Is banning "saggy pants" a violation of our rights?

Question

This is more of an opinion question, but if anyone knows law etc. well it would be nice to see hard evidence.

also, what if you are wearing pants one day that are to big b/c you are out of options (poor, laundry, lost etc.) isn't it unfair for you to go to jail and get a fine b/c of that?, or to go to jail or get a fine b/c you wear it normally?...

Answer 1

The city council's (and some county boards) are simply over reaching all across the country as they try to enact their little facist regimes.

It is clearly a violation of a person's rights for the government to tell you what you can and can't wear unless it has to do with government employment work rules.

The government can clearly enforce decency laws but we should clearly not let our government over step their reach.

Answer 2

This is definetly a violation of rights. If you consider clothing to be a type of expression then banning clothing is banning expression which is in direct violation of the first ammendment. Also, for anyone that wants to say that bagging pants can be classified as "indecent exposure" that is not true, becuase though bagging pants are "in" boxers always cover up the butt. Low ride pants are in, not butcracks.
Plus, it would infringe on bussiness rights. Consider that many bagging pants are made with shorter inseams and longer zippers to facilitate the style. Saying that corporations can no longer produce that particular style of clothing directly contradicts the policy of a free market, and would not be supported as constiutional.

Answer 3

It isn't the pants that are an issue - obviously it's the lack of pants around the genitalia and buttocks that's an issue. And there are already laws in place regarding public decency/nudity.

But beyond that, there's absolutely no mention of public decency in the Bill of Rights. So no, it cannot be a 'right.'

It's really just an issue of if most people want to see each other walking around in underwear all day - don't try to turn it into a huge political issue.

Answer 4

Many places are enforcing a law pertaining to the showing of underwear in public. Atlanta Ga has light law but Louisiana is getting serious with $500 fines and 6 months in jail.

Answer 5

You'll probably get mostly opinions here because I don't think there's been too many laws about the subject or challenges to said laws as of yet. I think this issue though is brewing - possibly in Atlanta but not sure.
Personally I don't think it's a violation of our rights but then I also believe that one should attempt to dress appropriately. Seeing young men & boys who walk around with their crotches hanging down to their knees makes me want to question what they will turn out like when they are older as well as what they are currently up to. (yes, I know this sounds like a stereotype) But then again I'd also like to see tickets for indecent exposure written to those men who show the cracks of their butts whenever they bend down

Answer 6

No such right I know of, so no, it's not a violation of rights.

However, some of the penalties for wearing baggy sagging pants are just stupid (Lousiana can give you a $500 fine or six months in jail).

Six months in jail for a fashion violation? C'mon.

Answer 7

I think you are referring to the law they were trying to pass in Atlanta banning saggy pants. I personally can't stand to see someone's pants sagging but it isn't the governments responsibility to tell us how to dress. Our present day society relies to much on government to regulate even the most simplest things. Before we know it, the government will be in complete control of our lives.

Answer 8

No, that's hideous! The state or government don't have the appropriate to rigidity any style of scientific technique on anybody, much less a baby that's a minor and under the care of their mom and dad. i like the remark approximately the place a central authority run healthcare device could finally end up like this. i could additionally decide to be attentive to while the hen pox grew to grow to be some style of feared ailment, while i became right into a baby it became right into a real of passage for goodness sakes. If a be certain comes to a decision to vaccinate for this, advantageous that's there selection, yet what provides them the appropriate to rigidity it on anybody else? Its absurd! in case you have such faith interior the vaccine you administered on your baby then you definately shouldn't even agonize some none vaccinated baby interior the lecture room. because of the fact in accordance to the vaccine makers and government those in possibility for contracting the ailment are the non-vaccinated. How Maryland is in a position to escape with that's the incontrovertible fact that the toddlers are out of faculty. no longer as a results of loss of vaccine. There are exemptions allowed in maryland for vaccines and if that's gained there is not any longer crap they are in a position to do approximately it. If I have been a style of mom and dad, i could the two acquire this exemption, homeschool, or circulate out of state. There could be no way that any state or government could be forcing me to sign a criminal duty launch style to grant my youngster some vaccine against my will. rattling human beings, are you adult males unaware of what's occurring right here?? Its time to revolt and supply up those nanny states and oppressive government!

Answer 9

no, if you are talking about school or work. It is their right to set standards for the people that attend their work place, school. Now the law can not tell you that you cannot wear saggy pants

Answer 10

Actually, I think they are great - anybody wearing them is obviously not going to commit a crime because they have one hand tied up all the time and if they let go their pants fall down around their ankles and they trip and fall if they try to run. Otherwise they look really stupid - just like butt crack showing on old white guy plumbers.