Jaime,

For the fact that I am too lazy to go back and quote most of the things you said, I am going to just address most of them in one post without the quotes. Normally, I agree with you completely on your posts, but I am going to have to disagree on this one. Although I personally don't like the trend that people don't wear their clothes properly, I don't think that should be brought into a legal matter. As far as your perspective that this proposed bill wouldn't infringe on 1st amendment rights, I believe that as long as you don't infringe upon someone else's rights and you are expressing yourself, then that is something that is protected by the "freedom of speech". To address your examples as well as Baby J's, public businesses have the right to limit their own establishments any way they choose, and it has nothing to do with the current set of laws. A restaurant can say that all guests must wear suit and tie, but that doesn't mean that the current laws require that in public. There is a definite difference in "decency" between nudity and showing your underwear in public. I don't think showing your underwear is so much of a lack of decency, but rather a lack of common sense or intelligence and unfortunately, we can't make either of those two things illegal. The reason they put bra straps and thongs and whatnot in there is because of the equality requirements for law design. The only way to make sagging pants with showing your boxers illegal is to make showing your underwear in general illegal. Although I have no particular wish to see some kids boxers, I can't say that I am hurt in anyway by doing so. The double standard is seen by your first couple of posts. If we make showing your boxers illegal, then by doing so, we also make seeing a woman's bra strap showing illegal in the same regard and that obviously doesn't offend you. I do give some credence to the slippery slope statements shown previously in the thread. Empirically, we have drawn the definite line of decency at nudity. If we start backing that up, the line becomes much less easy to define. Do I think it will happen immediately? No, but it does set a precedent. The long and short of all of this is that I don't think this is something that a law should should be addressing. Besides, the benefit to allowing these people to dress as they currently are works great as a "stupid filter" I don't have to talk to someone who dresses like that to know that they lack common sense. To have a decency law that prevents it, just protects stupid people from themselves.