SAY GOODBYE YOU BAGGY PANTSED FAGGOTS...

[joecoolfreak]

You are stretching something to fit your needs.

Simple, what clothing section are bikini tops found in the store? Intimates or Swim wear? Then it is only YOU that is calling it UNDERwear. So NO, I would NOT consider a bikini top "UNDERwear". Bikini tops nor halter tops are DESIGNED to be worn UNDER anything 99.9% of the time, right? Unlike what???? BOXERS!!!!!! Apples to 747s.

Thats fine...so what if all the jackasses stop wearing boxers and just start wearing swimming trunks instead. They will effectively avoid being illegal, still wear their pants down around their knees and everything will be all good correct? They will still look the same, act the same, but you will have replaced their underwear for something else. You may say that is apples to 747's but I guess I just disagree.

Who is "we"? That's the point. The minority overruling the majority.

The whole point to this legislation IS to make it part of this "law" you keep fictiously quoting and interpreting so discussions like this would be unnecessary in the future.

We refers to the current status quo as a society. I agree that this "law" would change that, but what you failed to address in any of your response is the fact that we have a very clear line of where the "decency" line exists. If we start changing it, what is to stop the regression to the point that the "law" no longer represents the majority?

I think you meant indecency. Again, who is "we"?

Agreed, I did mistype there. And I just defined "we" for you.

AHA!!! So, the "public" part is what makes it right or wrong or acceptable or tolerable or no whining about it.....correct???

What is it that everyone has been saying all along about this??? DON'T DO IT IN PUBLIC. THAT is the whole reason for the legislation. They are not proposing people not buy the clothes or even how to wear it. Just what's acceptable IN PUBLIC. Why is that so hard to contend with? If you truly don't like seeing it any more than I do, why would you defend it?

The problem I have with the legislation is layered. First of all, I don't think that it does represent the majority of the population. I disagree with the fact that you think it's unacceptable. I think it's fine...stupid, dumb looking, but otherwise harmless. I am not defending it, I am defending the right to do as you choose as long as you aren't infringing upon other's rights. Just because I think something is stupid, doesn't mean I think it's wrong.

But I can see them. My eyes aren't impaired by loud music. So what now? I've never had an accident because my music distracted me. I've never hurt anyone because my music was too loud. So using yall's logic, therefore, I should be allowed to do what I damn well please because it's MY music equipment, that I bought with MY money, and am doing NOTHING to anyone else in the process of ME using it.

You can listen to your music inside of your car as loud as you like, you just can't listen to it loud enough with the window's open so that the person next to you can't hear an emergancy vehicle coming. You basically have the right to do anything you wish until you start violating someone's elses right's or safety.

Once again proves that people claim to be seeing the big picture, yet they CHOOSE what part of that picture they want to point out. Why aren't you and every other proponent marching at the capitol about speed limits, noise ordinances, and taxes????

Very simply, because those things are in place for public safety. I pay my taxes because I feel that we should all be required to do our part to pay for the benifits we recieve. All of these things are irrelavent to the current discussion though...talk about apples to 747's...

I do, and I am.

Good, glad we agree on something. =-)

You guys need to understand Civics a little better. LOCAL gov't, where BTW is the ONLY place this has been put up to, can and does make laws that pertain only to them. They should. If you don't like it, don't live in that city. Vote for diff officials. Do something. It's a city oridinance they are proposing, not a law. It amounts to little more than spitting on the sidewalk, "disturbing the peace", type ticket. Personally, I'm glad someone's taken the initiative to speak up and say that's stupid. Why are people fighting him on it if they agree it's stupid is beyond me.

Hey now, I am quite sure I understand the civics involved here. First of all, a local government can enact any ordinance it chooses too. However, all law's regardless of jurisdiction are required to follow constitutional requirements. Any law that violates as such, is subject to legal action. Now, they can enact the ordinance, but as any decent lawyer would tell you, it won't hold up to challenge.

