Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact

[CNYCacher]

What if your boxers are pulled up higher than your pants?

What if your pants are down 2 inches from your waistline and the boxers are up 2 inches?

[Jamisjockey]

I'm heading to the city counsel this week to ask that they ban the public display of religious clothing, as I find it "displeasing".

[Perd Hapley]

I'm heading to the city counsel this week to ask that they ban the public display of religious clothing, as I find it "displeasing".

You can agitate for any law you want, in an open society like ours. You can try to argue that religious clothing (whatever that may be) is somehow comparable to half-naked heinies. If you can find a sufficient number of people to agree that the public has a right to protect themselves from it, you could eventually see this right recognized. That's how the system is designed to work.

[Jamisjockey]

You can agitate for any law you want, in an open society like ours. You can try to argue that religious clothing (whatever that may be) is somehow comparable to half-naked heinies. If you can find a sufficient number of people to agree that the public has a right to protect themselves from it, you could eventually see this right recognized. That's how the system is designed to work.

So you would roll over and take it if the majority of your community banned you from displaying religious clothing?

[seeker_two]

I'm heading to the city counsel this week to ask that they ban the public display of religious clothing, as I find it "displeasing".

Please define "religious clothing" as it pertains to your argument.....










...in the Bible, Christians are taught to dress "modestly"....does this mean that you want everyone to dress like a skank?....because, if you do, I never want you to post self-pics on Facebook again....  

[Jamisjockey]

Please define "religious clothing" as it pertains to your argument.....

...in the Bible, Christians are taught to dress "modestly"....does this mean that you want everyone to dress like a skank?....because, if you do, I never want you to post self-pics on Facebook again....  

For the sake of this argument, anything that displays Chrisitian symbology (cross, Jesus) or biblical references (WWJD, bible verses).  While we're at it, those annoying little fishes, and any bumper stickers that display your religious affiliation.

[seeker_two]

For the sake of this argument, anything that displays Chrisitian symbology (cross, Jesus) or biblical references (WWJD, bible verses).  While we're at it, those annoying little fishes, and any bumper stickers that display your religious affiliation.

So, you're limiting it to just ONE religion?.......

[roo_ster]

So you would roll over and take it if the majority of your community banned you from displaying religious clothing?

Those holy undershorts have got to go!:

[Balog]

You can agitate for any law you want, in an open society like ours. You can try to argue that religious clothing (whatever that may be) is somehow comparable to half-naked heinies. If you can find a sufficient number of people to agree that the public has a right to protect themselves from it, you could eventually see this right recognized. That's how the system is designed to work.

This law does not prohibit that.


Look, this law is not about public decency. You can go in public wearing nothing but boxers, and this law does not apply. You can wear soccer shorts (which are basically boxers made of a different material) and it's legal. You can wear a mini-skirt and a low cut belly shirt that actually reveals skin. This law does nothing to address concerns over anatomy being exposed. All it does it target one particular style of clothes favored by a particular cultural sub set. It's a transparent attempt to harrass one specific sultural group.

[Balog]

(1) That is a values judgement. All you are saying is "I agree with these values".
(2) How is "don't have your pants sagging to reveal your underwear" not narrowly tailored?
(3) Again, how is "don't have your pants sagging in order to reveal your underwear" not minimal?

(1) All laws are moral judgements. Saying "this law is good" or "that law is bad" will always be a values judgement, it's a tautology.
(2) It does not address the concerns it claims to. Iirc the actual language the courts use to decide this sort of thing is "as narrowly tailored as possible to fufill the .gov's interests" or some such.
(3) It is not a valid public interest. And yes, I realize that is a value judgement. Your defense of it is a value judgement. So what? "Communism is an inherently evil .gov system" is a value judgement. All discussions of laws are value judgements.

[henschman]

This wouldn't be such a big issue if we lived in a free society where all land is privately owned.  You wouldn't have all these "public" beaches, parks, streets, etc.  The owner would set the rules, including the dress code -- period.  No bitching about rights being violated, no bitching about disrespectful dress.  If you want to go around nekkid, you just have to avoid the places that prohibit you from being there nekkid.  If you don't like all the nekkid people on your neighbor's nude beach, don't go there, and for god's sake, don't bring your kids there or they might learn what a nude human figure looks like!!!!omfg!!!!!

In the current state of our society, in which so much of our land is government-owned "commons" where everyone has a right to be, I think there should be no laws on dress code.  I don't think it in any way impairs the liberty of anyone if someone decides to walk around nude, and so it could never be considered a threat that someone could legitimately defend themselves against with force.  People with such delicate sensibilities that they can't stand the sight of a nude human figure should just stay away from public places, and those disgusting art museums as well.  If you want to protect your kid from seeing such things, keep them at home.  Your delicate sensibilities (even if they stem from a long cultural and religious tradition of delicate sensibilities) are not a moral sanction to force others to accommodate them.

I tend to think that a lot of the objections to repealing public nudity laws stem from the same type of fear that causes people to object to repealing laws prohibiting the carry of firearms.  "It will be like the wild west out there, and you will see some perv shaking his junk at you on every street corner!"  As usual, reality does not tend to live up to these hysterical expectations.  The State of Vermont does not prohibit public nudity.  The only nudity that you occasionally see there are college kids sitting out by the road trying to be rebellious and piss off old folks, and most of them tend to be hot women.  

[Jamisjockey]

So, you're limiting it to just ONE religion?.......

For the sake of my counter argument, yes. 

