, our grandchildren will be stripped of their ties, Navy blue blazers, and Harris tweeds as they are shipped off to sartorial re-education camps. They will return unrecognisable to their burqua ensconced wives and girl friends dressed in prison garb -- like saggy pants and crocs.


Wow, that sucks

Whether or not this law stands, the standard will continue to drop, I think


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Most states have explicit constitutional provisions granting authority to counties and municipalities.


Yes, they are allowed to exist solely because they are granted that authority by the State. I was referring to the U.S. Constitution which gives the States any authority not explicity given to the Federal government.



> Also, the prevailing opinion (and the present reality) is that there is no law a state government can pass that cannot be overridden by a federal law, regulation, treaty (including executive agreements!) or court.


Of course, I just didn't see any need to continue on up the ladder past the State. I doubt that the Federal government is going to establish dress codes. My guess is that they would leave that to the State if it's citizens got too far out of line.:icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, you never know. The President and the King of Timbuktu might decide that dictating dress codes in some Florida town is of vital importance, and agree in an executive agreement (i.e., the president signs a treaty without getting it ratified by the senate) that everyone in a certain Florida town will wear grass skirts. And that's all it takes to make it a law, and there's nothing that the city or the state can do about it. Ain't that something?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think it's ok to show off some skin,( but not too much of it) It's not like a crime or anything.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

> As long as they aren't violating one's Constitutional protections (and I doubt that a dress code would)


I don't know how many places have such laws in place and how long they've been in place but it seems like the first amendment would be a terrific challenge to it. It seems like a terrible waste of time and money to worry about to me...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

*It's unconstitutional*

The courts have ruled on the saggy pants law:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

*Groan*

I notice that the judge wasn't quoted as citing exactly what part of the Constitution this law offends, or why. I'm not surprised.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> *Groan*
> 
> I notice that the judge wasn't quoted as citing exactly what part of the Constitution this law offends, or why. I'm not surprised.


Are you actually arguing in support of government enforced dress codes?

I would wager that the judge cited the first amendment.

If the judge really knows what he is doing, he cited the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, you never know. The President and the King of Timbuktu might decide that dictating dress codes in some Florida town is of vital importance, and agree in an executive agreement (i.e., the president signs a treaty without getting it ratified by the senate) that everyone in a certain Florida town will wear grass skirts. And that's all it takes to make it a law, and there's nothing that the city or the state can do about it. Ain't that something?


The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It would supersede any treaties or executive agreements that the president might make.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

It's not racist at all. There aren't many black people in Sweden, but there are thousands of young white Swedish men walking around with their trousers almost down around their knees. It looks ridiculous, but so ot me does a tie with jeans or a suit with trainers -yet many well heeled white men especially in the media and the arts dress like that.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think here in New York people break dress code laws every day.Why don't they just fine people for wearing open-toed shoes or sandals?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

In Atlanta most of the advocates for this kind of law are African-Americans who understand that the practice has its source in the emulation of prison behavior which the A-A community finds extremely disturbing. That said, it is not prudent to criminalize every disturbing practice, and this law is a first rate example of a violation of this principle. Nonetheless, it is illegitimate to strike down every imprudent law as inimical to the Constitution. This is classic legislating from the bench. The fact that a law may be imprudent, offensive, or even stupid, no more makes it unconstitutional than the fact that a practice may be socially malignant renders it prudentially appropriate for criminalization. Not every anti-social practice should be criminalized, and not every imprudent criminalization is unconstitutional.
The bottom line is that the law in question is almost certainly imprudent (i.e., a bad idea) notwithstanding the fact that it is animated by legitimate policy concerns (that have nothing to do with racism), and the federal court's ruling represents an improper application of the Constitution notwithstanding the law's prudential deficiencies.
It is imprudent to criminalize every practice or behavior that has anti-social consequences, and it is improper to invalidate as unconstitutional every law that is imprudent.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> ...It is imprudent to criminalize every practice or behavior that has anti-social consequences, and it is improper to invalidate as unconstitutional every law that is imprudent.


I think this is very well said and gets to the heart of the problem with baggy-saggy pants laws and others of the kind.

--A.Q.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Why wouldn't this be covered under the freedom of expression that the court has found for things like pole dancing and flag burning?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> Why wouldn't this be covered under the freedom of expression that the court has found for things like pole dancing and flag burning?


