Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.bnd.com/2011/07/12/1783276/no-more-saggy-pants-in-collinsville.html

The ordinance forbids pants that sag more than 3 to 4 inches below the waistline of the underwear. A first offense is punishable with a $100 fine; a second offense would carry a $300 fine plus 40 hours of community service. The citation would not allow arrest or detainment.

Well done. Now for the delicious caterwauling of those who think they have a right to display their behinds in underpants. You have the floor...

[Tallpine]

The citation would not allow arrest or detainment.

So who is going to bother paying the fine or showing up for community service 

[makattak]

So who is going to bother paying the fine or showing up for community service 

I'm pretty sure failure to pay the fine may result in arrest or detainment. The process of getting the citation would not allow arrest or detainment, though, is my reading.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i think snatching drivers licenses would encourage the lil darlins

[MicroBalrog]

I'm pretty sure failure to pay the fine may result in arrest or detainment. The process of getting the citation would not allow arrest or detainment, though, is my reading.

Ah, that makes it all better then.

[makattak]

Ah, that makes it all better then.

Not saying it makes it all better. I'm saying it makes it enforceable.

I'm sure you're opposed to localities outlawing rude and indecent behavior. I'm not, though.

[MicroBalrog]

So the implicit threat of violence is still there. Carry on then.

[makattak]

So the implicit threat of violence is still there. Carry on then.

Yes. That's what the state is.

[Perd Hapley]

So the implicit threat of violence is still there. Carry on then.

As with any law. What's your point?

[MicroBalrog]

As with any law. What's your point?

Well. If you have no problem with threats of violence against people based on their clothing choice - not even people who are naked, but simply people who are fully dressed, except that their clothing exposes - not any naked body parts, but another article of clothing - carry on then.

[makattak]

Well. If you have no problem with threats of violence against people based on their clothing choice - not even people who are naked, but simply people who are fully dressed, except that their clothing exposes - not any naked body parts, but another article of clothing - carry on then.

Threats of eventual violence on locality enacted standards of behavior. Not a problem.

We're gonna bruise and bloody you and toss you out of town for saggy pants. A problem.

We're going to fine you, give a chance to rectify the disrespectful behavior and will eventually put you in jail if you don't pay the fine (which may involve bruising and bloodying you if you resist) is fine.

Again, that's what government does. Don't like those rules? Leave Collinsville. Wow, ONEROUS problem there.

[Perd Hapley]

Well. If you have no problem with threats of violence against people based on their clothing choice - not even people who are naked, but simply people who are fully dressed, except that their clothing exposes - not any naked body parts, but another article of clothing - carry on then.

Well, that's certainly a leap.

The law only applies to someone who exposes more than three vertical inches of their underoos. I'm ok with that.

Any threat of violence beyond that is just the usual treatment one expects for those who flout the law.

[MicroBalrog]

Again, that's what government does. Don't like those rules? Leave Collinsville. Wow, ONEROUS problem there.

Why does this calculus don't apply elsewhere?

Don't like X - leave the country! No problem.

[kgbsquirrel]

First amendment violation.


This came up in another locality some years ago and the state judge gave the collective busy-bodies a verbal slapping for their efforts. One particular comment by the judge still stands out to me though: "...why would you want them to stop wearing ill-fitting and sagging jeans anyways? It makes it harder for them to run from the police."


Edit: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-17-fla-pants_N.htm

[makattak]

Why does this calculus don't apply elsewhere?

Don't like X - leave the country! No problem.

It doesn't apply elsewhere as most countries where that calculus applies don't allow you to leave the country.

I will note for you that that EXACT reason is how this nation (and, in some respects your own) was founded.

[MicroBalrog]

In other words: you do not have a problem with the violations of individual liberty that exist, say, in Europe, since Europe's Constitution allows them and Europeans are free to leave?

[Balog]

First amendment violation.