Please point out the specific "right" under the Bill of Rights that entitles anyone to wear their pants down to their ankles. There isn't. It is total interpretation of the portion which recognizes "freedom of speech", not freedom to wear clothes any way I want regardless if it let's my UNDERwear show. Right? So, this is why I say people hide behind "rights" because they have nothing else to justify their stupid behavior. We can micro dissect laws until they are pretty much not worth the paper they're printed on if we wanted to.

Plain and simple. The Supreme Court has interpreted the "Freedom of Speech" to mean that any display of personal expression is explicitly protected from laws prohibiting such action whereas it isn't a safety issue, it isn't obscene(I know this shall be the focus or your attention which I will address momentarily), it isn't libel, it isn't "fighting words", or it isn't nudity. They have also ruled that there are semi-protected forms of speech, which can be regulated, but are closely watched and often challenged: such items are hate speech, internet defamation, commercial speech, and campaign finance reform.

Now the two that would seem to apply here or are at least closely related are nudity and obscene. This is obviously not nudity, so I think we can leave that alone. I would guess that you would point to seeing someone's underwear as "obscene" in order to fall under the arguement that this isn't a protected right. Obscenity is judged by the Miller test:

The Miller test - from Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973) was a landmark ruling which discarded the Roth test and remains the current standard for pornography today. Justice Burger laid out the new, three part test as: "(a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct, as outlined in state law, in a patently offensive way; and (c) whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Burger explicitly rejected the Memoirs requirement that obscene material be found to be "utterly without redeeming social value," replacing it with the less stringent standard of lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Burger also rejected the Jacobellis requirement (from Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) which held that national standards ought to be used or at least how something is reviewed in 100 cities nationwide). Instead, the Miller test says to use "contemporary community standards" to evaluate whether something appeals to the "prurient interest" and is "patently offensive." Opening the door to community standards tends to reshape the definition of obscenity to anything morbid, abnormal, disgusting, and perverted and also anything involving hard core acts which demean women, at least according to some interpreters. Leaving it up to state law to describe the kind of sexual conduct to be regulated was intended to provide some kind of fair notice to purveyors of pornography, but had the effect of giving state legislators control over determining what is patently offensive. Miller kept the Roth components of average person, work taken as a whole, and contemporary community standards. An interesting procedure at this time was that police could not seize all copies to halt sale, just enough evidence for trial. Procedure today requires extreme degrees of specificity in search warrants, but otherwise the whole lot of offensive material is confiscated. Miller remains the key test for determining obscenity.

Now as you probably noticed...Obscenity is used when refering to physical objects that are considered to be pornographic in nature. I think we can both agree that seeing some dumb kid wearing his clothes poorly doesn't really scream pornography.

Why can't we all simply agree that something is stupid and asenine and call it that?

We can

Why can't we all simply use black and white definitions of things, rather than try to muddy up the water with hair splitting and ACLU talk?

We can

There are things in life that are really that simple, black and white. This, in my opinion, is one of those things. You are either wearing your clothes so low as to show your UNDERwear in public or you're not. You either need to pull up your pants or you don't. I don't care what logo or patch or condition those pants are in. THAT is irrelevant. The fact that your UNDERwear is hanging out IS the point. So we need to finally define, since this is now a gay ass fad, that is either A: acceptable or B: unacceptable. What's the problem with that?

I agree once again...it is unacceptable, however should still remain legal, because regardless of your own personal interpretation of the constitution, wearing your clothes however you like is a protected right of personal expression and is protected by 1st Ammendment rights. I believe in protecting those rights enough that I would risk my life to protect them.

And just a nice ending note: this is a quote made by the writer of this proposed ordinance: Councilman Martin -
"We know there are First Amendment issues"

[Jaimecbr900]

Thats fine...so what if all the jackasses stop wearing boxers and just start wearing swimming trunks instead.

If they want to wear swim trunks under their pants, it perfectly fine. Underwear is underwear, swimming trunks are swimming trunks. So yes, that would be something different, much like bikini tops and halter tops.

We refers to the current status quo as a society. I agree that this "law" would change that, but what you failed to address in any of your response is the fact that we have a very clear line of where the "decency" line exists. If we start changing it, what is to stop the regression to the point that the "law" no longer represents the majority?