[seeker_two]

For the sake of my counter argument, yes. 

Then my counter-arguement would be that your law would be overturned based on First Amendment (free exercise) and civil rights grounds.....

...if you can prove that baggy pants/exposed underwear is somehow protected by the COTUS, then you might actually have a point....

[Jamisjockey]

Then my counter-arguement would be that your law would be overturned based on First Amendment (free exercise) and civil rights grounds.....

...if you can prove that baggy pants/exposed underwear is somehow protected by the COTUS, then you might actually have a point....

How would choice of dress in public not be? 

[makattak]

Then my counter-arguement would be that your law would be overturned based on First Amendment (free exercise) and civil rights grounds.....

...if you can prove that baggy pants/exposed underwear is somehow protected by the COTUS, then you might actually have a point....

This brings up a point I hadn't noticed. Many people say this is a free speech issue.

What speech are the people exposing the underwear engaging in? Doesn't there have to be some message for there to be speech, whether communicated with words or images? (I'm asking this in ignorance, what is the current jurisprudence on speech, must there be content for it to be counted as speech?)

[Balog]

This brings up a point I hadn't noticed. Many people say this is a free speech issue.

What speech are the people exposing the underwear engaging in? Doesn't there have to be some message for there to be speech, whether communicated with words or images? (I'm asking this in ignorance, what is the current jurisprudence on speech, must there be content for it to be counted as speech?)

Is clothing choice an issue of freedom of speech?

Goto a job interview in a beer stained wife beater, cargo shorts, and flip flops. Then come back and tell us if clothing makes a statement and is a way of communicating.

[makattak]

Is clothing choice an issue of freedom of speech?

Goto a job interview in a beer stained wife beater, cargo shorts, and flip flops. Then come back and tell us if clothing makes a statement and is a way of communicating.

I could show up in a clown suit too. I'm communicating a specific message by my choice of clothes in a job interview: i.e. I take this seriously or I don't take this seriously. I can express the meaning of that message in words, even if I am not using words.

What is the message being communicated by sagging your pants?

(Also, my question about first amendment jurisprudence still stands, if anyone knows the answer.)

[Perd Hapley]

So you would roll over and take it if the majority of your community banned you from displaying religious clothing?

Only to the same extent that you expect me to roll over and accept saggy pants-ed men in public. My actual point had to do with the fact that, in any democratic or representative system, the bill of rights is ultimately based on majority rule. So a culture sufficiently degraded might ban a cross necklace, or (as in most of America) recognize a right to indecent exposure.

In other words, your argument was bogus.

[Perd Hapley]

This law does not prohibit that.


Look, this law is not about public decency. You can go in public wearing nothing but boxers, and this law does not apply. You can wear soccer shorts (which are basically boxers made of a different material) and it's legal. You can wear a mini-skirt and a low cut belly shirt that actually reveals skin. This law does nothing to address concerns over anatomy being exposed. All it does it target one particular style of clothes favored by a particular cultural sub set. It's a transparent attempt to harrass one specific sultural group.

You've confirmed the legality of these things, in Collinsville?

I agree with you that the law should go a little further, and ban ultra-short skirts or shorts, if they reveal underpants below the hemline.

This notion about harassing one subculture doesn't wash, though. It has certainly spread beyond the demographic set you have in mind.

[Balog]

If you really consider being able to see someone's underpants as indecent exposure, I really don't think there is a point to this conversation. I take it you also see all female bathing suits as indecent exposure?

[MicroBalrog]

This brings up a point I hadn't noticed. Many people say this is a free speech issue.

What speech are the people exposing the underwear engaging in? Doesn't there have to be some message for there to be speech, whether communicated with words or images? (I'm asking this in ignorance, what is the current jurisprudence on speech, must there be content for it to be counted as speech?)

[seeker_two]

How would choice of dress in public not be? 

I'm just stating that your example is probably not the best one that you could use for your argument....maybe you could use a different example for your starting point.....like outlawing the use of black socks with sandals.....

....or outlawing the wearing of open-toe, strappy stilletto heels in public because they infer sexual intentions..... 

[Seenterman]

Every anti-sagger here seems to be avoiding the sports bra comparison.

What are you all sexist?
 

[seeker_two]

Every anti-sagger here seems to be avoiding the sports bra comparison.

What are you all sexist?
 

Probably because that, with a couple of notable exceptions, any member of APS caught wearing a sports bra should be arrested..... 

[Perd Hapley]

If you believe people wearing boxers (under a set of loose pants) is somehow suggestive of genitals that may be hidden somewhere under a pile of ill-fitting clothing...

I don't. That's not what we're talking about here. Here are links to some pictures. This has nothing to do with clothing that "suggests genitalia." This is what I see on an almost daily basis.

http://i.acdn.us/image/A9694/96948/300_96948.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRublTzliKhn9ar_XrzqRnWugFg3PK66KQXit2zBMXEPEdAdVnFfw

If you believe people wearing boxers (under a set of loose pants) is somehow suggestive of genitals that may be hidden somewhere under a pile of ill-fitting clothing (there's a reason these pants are called 'sagging' and it's not because they fit tight) to the point you may physically assault the other person, I fear we have little to discuss here.

The opposite is the case. You are the one who draws a parallel between being "accosted by ruffians" and being cited by a police officer. Then you say I want to physically assault people. We obviously can't have a discussion if you're going to make things up about me.

There is the additional problem of trying to compare a burqa to simply wearing one's pants at something approaching waist level. That just doesn't make sense.