It's coolOriginally Posted by kfzemx3
It's cool
Resize sig area!
well put
Resize sig area!
Right or wrong that is not the government (or local governments) place
Then who's place is it? Are you going to assemble the GAP Avengers or the American Eagles to dish out some vigilante justice? Like it or not, the governments, both local and federal, have to take action to get anything done. Our people are far too stupid to change themselves for the better.
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.
Zoot Suit Riots - it's not just a Brian Seltzer song. They were BANNED altogehter.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/en...s/e_riots.html
discuss
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
I hear ya...and some churches out there are still very conservative. My dad goes to a small country church in FL where he lives, the dont let the women wear anything by dresses to church..WOW....this is not the 1800s!! LOL
In the long runs its "opionion" I am of the opinion that it is indecent to run around with your underwear less covered than they are covered....some people share this opinion....some poeple do not....that is why this thread could go on and on and on and on and......
2000 EM1
1998 Tacoma...bagged.....in the process of a body drop
what about pants that are TOO tight. seeing a crotch buldge is pretty gross.
I gotta back you up on that, ever see those t-shirt's that are like " FUCK YOU" on the front? I think it's generally accepted that to be considered as indecent ( I mean I encountered a guy wearing that in a freaking Toys'R'Us - wtf )
̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
don't look at their crotch, duh
what a homo
̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
This discussion has now officially gotten boring. I'm tired of splitting hairs over something that is so direct and simple.
It's called UNDERwear, NOT OVERwear. Why is there anything to bicker over? It is neither designed nor should it be acceptable to wear OVER or OUT in any shape or manner. People shouldn't have to "deal with it", or "put up with it", or "suck it up". I, nor 99% of the rest of civilized society, make YOU put up with anything, right?? So why should I or anyone else have to put up with non-sense that we don't want to deal with. We shouldn't.
The Bill of Rights wasn't designed to use as a shield to HIDE behind in order for YOU to get away with things. It was designed to keep EVERYONE on an even keel and keep people FROM infringing on YOUR persuit of happiness, not as an excuse to force their will upon you.
It's real simple: If you can not wear an outfit out in public where you are portraying yourself as YOU, then YOU shouldn't wear it. You want to "express" yourself??? No problem, then don't get upset when people treat you like you came from the ghetto then. YOU look like you belong there, so I guess that's the "expression" you want to give off. Don't be a cry baby about it. Be a real "OG" or "thug" about it, after all that's what you WANT to look like, right???
way to much to read. This goes for Showing your underwear. Not only baggy cloths. And that thong things bullshit.
YEAHHHH:idb:
We do not, but in some cities it is legal for women to walk around topless. It is also legal for them to walk around in halter tops and bikini tops.
The difference between indecent and obscene and a freedom of speech is that generally we allow someone the freedom of speech until their speech causes an abridgement to someone else's legal rights.
IE: molesting children is not a right because of the child's right to living life.
Same with killing.
However, if someone is wearing pants a few sizes too big, I fail to see what rights of *YOURS* they are infringing. Care to enlighten me on that?
My car is factory....
Every single performance part and or modification it has was made in a factory somewhere.
You've misunderstood the point. I don't care anything about anyone wearing too big of pants. They can wear 10X the size. But who wants to walk around seeing idiots in their underwear all the time? People that display their idiocy this way look ridiculous. Look like penguins with Downs' Syndrome. Waddling all over the mall or wherever with their legs all cocked in different angles like they've just taken one in the ass for the home team constantly having to pull up or hold up their pants. Why in the world would someone want to wear clothes that don't fit and you constantly have to fool with them? I don't think arresting is the answer, but a citation/nice-sized fine would be nice. I think it's great that this problem is being addressed. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
a white ni**er.... dont try to be ignorant man. and not all blacks are n***ers.... and not all whites are wiggers...obviously. but i think ive tried to express this point before.
this "law" wouldnt apply to all black people.... only the _______rs. and then whoever else wears idiotic looking clothing (whites, asians....blah blah)
but not being able to wear a sports bra in public.... what the hell?