This came up in another locality some years ago and the state judge gave the collective busy-bodies a verbal slapping for their efforts. One particular comment by the judge still stands out to me though: "...why would you want them to stop wearing ill-fitting and sagging jeans anyways? It makes it harder for them to run from the police."

Pretty much this. I'm certainly not opposed to all public standards laws. But "showing too much underwear" is silly. Should women be compelled to have skirts no more than X inches above the knee? No more than Y percentage of cleavage exposed? I somehow imagine that should a Muslim community ever Free State Project a town and make failing to wear a burqa a crime even the most ardent states rights advocates would be unhappy with it.

I fully believe in states rights, but while they are more lenient than the fed.gov's they are not unlimited. But those rights are not unlimited. Utah cannot make Mormonism the official state religion and require non-LDS to pay double taxes. California cannot outright ban all firearms. Montana cannot make it legal to shoot on sight any member of the federal government. And so on and so on. "States rights" is not an excuse for violation of basic rights under color of law.

[makattak]

Pretty much this. I'm certainly not opposed to all public standards laws. But "showing too much underwear" is silly. Should women be compelled to have skirts no more than X inches above the knee? No more than Y percentage of cleavage exposed? I somehow imagine that should a Muslim community ever Free State Project a town and make failing to wear a burqa a crime even the most ardent states rights advocates would be unhappy with it.

I fully believe in states rights, but while they are more lenient than the fed.gov's they are not unlimited. But those rights are not unlimited. Utah cannot make Mormonism the official state religion and require non-LDS to pay double taxes. California cannot outright ban all firearms. Montana cannot make it legal to shoot on sight any member of the federal government. And so on and so on. "States rights" is not an excuse for violation of basic rights under color of law.

Wow. Who knew the right to walk around exposing your underwear was a basic human right.

[MicroBalrog]

There's no enumerated right to wear any specific article of clothing. Can the town mandate being seen in public without a tie illegal on pain of a $50 fine? If not, why?

[Balog]

Wow. Who knew the right to walk around exposing your underwear was a basic human right.

Would you be comfortable with a majority Muslim community requiring wearing the burqa? What clothing choices are a basic human right, and what are not? Requiring some form of clothing is fine, and reasonable. Having modesty police is not.

[makattak]

Would you be comfortable with a majority Muslim community requiring wearing the burqa? What clothing choices are a basic human right, and what are not? Requiring some form of clothing is fine, and reasonable. Having modesty police is not.

I would oppose a burqa requirement. I would not claim they are outside of the power of their locality to do it.

I bolded your contradiction here. Requiring "some form of clothing" is a modesty police. Are you ok with people walking with a**-less chaps? Cupless bras? Sheer pants?

If you are not, what are you, the modesty police?

[Perd Hapley]

In other words: you do not have a problem with the violations of individual liberty that exist, say, in Europe, since Europe's Constitution allows them and Europeans are free to leave?

I have a problem with every violation of civil liberties, sagging pants included.

Oh, wait, I forgot. Dressing that way is a CHOICE!!!11 so that makes it OK.

[MicroBalrog]

Sagging pants violate your civil liberties?

Is this some kind of magical right to not see things that you find aesthetically displeasing?

[Balog]

I would oppose a burqa requirement. I would not claim they are outside of the power of their locality to do it.

I bolded your contradiction here. Requiring "some form of clothing" is a modesty police. Are you ok with people walking with a**-less chaps? Cupless bras? Sheer pants?

If you are not, what are you, the modesty police?

You are making the same error the liberatrians do, in the opposite direction. Saying "No possible requirements can be made of public behaviour" is just as much an error as saying "Any requirements can be made and are legal."

I have a problem with every violation of civil liberties, sagging pants included.

Oh, wait, I forgot. Dressing that way is a CHOICE!!!11 so that makes it OK.

Are you seriously saying that being able to see someone's underwear is violating your rights? Really?

[Perd Hapley]

Sagging pants violate your civil liberties?

Is this some kind of magical right to not see things that you find aesthetically displeasing?

Are you serious? You think this is the only thing I find aesthetically displeasing?