Wrong. If we had a clear line, then this legislature would have gone the way of the DoDo bird about as fast as it came in. Many asenine attempts have. This one got as much play time simply because it is something that A LOT of people have always mumbled under their breaths for a long time. So no there isn't a clear line because as you can see in this very thread that is the exact reason why we're even having a debate. You think something is NOT obscene, while others definetly don't agree. That's not being clear at all.

The problem I have with the legislation is layered.

What?

First of all, I don't think that it does represent the majority of the population.

Really? I'm willing to put money on it.

I disagree with the fact that you think it's unacceptable.

And that makes it majority, how exactly?

I think it's fine...stupid, dumb looking, but otherwise harmless.

Just as nudist feel nudity is.....Just as I personally feel that since I have 20+ years of driving experience I should be able to drive as fast as I want....Just as I can't crank my stereo up as loud as I want when out in public, eventhough I don't feel I'm hurting anyone else.

I am not defending it, I am defending the right to do as you choose as long as you aren't infringing upon other's rights.

As Shakespeare said, "Aye, there's the rub...."

Where's the right for people not to have to see someone else's underwear?

Here's an example:

I am legally married. I feel like having sex with my wife right on top of the table at McDonald's. She's wearing a skirt and no undies. I zip my fly down and ease up in there....noone can see the skin on skin contact....all the rest of our clothes remain on. Why is that "indecent"? I showed no skin. She showed no skin. Would that be allowed? Why not? The "law" doesn't define sex on top of the McDonald's table SPECIFICALLY, does it? So is it fair to say that someone then has to use COMMON SENSE to make a decision as to WHAT "indecency" is???? Well, why is it that it would be OK for someone to make that call, yet we can't make the same call for people directly showing their UNDERwear in public?

You can listen to your music inside of your car as loud as you like, you just can't listen to it loud enough with the window's open so that the person next to you can't hear an emergancy vehicle coming. You basically have the right to do anything you wish until you start violating someone's elses right's or safety.

Splitting hairs again.

They loose their eyesight when I pulled up with music blarring? They why would they NOT be able to SEE the Emergency vehicle coming up on them? Maybe they're just shitty drivers anyway and my music had nothing to do with it. Again, someone will then make a judgement call as to call that a "noise ordinance" infraction.

BTW, point out what "right" anyone has to seeing an emergency vehicle.

Very simply, because those things are in place for public safety. I pay my taxes because I feel that we should all be required to do our part to pay for the benifits we recieve. All of these things are irrelavent to the current discussion though...talk about apples to 747's...

You didn't get it obviously.

YOU "feel" that showing your UNDERwear out in PUBLIC is "ok" , yet I don't.
I "feel" that although it's against the "law" that I should be able to drive as fast as I want.

As it pertains to this discussion, I am trying to show you how the Gov't ALREADY governs a lot more things in far more restrictive ways than this AND more importantly we could easily apply the same logic you guys are using to justify NOT passing this ordinance to complain about already existing laws that we could argue to death don't always NEED to be dictated upon. So in essence what I was trying to get you to see is that you keep saying "where will it stop?" and I'm saying it NEVER has and NEVER will because people and society EVOLVE. 100 years ago, there were no speed limits WHY???? Because we had no roads like we do now nor cars to drive on it past 10 mph. NOW we do, so there are restrictions.

10 years ago THIS was not a problem because THIS was NOT a gay fad. NOW it is, so therefore it should be addressed before dumbasses start wearing nothing BUT UNDERwear and no pants. What are you gonna say then?

Now as you probably noticed...Obscenity is used when refering to physical objects that are considered to be pornographic in nature. I think we can both agree that seeing some dumb kid wearing his clothes poorly doesn't really scream pornography.

So therefore, the Miller test does not apply here since it only pertains to PORNOGRAPHY.

I agree once again...it is unacceptable, however should still remain legal, because regardless of your own personal interpretation of the constitution, wearing your clothes however you like is a protected right of personal expression and is protected by 1st Ammendment rights. I believe in protecting those rights enough that I would risk my life to protect them.

You have yet to answer the more obvious question, so I'll repeat.