Last edited by SL65AMG; 08-25-2007 at 10:52 AM.
Regardless of whether or not you are white or black... that might have been one of the most ignorant posts to grace the pages of IA... Congratulations.
Yeah I don't really care either way, i woudn't mind NOT seeing dudes asses, but women in sports bra is a different story
im glad you think so...
opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. if you dont like my post, ignore it and move on with life. it doesnt affect you. refusing to believe the truth is ignorance, my friend, and the world is full or ignorant people that will believe anything just so that it makes them happy and doesnt hurt theirs or some one else's feelings. so therefore if the truth hurts your feelings, be a man and ignore it.
Last edited by SL65AMG; 08-25-2007 at 12:41 PM.
Name the cities. I bet you can't.
Wearing a halter top or bikini top COVER the breasts and therefore wouldn't even apply here. Apples to 747's. BIG difference.
Everyone has the right to PEACE in PUBLIC. Everyone has the right NOT to be exposed to indescency. Everyone has the right to be able to go to the mall without having to shield the eyes of their children from idiots that think it's cool to wear their underwear showing. So, yes it does infringe on my and everyone else's "rights" if you want to split hairs about it.The difference between indecent and obscene and a freedom of speech is that generally we allow someone the freedom of speech until their speech causes an abridgement to someone else's legal rights.
I did already.However, if someone is wearing pants a few sizes too big, I fail to see what rights of *YOURS* they are infringing. Care to enlighten me on that?
Now you answer MY questions.
How come it's NOT "OK" for a nudist to walk around butt naked in the name of "freedom of speech"?
How come we are not allowed to drive as fast as we want?
How come you are not allowed to drive down the street with your 20,000 watt stereo wide open?
How come we're not allowed to call a dumbass act a dumbass act without the ACLU, NAACP, CNN, NBC, and Nancy Grace calling it "racist", "racial profiling", or God forbid...."politically incorrect"????
Answer that big man. Again, I bet you can't.
Everyone is so quick to defend their "rights", especially when that is the only thing you can HIDE behind. Can't defend yourself with your intelligence??? Call it "racist". Can't defend yourself with your mouth? Let your clothes do the talking for you. Can't get your point across??? Say that it's because "the man" has kept you down......:jerkit:
That's exactly what's wrong with the youth today. They are too chicken shit to take their licks as they earn them. They have to have 52 ways out of paying for what their little asses probably deserve. It is never, "you're a dumbass for wearing those pants to your ankles SON, take that shit off!!!...." Instead it's, "....the man is trying to keep my son from looking like a dumbass and it's my right to let him keep looking like a dumbass because this is America damn it......where I don't pay taxes, but get to collect money from the Gov't.....where I don't vote, but jump on the bandwagon to bitch about our President's choices.....where I can make a mistake and it WON'T be my fault because there is always someone to blame it on, so it's all good!!"....
God help us when all of you young bucks start families of your own. This country will be full of wussified people that won't be able to fend themselves out of a wet paper bag.
lol i love these types of responses... The trivial "well I'm entitled to my own opinion... if you don't like it... Blah blah blah".im glad you think so...
opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. if you dont like my post, ignore it and move on with life. it doesnt affect you. refusing to believe the truth is ignorance, my friend, and the world is full or ignorant people that will believe anything just so that it makes them happy and doesnt hurt theirs or some one else's feelings. so therefore if the truth hurts your feelings, be a man and ignore it.
Well guess what? I'm entitled to my own opinions as well...
I just decided to go a different route and voice mine by saying that you sound like an retarded ignorant racist douche bag.
Oh... and if you don't like MY post... I believe this would apply to YOU as well:
That is all.refusing to believe the truth is ignorance, my friend, and the world is full or ignorant people that will believe anything just so that it makes them happy and doesnt hurt theirs or some one else's feelings. so therefore if the truth hurts your feelings, be a man and ignore it.
