Atlanta considers banning baggy pants and more...

ATLANTA - Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs would be illegal under a proposed amendment to Atlanta's indecency laws. The amendment, sponsored by city councilman C.T. Martin, states that sagging pants are an "epidemic" that is becoming a "major concern" around the country.

...

The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap, said Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

The proposed ordinance states that "the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments" would be unlawful in a public place. It would go in the same portion of the city code that outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals.

More...

Source: news.yahoo.com...

Are we turning into some type of religious extremist's? Were exactly are we headed?


[edit on 23-8-2007 by luis9343]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Gemwolf]

Martin, who is black, said he plans to hold public hearings and vet the proposal through churches

50 years ago, the churches would have been condoning such clothing long before the state did. I find this statement to be ironic and comedic and utterly ignorant in the extreme.

I can't see this actually being passed, it impedes on our freedoms.

Oh No! You can see someones underwear! You might go blind if you stare long enough.

Since when is clothes unbearable to look at? It's not like you can see their privates, you see the article of clothing that covers it. I can see it now "Don't look Timmy! Her sweater is showing!"

-Reform America

Wow, gutsy move.

Standing up for common decency is a seldom seen practice these days, I wish I could shake C.T. Martin's hand.

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
Wow, gutsy move.

Standing up for common decency is a seldom seen practice these days, I wish I could shake C.T. Martin's hand.

Couldent have said it better .... the baggy pants hanging halfway down is almost just as bad as the girls with the ultra short shorts and skirts.

Maybe I was raised differently then most of my generation but I just dont understand why alot of the kids I go to school with want to walk around looking like gangsta idiots. It really makes no sense to me.

I was raised that people act, be, and dress respectfully, but with that said, Regardless of what someone else does, if they are not hurting me, and or violating my individual rights, I have no rights to force my views or beliefs upon them. People we cant force our views or beliefs upon others, and still call this a free country, just mind your own business.

This attempt, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0le]

The way someone dresses is but a reflection on themselves through self expression...

Which just so happens to be protected under our 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

[edit on 8/25/2007 by Infoholic]

reply to post by C0le


Unlawful and unconstitutional? Isn't that uhmm... just a wee little bit overly dramatic there.

I doubt the founding Fathers felt obliged to include it in the Constitution that the right of the people to go around with their arse's hanging out will not be infringed on.

reply to post by C0le


agreed - but when soemone is walking around town, displaying their goods, so to speak, I would consider that imposing their beliefs on me.

As a civilized society of laws, we have to agree on some basic rules of conduct in public areas. Banning bra straps seems like overkill but making kids pull their pants up past their a*s-crack seems reasonable.

As an Atlantan, I can tell you that the issue is really divided on a generational basis, it's not a racial issue. I think everyone can agree that kids don't have the same reasoning capabilities as adults and need boundaries.

But seriously it seems that the world, and especially Atlanta, has more serious and sobering issues to be concerned with.

Sign of the Times

A State imposed dress code...

Good gawd!

...and people even on this website supporting the notion. :shk:

Let them wear their baggy pants and what not. What it does is gives me a warning to avoid that individual. Most people who dress that way are usually no good, maybe not all but most. So yeah I'd rather have that little bit of a warning.

Excellent point! At least you will know who the stupid people are as well!

WHY NOT MAKE EVERYONE WEAR BURKAS?

Why cant PARENTS control what their kids wear and teach them what is decent and what is indecent?

WHY does the State have to control what PARENTS should be doing.
SHAME ON THE PARENTS.

I live in a very ghetto-fied city, and the baggy pants are everywhere. I call them the weasel-people because they look like their torsos are twice as long as their legs.

I knew I was getting old when I found my lip curled in disgust and puzzlement the first time I saw this particular "fashion."

It's not like they are wandering around with their genitalia hanging out -- it's no worse than a bathing suit on a public beach with ill-fitting clothing thrown over the top.

It is an infringement of civil rights to try to make people wear clothing to someone else's standards. As ugly as the baggy pants and thong hanging out thing is, it's just a fad and will pass. Some of us (me included) may remember the hoo-raw that previous fashions caused, such as micro-mini skirts in the 60's, etc.

Ah, the generation gap. I'm sad to note that I'm now squarely on the "old fud" side of the divide,. But I still respect the youth's right to wear clothing that makes me laugh like a loon when kids try to get off the bus and their pants slide down to their knees exposing their large, name-brand boxers, and then they fall flat on their faces.

Please, Atlanta, don't take away one of my daily forms of entertainment. If kids want to look stupid, that's their right, just as it was mine to wear OP shirts, wooden platform shoes, and overly-flipped bangs plastered with hairspray.

The first ammendment doesn't say anything about plumber's crack.

The supremes began including practically every human behavior under the rubric of "speech," in order to de-construct the dominant culture.

Further, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . ." It doesn't say boo about the city of Atlanta doing what it was.

As a matter of fact, the Supremes have upheld the right of the local community to enforce it standing boundaries of common decency.


The underlying issue is this: there was a time in the West, when it was believed that the individual was a participant in the larger culture, and owed a debt of respect to the larger culture.

There was an axiom, which Brandeis began deconstructing, that every right comes with a corresponding obligation. For instance, if you have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers, then you have a corresponding duty to serve on such a jury.

However, in recent times, the concept of social duty has been discarded. "Legal Right" has been defined down to "I don't owe you nuthin' "

"Republic" comes from a Latin phrase, Res Publica, this public thing we share. The republic is dead on the day when any limit on personal misbehavior is met with the retort "I don' owe you nuthin' "

We no longer share anything. And so we see that history is the sound of hob-nailed boots marching up the staircase of empire, and silver slippers tiptoeing back down.

.

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
reply to post by C0le

 

Unlawful and unconstitutional? Isn't that uhmm... just a wee little bit overly dramatic there.

I doubt the founding Fathers felt obliged to include it in the Constitution that the right of the people to go around with their arse's hanging out will not be infringed on.

Yep, not everyone wants to see everyones arse, or more.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by C0le

 

agreed - but when soemone is walking around town, displaying their goods, so to speak, I would consider that imposing their beliefs on me.

I agree there, otherwise all of us would walk around just looking at the floor.

[edit on 8/25/2007 by andy1033]

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by C0le

 

As an Atlantan, I can tell you that the issue is really divided on a generational basis, it's not a racial issue. I think everyone can agree that kids don't have the same reasoning capabilities as adults and need boundaries.

An observer would take exception to that comment. Otherwise, all those adults with "reasoning capabilities" would be teaching their their kids what is appropriate or inappropriate to wear.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by jupiter869]

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


An issue which has not gotten nearly the attention is that a local city council in the Atlanta metro area has proposed banning citizens who have a license to carry a concealed weopon from doing so in city parks and recreation areas.

reply to post by jupiter869


Why? Because children always listen to their parents? Because all parents are good parents or responsible parents? I don't think so.

reply to post by kosmicjack


It sounds as if you are an advocate of the STATE taking over the roles of the parents in insuring children do what is right and wrong. Parents need to take a more active role in EVERY aspect of their children's lives. I see too many parents these days throw up their hands and say "children don't listen to their parents anyway, so why should I make an effort?"