Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact

[makattak]

Also, honestly, I view the passing of this law (and similar) as a failure of society and civilization.

Adults should be grabbing kids by their ears and making them pull up their pants. Of course, we can't do that anymore because the adult would be arrested for assault.

Society, not government, should be enforcing modesty. The fact that it can't (I note that it's enforcement powers have been usurped by the government) is a failure that our culture will suffer harm for.

Standards (including some for dress) are part of living in a civilized and polite society.

[Balog]

Then what is your line for clothing requirements? Can I walk around in bikini briefs? Can a woman walk around in a micro-bikini? Or does it have to be tighty whities and panties + bra? Or does the clothing have to somewhat partially cover underwear?

My point is that the standards should be determined by the locality. Your point appears to be that your standards are right and everyone else is wrong (libertarians and "conservatives"). Why is your rather vague standard of "some form of clothing" the correct one?

(Note, I'm not saying that believing you are right and everyone else is wrong is an always incorrect position. I just want to know by what reasons you have come to that conclusion.)

I posit that any infringement on free speech (or exercise of religion, or RKBA etc) should be held to the strictest scrutiny. And this rather obviously fails that test.

[makattak]

I posit that any infringement on free speech (or exercise of religion, or RKBA etc) should be held to the strictest scrutiny. And this rather obviously fails that test.

So why are people required to wear clothes?

[Balog]

So why are people required to wear clothes?

It passes strict scrutiny? I would have thought that would be obvious. There is a sufficient justification, it is narrowly tailored, and the infringement is minimal. This law has none of those things.

[Perd Hapley]

It passes strict scrutiny? I would have thought that would be obvious. There is a sufficient justification, it is narrowly tailored, and the infringement is minimal. This law has none of those things.

How so?

[Balog]

How so?

How are anti-nudity laws able to pass strict scrutiny, or why does this one not?

On the first point: public nudity causes harm (I know Micro doesn't agree with this, but since you do I don't feel the need to expound), requiring some form of clothing is an obvious and long standing and (in Western civ.) universal requirement, it can be written in an extremely narrow way, it is easily and clearly enforceable, and it does the very least damage possible while preventing the harm.

Seeing someone's underwear causes no substantial harm (the "thinly veiled genitalia" argument is crap, as nothing on the books prevents someone wearing skin tight jeans that present outlines of genitalia far more obviously than sagging pants, nor are there laws against plumbers crack), it is vaguely written and allows for extremely selective enforcement, and it was obviously written for reasons other than those stated.

It's like the difference between requiring ID to vote, and having a literacy test to vote. One is acceptable and necessary, one is a thinly veiled attempt to harrass people local .gov does not like.

[makattak]

It passes strict scrutiny? I would have thought that would be obvious. (1)There is a sufficient justification, (2)it is narrowly tailored, and (3)the infringement is minimal. This law has none of those things.

(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?

[Seenterman]

Seeing someone's underwear causes no substantial harm (the "thinly veiled genitalia" argument is crap, as nothing on the books prevents someone wearing skin tight jeans that present outlines of genitalia far more obviously than sagging pants,

+100

If anything should be banned, its those gawd awful speedo banana hammocks that disgusting old men seem to LOVE at the beach. But I'm not about to try and legislate those away, they don't really bother me that much. Shouldn't banana hammocks be targeted first if this is really about "decency". I mean I can see the clearly see the outline of that guys junk, IN FRONT OF CHILDREN!!!  Or what about those sport bras women wear running, their pretty much ONLY wearing a bra!

This law is obviously aimed at "urban youths". I don't see any laws about "whale tails" will that be next, or is this law just an excuse to harass a specific subset of people.

[Perd Hapley]

Seeing someone's underwear causes no substantial harm (the "thinly veiled genitalia" argument is crap, as nothing on the books prevents someone wearing skin tight jeans that present outlines of genitalia far more obviously than sagging pants, nor are there laws against plumbers crack), it is vaguely written and allows for extremely selective enforcement, and it was obviously written for reasons other than those stated.

OK, what are the stated reasons, and what are the obvious ulterior motives?

Why wouldn't a law against nudity be enforceable, if a person is intentionally showing "crack"? Isn't that part of what nudity laws are meant to prohibit?