Love,
Cramer
Texas Vermont
No, I think in this case, it does apply, because a bikini top is essentially the same thing as wearing a bra, which you would consider underwear, hence indecent and therefore should be illegal.
Again, as I said in my previous post, what is considered indecent? Currently, we define that legally as no nudity. If we change the law to fit "your" definition, where does it stop? Why not just outlaw all bare skin as many people do consider that "indecent".
Because we currently define decency as nudity.
We are allowed to drive as fast as we want. We are only speed regulated on public roads for public safety concerns.
Again, a safety issue exists. With you stereo turned all the way up, you can't properly hear emergency vehicle sirens.
You can call a dumbass act a dumbass act anytime you want to. Trying to make that act illegal is a whole other issue. Personally I don't think racism has anything to do with all of this.
I triedAnswer that big man. Again, I bet you can't.
Now this I take a bit of personal offence to. I don't ever "hide" behind my rights. That being said, I certainly don't have a problem defending them or myself personally. My 4 years of active military service with two tours in a combat zone can speak to that. I damn sure don't wear my clothes in a way that would violate this bill if enacted. I do pay my taxes. I vote, and I don't ever bandwagon anything. However, I have a real problem with people enforcing their values through laws that I feel infringe on people's rights. You may find seeing someone elses underwear offensive, but somehow I doubt it. You may find the need to cover your children's eyes, but I don't believe you. You certainly don't have a problem taking those same children to the beach and they see quite a few people running around in their "underwear"(In my opionion, you may be able to "split hairs" between the difference between a bathing suit and underwear, but the simple fact is that they cover the same areas and provide the same function.) My entire point here is that although I do loath when these kids wear their clothes improperly, jump on the latest fad, want to be different just like everyone else, etc.., but I do recognize that those are things that still should not be regulated by laws.Everyone is so quick to defend their "rights", especially when that is the only thing you can HIDE behind. Can't defend yourself with your intelligence??? Call it "racist". Can't defend yourself with your mouth? Let your clothes do the talking for you. Can't get your point across??? Say that it's because "the man" has kept you down......:jerkit:
That's exactly what's wrong with the youth today. They are too chicken shit to take their licks as they earn them. They have to have 52 ways out of paying for what their little asses probably deserve. It is never, "you're a dumbass for wearing those pants to your ankles SON, take that shit off!!!...." Instead it's, "....the man is trying to keep my son from looking like a dumbass and it's my right to let him keep looking like a dumbass because this is America damn it......where I don't pay taxes, but get to collect money from the Gov't.....where I don't vote, but jump on the bandwagon to bitch about our President's choices.....where I can make a mistake and it WON'T be my fault because there is always someone to blame it on, so it's all good!!"....
God help us when all of you young bucks start families of your own. This country will be full of wussified people that won't be able to fend themselves out of a wet paper bag.
well done joecoolfreak. +2
a racist believes that his or her race is SUPERIOR to all others OR that another race is INFERIOR to another. i dont believe that. all people regardless of race have an equal opportunity in this country to do whatever they want. some take advantage of that freedom and some take the time to make themselves look like complete fucking idiots and waste their life away because they think people owe them something. that my friend is not opinion, that is fact.
i am bigoted. i have an intolerance for fucking idiots and people that think life should be made easy for them. I also have an intolerance for people that think that because they are a certain race, that things must be done to accommodate them because they were mistreated in the past or because they believe that they dont have the same opportunities as others.
soon as i seen "J---CBR9--" i was like awww shit! lemme print this and add a spine to this BOOK!!
carry on.....
this is ridiculous.. wow.. im speechless..
^i know. pretty soon we'll have these.
Very annoying with his flawed logic
Prove it.
Ouch, that really hurt my feelings.....Very annoying with his flawed logic
News flash: If you don't like what I have to say, that is EXACTLY what they make the "ignore" button for. Use it.