Why if clothing is protected as part of the Bill of Rights is it ILLEGAL to go nude in public? Why can't we just wear BOXERS only to the mall? Why can't I wear a shirt with what SOME people find offensive written all over it to the mall? Why can't I call blarring my radio an "expression" and thereby be allowed to play it as loud as I like?

Again, I'm using simple examples because in all of those examples I would REALLY not be "hurting" or "hindering" anyone else, yet all of those are ILLEGAL now. I'm not keeping anyone from going their own way. I'm not making anyone believe what I do. I'm not hindering anyone from rolling up their windows. Right? So why is that if THOSE could all be debated using the exact same reasoning you give here, they are still illegal?

And just a nice ending note: this is a quote made by the writer of this proposed ordinance: Councilman Martin -
"We know there are First Amendment issues"

Of course there are.....just like there's always "race" issues and "political" issues when anyone brings up anything controversial. Someone somewhere, like the ACLU, will find 4 legs to the chicken.

[joecoolfreak]

If they want to wear swim trunks under their pants, it perfectly fine. Underwear is underwear, swimming trunks are swimming trunks. So yes, that would be something different, much like bikini tops and halter tops.

Ok...we are making progress...now...how is the law to determain whether or not boxers are underwear, or whether swimming trunks are swimming trunks? Are we to use the manufacturer as a designation? Again...where is the finite legal definition? This is part of the problem with the proposition to begin with. In it's current form, it is way too open for interpretation. Are you really ok with your wife being cited and ticketed because her bra strap was showing as she walked down the street?

Wrong. If we had a clear line, then this legislature would have gone the way of the DoDo bird about as fast as it came in. Many asenine attempts have. This one got as much play time simply because it is something that A LOT of people have always mumbled under their breaths for a long time. So no there isn't a clear line because as you can see in this very thread that is the exact reason why we're even having a debate. You think something is NOT obscene, while others definetly don't agree. That's not being clear at all.

Incorrect. We do have a clear line currently. The legal line is whether nudity is involved. If it is, it's illegal. If it isn't it's not. Moving that would blur the line...is a bra strap obscene? Occording to this law, it would be.

What?

When I say layered, I simply mean that there are multiple issues here. I have lots of problems with the proposed ordinance.

Really? I'm willing to put money on it.

This still remains to be seen. The long and short is that it doesn't matter. It's still a constitutional right.

Just as nudist feel nudity is.....Just as I personally feel that since I have 20+ years of driving experience I should be able to drive as fast as I want....Just as I can't crank my stereo up as loud as I want when out in public, eventhough I don't feel I'm hurting anyone else.

The difference here, is that the Supreme Court has ruled that nudity isn't protected and anything that isn't nudity is. Driving is still a safety issue...I don't know how many times I can repeat this.

As Shakespeare said, "Aye, there's the rub...."

Where's the right for people not to have to see someone else's underwear?

Here's an example:

I am legally married. I feel like having sex with my wife right on top of the table at McDonald's. She's wearing a skirt and no undies. I zip my fly down and ease up in there....noone can see the skin on skin contact....all the rest of our clothes remain on. Why is that "indecent"? I showed no skin. She showed no skin. Would that be allowed?

No, because that would be legally defined as a sex act, therefore falling under the Miller test, would be pornographic.

Why not? The "law" doesn't define sex on top of the McDonald's table SPECIFICALLY, does it?

Great question. See the Miller test

So is it fair to say that someone then has to use COMMON SENSE to make a decision as to WHAT "indecency" is????

Absolutely, but this isn't what we are discussing at the moment.

Well, why is it that it would be OK for someone to make that call, yet we can't make the same call for people directly showing their UNDERwear in public?

I am very glad you asked the question, as this was the entire point of all my hard work in my last response. The very simple difference between public nudity and sex acts, and seeing someone's underwear is that the first two are explicit exeptions to the 1st Ammendment free speech guidelines given by the Supreme Court, and the last is not, therefor a protected form of free speech.

Splitting hairs again.