[Perd Hapley]

This law is obviously aimed at "urban youths". I don't see any laws about "whale tails" will that be next, or is this law just an excuse to harass a specific subset of people.

The specific subset who sag their pants? They should be "harassed."

If whale tail is showing, it's usually above the private parts, not around them.

[griz]

(2) How is "don't have your pants sagging to reveal your underwear" not narrowly tailored?

To me it seems way too vague.  Although I don't care for the new "style", the law seems to be written specifically to allow selective enforcement.  Combine that with the idea that guys drawers that are the only sort of underwear that is capable of offending, and I think it's a bad idea.

[roo_ster]

Also, honestly, I view the passing of this law (and similar) as a failure of society and civilization.

Adults should be grabbing kids by their ears and making them pull up their pants. Of course, we can't do that anymore because the adult would be arrested for assault.

Society, not government, should be enforcing modesty. The fact that it can't (I note that it's enforcement powers have been usurped by the government) is a failure that our culture will suffer harm for.

Standards (including some for dress) are part of living in a civilized and polite society.

Ayup.

Thing is, as more & more will not discipline themselves, folks will find other, less discriminating ways to impose some semblance of discipline.

[Perd Hapley]

Combine that with the idea that guys drawers that are the only sort of underwear that is capable of offending, and I think it's a bad idea.

I don't see anything indicating that women get a pass on this one. Does it only apply to males?

[MicroBalrog]

Ayup.

Thing is, as more & more will not discipline themselves, folks will find other, less discriminating ways to impose some semblance of discipline.

Hopefully such disciplinarians run into someone who is willing and able to 'discipline' them right back.

[Perd Hapley]

Discipline them about what? Protecting their rights from flashers?

[MillCreek]

Until I read this thread, I had no idea what a 'whale tail' was. Now, thanks to this thread and Google, I know. 

[MicroBalrog]

Discipline them about what? Protecting their rights from flashers?

Put it this way - remember the burqa comparison in this thread?

If you were traveling somewhere and were accosted by ruffians because your wife was not wearing a burqa, I know precisely what your response would be.

I see no difference between what you are suggesting and such ruffians.

[Perd Hapley]

I see no difference between what you are suggesting and such ruffians.

You refuse to see the difference, even though you know there at least two huge, gaping holes in your comparison.

But, yes, I agree that the problem is on your end.

[dogmush]

The specific subset who sag their pants? They should be "harassed."

I think this sums up Fistful on this subject right there.  Someone give him an M1 so he can practice the "Get off my Lawn!" line.

[MicroBalrog]

You refuse to see the difference, even though you know there at least two huge, gaping holes in your comparison.

But, yes, I agree that the problem is on your end.

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.

[griz]

I don't see anything indicating that women get a pass on this one. Does it only apply to males?

Haven't seen the text of the law, so I'm just going by the media's interpretation of it.  That's certainly fraught with danger.

 Anyway, my point was not that boys are prohibited from showing their drawers but girls aren't.  It's that this whole thing is about style.  Right now it is stylish for young women to wear outfits that show feet, not inches, of bra strap.  Other than preference, can anyone tell me how that is any different in principle than a young man displaying the top three inches of his boxers?

I just don't think our government should be in the position of deciding which fashion is legal.

[seeker_two]

OK, fistful....harass this....


http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7794.0;attach=7905;image


 

[MicroBalrog]

The dinosaur doesn't look like it's wearing pants at all - saggy or otherwise.

[Regolith]

The dinosaur doesn't look like it's wearing pants at all - saggy or otherwise.

Dinosaur? I don't see no stinking dinosaur...






(No, seriously, though, I didn't even notice Godzilla there in the background until you said something...)

[Seenterman]

If whale tail is showing, it's usually above the private parts, not around them.

What about the sports bra comparison? We can't have women running around wearing just bra's! Their not even wearing shirts!! How is that ok, but a little sag in your pants so people can see your boxers needs to legislated against!

Just look at the pic seeker posted, there's more nudity from her cleavage than from what you see when some guy lets their pants sag.

On second though, perhaps I agree with you. I say next we form a Cleavage Police, if there is more than 10% of your total BSA (breast surface area) is showing you get ticketed.


and then I apply for the position . . . . he he he