LMAO@SIDEWAYSPICCOMMENT
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
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.
Who is "we"? That's the point. The minority overruling the majority.Again, as I said in my previous post, what is considered indecent? Currently, we define that legally as no nudity. If we change the law to fit "your" definition, where does it stop? Why not just outlaw all bare skin as many people do consider that "indecent".
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.
I think you meant indecency. Again, who is "we"?Because we currently define decency as nudity.
AHA!!! So, the "public" part is what makes it right or wrong or acceptable or tolerable or no whining about it.....correct???We are allowed to drive as fast as we want. We are only speed regulated on public roads for public safety concerns.
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?
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.Again, a safety issue exists. With you stereo turned all the way up, you can't properly hear emergency vehicle sirens.
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????
I do, and I am.You can call a dumbass act a dumbass act anytime you want to. Trying to make that act illegal is a whole other issue. Personally I don't think racism has anything to do with all of this.
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.
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. Why can't we all simply agree that something is stupid and asenine and call it that? 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? 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?My entire point here is that although I do loath when these kids wear their clothes improperly, jump on the latest fad, want to be different just like everyone else, etc.., but I do recognize that those are things that still should not be regulated by laws.
* insert theme from jeopardy *
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doooooooo.
Doo doo doo doo DO. Dodo dodo do.
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doooooooo.
DO. Dodo do do... do... do...
BANG BONG
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
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.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.
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?
Agreed, I did mistype there. And I just defined "we" for you.
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.
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.
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...
Good, glad we agree on something. =-)
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.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.
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.
We can
We can
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"
AMEN!!!
Correct Fitment Crew CEO2012 Hyundai Veloster / 1960 Fiat 600D
Because Only Turds Should be Dumped and Flushed.
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.
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.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?
What?The problem I have with the legislation is layered.
Really? I'm willing to put money on it.First of all, I don't think that it does represent the majority of the population.
And that makes it majority, how exactly?I disagree with the fact that you think it's unacceptable.
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 think it's fine...stupid, dumb looking, but otherwise harmless.
As Shakespeare said, "Aye, there's the rub...."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.
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?
Splitting hairs again.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.
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 didn't get it obviously.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 "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?
So therefore, the Miller test does not apply here since it only pertains to PORNOGRAPHY.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.
You have yet to answer the more obvious question, so I'll repeat.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.
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?
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.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"
This is how it all starts
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?
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.
When I say layered, I simply mean that there are multiple issues here. I have lots of problems with the proposed ordinance.What?
This still remains to be seen. The long and short is that it doesn't matter. It's still a constitutional right.
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.
No, because that would be legally defined as a sex act, therefore falling under the Miller test, would be pornographic.
Great question. See the Miller test
Absolutely, but this isn't what we are discussing at the moment.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.\
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not all of those things are illegal right now...I think I have addressed why and how.
I, nor did he say race or political issues...the comment was specifically that there were constitutional issues, specifically with the 1st ammendment.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.
This is a joke. I would have thought you of all on here would realize it. It'll NEVER pass. This is part of our freedom. I dont like it either, but if something like this was to pass it would open the door for a lot more and worse. Whats next? Telling us which shoes we can wear?? If anyone thinks a law like this should be passed then then maybe you should consider what you think freedom is. Put your hate of the subject to the side, because it doesnt matter that they may ban baggy pants that show underwear, what matters is that they will be taking more rights from us. If I wanna walk outside in my boxers ITS MY RIGHT.I hope it does pass.
Freedom of what??? Are you kidding me? What about our freedom NOT to have to see people's underwear or them walking like they're penguins or wearing burlap sack looking clothes????
I wish it would pass. I'm sure it won't because of all the ACLU and NAACP and "leaders" that are gonna call it something else.
I'm with Ruiner, let the girls show their thongs, but make the guys pull up their pants.....
And if this passes, then we should ban shorts (very similar to boxers), bathing suits, and anything else that resembles underwear in any way. Don't you see the absurdity in this?? Who cares if you dont like it, its still a freedom of choice.