They loose their eyesight when I pulled up with music blarring? They why would they NOT be able to SEE the Emergency vehicle coming up on them? Maybe they're just shitty drivers anyway and my music had nothing to do with it. Again, someone will then make a judgement call as to call that a "noise ordinance" infraction.

BTW, point out what "right" anyone has to seeing an emergency vehicle.

You don't have a "right" to see or hear an emergency vehicle, you have a legal responsibility to get the hell out of the way. Some situations would prevent you from either seeing or hearing such a circumstance, which is why emergency vehicles use both lights and sirens to prevent something like that happening.

You didn't get it obviously.

YOU "feel" that showing your UNDERwear out in PUBLIC is "ok" , yet I don't.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think its all right though...its a constitutional right. And until that's ammended...laws like this can be proposed, and enacted. But they will all be struck down until the 1st Ammendment is changed.

I "feel" that although it's against the "law" that I should be able to drive as fast as I want.

And if you feel that the "law" violates the 1st Ammendment, then you can break the law, then challenge it through the appeals process. The safety clauses will prevent you from winning though. There are no safety concerns with the proposed ordinance, so it will not pass the appeal.\

As it pertains to this discussion, I am trying to show you how the Gov't ALREADY governs a lot more things in far more restrictive ways than this AND more importantly we could easily apply the same logic you guys are using to justify NOT passing this ordinance to complain about already existing laws that we could argue to death don't always NEED to be dictated upon. So in essence what I was trying to get you to see is that you keep saying "where will it stop?" and I'm saying it NEVER has and NEVER will because people and society EVOLVE. 100 years ago, there were no speed limits WHY???? Because we had no roads like we do now nor cars to drive on it past 10 mph. NOW we do, so there are restrictions.

I do agree that laws are necessary and change will happen with the process of society evolving. However, there are some things that I think will stay more solid than you do. I don't think the Supreme Court is about to re-evaluate their current interperatation of the constitution.

10 years ago THIS was not a problem because THIS was NOT a gay fad. NOW it is, so therefore it should be addressed before dumbasses start wearing nothing BUT UNDERwear and no pants. What are you gonna say then?

Another simple one, that is already addressed by current laws, so it is a moot point. If someone shows their ass, they are in violation of public nudity.

So therefore, the Miller test does not apply here since it only pertains to PORNOGRAPHY.

That's the main point. If you can't apply the Miller test, then it's a protected right and you can't make a law prohibiting it.

You have yet to answer the more obvious question, so I'll repeat.

Why if clothing is protected as part of the Bill of Rights is it ILLEGAL to go nude in public?

Greaty question, as it blately proves my point: Because the Supreme Court has been very explicit with their interpretation, if it's nudity, it can be prohibited by law, if it isn't nudity, then you can't do anything, because it's a protected right.

Why can't we just wear BOXERS only to the mall?

Now this is where it gets interesting. You can wear just boxers to the mall. You can stand outside on the street and watch the traffic go by. You can't however go into the mall with your boxers on because the mall has the right as private property to enforce a "dress code" that can't be enforced or regulated by law. If you don't leave, they can issue you a citation for trespassing, but not public indecency. This has actually happened several times and that is the exact ruling that the courts came up with. Dress codes can be enforced by private organizations on private property. The goverment cannot enforce dress codes on public property.

Why can't I wear a shirt with what SOME people find offensive written all over it to the mall?

See previous answer. You can stand out in front of the mall with that shirt and there is nothing the law can do about it. The mall however can regulate any dress code them deem acceptable.

Again, I'm using simple examples because in all of those examples I would REALLY not be "hurting" or "hindering" anyone else, yet all of those are ILLEGAL now. I'm not keeping anyone from going their own way. I'm not making anyone believe what I do. I'm not hindering anyone from rolling up their windows. Right? So why is that if THOSE could all be debated using the exact same reasoning you give here, they are still illegal?

Not all of those things are illegal right now...I think I have addressed why and how.

Of course there are.....just like there's always "race" issues and "political" issues when anyone brings up anything controversial. Someone somewhere, like the ACLU, will find 4 legs to the chicken.

I, nor did he say race or political issues...the comment was specifically that there were constitutional issues, specifically with the 1st ammendment.