Those decisions are problematic, especially that which concerns poll dancing (though I can't recall a Supreme Court decision on that matter, as opposed to other federal court decisions). In any case I am pretty confident that the Supreme Court would permit states to outlaw public nudity (it probably already has), and it is hard to discern a legal distinction between nudity and dressing or undressing in other ways that a community finds offensive. The bottom line is states have the general right to legislate against behavior that the community regards as offensive. The corruption of the First Amendment's protection of speech and the press into a general right of expression cannot be used by the Court to impair communities from exercising their right to legislate in matters pertaining to general morality. Taken to its logical conclusion all behavior can be regarded as "expression." And it is the role of the democratic process to discern what behaviors have anti-social consequences, not courts. The roll of the First Amendment is to address any governmental action that impair citizenry debate as part of that process.
I can anticipate the argument that this means that a state could make it a law that all men must wear hats in public, for instance. I agree, and further agree that such a law would be unwise, unfair, and stupid; but the Constitution has no provision invalidating laws that are unwise, unfair, or stupid. This is the problem with most Americans today. They really think that the Constitution is intended to be a safety net or brake to be applied to laws they regard as bad. It's not. Legislatures are permitted to pass stupid laws, even laws that the enlightened people who post in this forum regard as stupid. What they cannot do is pass measures that impair public debate regarding the merits of such laws.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

fenway said:


> Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge


A victory for both freedom and myself with my prior prediction.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I think this is one of those cases where it's hard to define obscenity but we know it when we see it. Perhaps there is no legal difference between public nudity and baggy pants, but there certainly is a practical one. I think that most people would be fine with people walking down the proverbial main street with a bathing suit or bikini, but would not approve of walking down it nude. I would agree that some of the definitions of "speech" given by various courts have been problematic, but I have a hard time supporting any law that regulates dress in public beyond outlawing nudity.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> I think this is one of those cases where it's hard to define obscenity but we know it when we see it. Perhaps there is no legal difference between public nudity and baggy pants, but there certainly is a practical one. I think that most people would be fine with people walking down the proverbial main street with a bathing suit or bikini, but would not approve of walking down it nude. I would agree that some of the definitions of "speech" given by various courts have been problematic, but I have a hard time supporting any law that regulates dress in public beyond outlawing nudity.


I agree, but that isn't the point. The question is who gets to decide: a judge or the people? Our system of government is an indirect democracy (i.e., a republic) which places the decision in the hands of the people acting through their elected representatives subject to constitutional contraints. I don't think this question can fairly or honestly be described as "speech" or "press"; if so, then nudity would be protected too. I agree with you completely as a matter of policy, but if we lose that debate in the body politic (which is apparently what would have happened in this Florida community) then I don't see how it is legitimate for a court to substitute its preference over that of the people, even though I may I agree with the court as a matter of policy. Again, not every stupid law (or law we think is stupid) presents a matter of constitutional moment.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Its a silly law, even if the majority of the citizens voted for it. If the majority of citizens voted that wearing suits was inappropriate, what kind of uproar would there be? Before you get defensive, think about it. A group of people have said dressing a particular way is unacceptable. Can they say bikinis are illegal for women? 

I have a couple of problems with this law in this city. First, they say it is a violation to show any skin or underwear. Its a beach city, how many people are walking around without shirts on (guys)? From the video I saw, yes the top of his boxers were showing, but every kid under 25 shows that much of the top of their underwear everyday. Try wearing some of the newer style jeans, which are cut with a low rise waist. You're going to be showing some underwear.

I believe if the demographics of the city show that the people who voted are white and those that are being cited are black, it could be view as a form of racism. I just feel it is a waste of time. I know this is a common look for "street kids" or thugs, but come on find something else to enforce.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I've read about 15 articles on this, and not a single one explains the reason the judge declared it unconstitutional or what part of the Constitution the law violated. Anyone seen an explanation? Mike, while much of what you see makes sense, given that the Court have already defined non-speech as speech, isn't this judge just following precedent?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> I've read about 15 articles on this, and not a single one explains the reason the judge declared it unconstitutional or what part of the Constitution the law violated. Anyone seen an explanation? Mike, while much of what you see makes sense, given that the Court have already defined non-speech as speech, isn't this judge just following precedent?


You are correct that the Court has indeed included certain "acts" as speech, but usually when they are explicitly intended to express a political point, such as burning a flag or draft card. I doubt that these precedents govern this case. More likely, the judge just thought the law was a bad idea and was therefore unconstitutional. I agree that there does not appear to be any explicit basis. Moreover, a google search reveals tons of commentary supporting the judge on the grounds that the writers thought the law was stupid -- which just proves my earlier point. All that said, I haven't taught con law in almost 20 years, so outside of due process and commerce clause jurisprudence I admit my understanding is pretty rusty.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's like the "bong hits 4 jesus" case a while back. No intent to express an idea = no first amendment protection.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Has New York put forth this ban?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

In answer to the op's question. Who can call it racism when you only hear about one out of four? Without race info about the other three it is impossible to say if racism could be in the mix.


----------