Thats the problem with this country today. Everbodies so worried about being PC. They dont want to hurt anyones feelings.
This country will be full of pussies in a few hundred years.
This problem should be address another way, but since they may actually require some thought and action out of our government it'll never happen.
The day this country takes on a dress code, I'll be moving or part of the solution.
Jaime I normally agree with you but this is rediculous. You are ubviously upset about this but that doesnt matter. In a previous post you statedName the cities. I bet you can't.
Wearing a halter top or bikini top COVER the breasts and therefore wouldn't even apply here. Apples to 747's. BIG difference.
Everyone has the right to PEACE in PUBLIC. Everyone has the right NOT to be exposed to indescency. Everyone has the right to be able to go to the mall without having to shield the eyes of their children from idiots that think it's cool to wear their underwear showing. So, yes it does infringe on my and everyone else's "rights" if you want to split hairs about it.
I did already.
Now you answer MY questions.
How come it's NOT "OK" for a nudist to walk around butt naked in the name of "freedom of speech"?
How come we are not allowed to drive as fast as we want?
How come you are not allowed to drive down the street with your 20,000 watt stereo wide open?
How come we're not allowed to call a dumbass act a dumbass act without the ACLU, NAACP, CNN, NBC, and Nancy Grace calling it "racist", "racial profiling", or God forbid...."politically incorrect"????
Answer that big man. Again, I bet you can't.
Everyone is so quick to defend their "rights", especially when that is the only thing you can HIDE behind. Can't defend yourself with your intelligence??? Call it "racist". Can't defend yourself with your mouth? Let your clothes do the talking for you. Can't get your point across??? Say that it's because "the man" has kept you down......:jerkit:
That's exactly what's wrong with the youth today. They are too chicken shit to take their licks as they earn them. They have to have 52 ways out of paying for what their little asses probably deserve. It is never, "you're a dumbass for wearing those pants to your ankles SON, take that shit off!!!...." Instead it's, "....the man is trying to keep my son from looking like a dumbass and it's my right to let him keep looking like a dumbass because this is America damn it......where I don't pay taxes, but get to collect money from the Gov't.....where I don't vote, but jump on the bandwagon to bitch about our President's choices.....where I can make a mistake and it WON'T be my fault because there is always someone to blame it on, so it's all good!!"....
God help us when all of you young bucks start families of your own. This country will be full of wussified people that won't be able to fend themselves out of a wet paper bag.
You really believe that you have never made anyone put up with something they didnt like? Come on, I know you are smarter than that. People need to realize that it doesnt matter if they dont like it, because if its not hurting you in any way then it is simply thier right and you would be infringing on it if it were to be banned. People are different so there will always be things that upset others, but that is not grounds for a law. Dont you see that? You choose to let it bother you, plain and simple, because there is no way you are forced to look at how another is dressed.I, nor 99% of the rest of civilized society, make YOU put up with anything, right?? So why should I or anyone else have to put up with non-sense that we don't want to deal with. We shouldn't.
I quoted this one because you attacked this man's intelligence instead of staying on the topic. If you are that upset about this trend, then get off your ass and do something about it besides complaining and trying to help pass a law that obviously infringes on our rights.
Just passing a law and not addressing the problem entirely always causes problems down the road, we should have learned that in the 60's and 70's. The best fix is not always the quickest, cheapest, nor easiest.
Im sure you'll attack me in some way since this obviously upsets you, but since I dont have the time to parley on why a law that obviously infringes on our rights shouldn't get passed even though someone got thier butt hurt about it, just consider all the things that we do that upsets others. Maybe we should pass a law banning all of it, then one day it'll be just like the movie 1980
Prove it.
Ouch, that really hurt my feelings.....
News flash: If you don't like what I have to say, that is EXACTLY what they make the "ignore" button for. Use it.
Maybe you should ignore saggy baggy bottoms. Talk about double standards
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
