Posted on 05/20/2010 3:29:56 PM PDT by JoeProBono
HORN LAKE, Tenn.- Officials in a Tennessee town said they are working on a new ordinance to ban locals from wearing their pants low enough to reveal underwear or bare backsides.
Horn Lake Mayor Nat Baker and members of the board of aldermen said they have seen recent increases in men wearing their pants in the saggy fashion, leading them to seek a ban in the form of an ordinance, The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal reported Thursday.
"There have been ordinances like this upheld across the country, and in talking with the city attorney, I think we can draw up something that can be upheld in court," Baker said.
"They need to pull their pants back up to where they should be," Baker said. "It's getting out of hand."
Officials did not reveal possible penalties for violations of the ban.
I am someone who likes personal freedom, what you want to label that is up to you.
What I find disgusting is how they have to hold up their pants from the front to be able to move without the pants falling completely to the ground, it's like men out in public constantly fondling themselves.
Well if you can justify people walking the streets with in their underwear, why not nude? The constitution doesn’t say anything about that either (to show the fallacy of that argument).
Of course nudity is not accepted in this society. But these clowns are not nude, that is the difference. Where do we draw the line? How many laws do you want to make as to what people wear and how they wear clothes? Don’t we have enough government and laws? There are some countries in the middle east that regulate this type of thing, I don’t want to go down that path.
So far so good. Now we need a law to keep youths offa my lawn.
Yeah, some things should be against the law but there shouldn’t be any laws so ridiculous.
I don’t think there needs to be a law about it. Continual scathing mockery by onlookers should do the trick. Some things are better fixed by social or cultural means than by litigation.
I think wearing baggy pants is a big “F you” from young black men to older black men, who tend not to appreciate the fashion very much. They’re rubbing their faces in their powerlessness to do anything about it.
You sound like a liberal, wanting to control others.
There is nothing obscene or unsafe about these ugly clothes.
I’m sure you won’t mind your daughter and her little teenage friends walking around in in g-strings and a see through tops.
I am not the govenment; I am the father.
I don’t want the government to my daughters’ father.
So it’s OK though if the mall are filled with girls in g-string and see through tops. It’s OK for you to sit on your front porch naked as a jaybird waving to the ladies. It’s OK leave your deceased relatives hanging from meathooks in your driveway? It’s OK for teachers to extol the wonders of pedophilia to schoolkids? It’s OK for the numbnuts with saggy pants to all park in front of your house with their car stereos blasting at 120dB at 2:00AM?
“So it’s OK though if the mall are filled with girls in g-string and see through tops.”
I would not go to such mall, no. Nor my family. It would up to the mall to enforce its dress code.
“It’s OK for you to sit on your front porch naked as a jaybird waving to the ladies.”
No, as that would violate very clear indecency standards.
“It’s OK for teachers to extol the wonders of pedophilia to schoolkids? “
That would be a government (presumably) actor, which the government has a right to control, so, no I would not approve of your dream to pass out nake pictures of yourself to little boys.
“It’s OK for the numbnuts with saggy pants to all park in front of your house with their car stereos blasting at 120dB at 2:00AM?”
That’s disturbing the peace. A completely different issue, again.
You’re clearly not a serious person, so good-bye.
Oh I see. So it’s up to you to determine what is acceptable and what is worth “controlling people” over? Noise ordinances - good. No nakedness in public - Good. No walking around in underwear with your ass hanging out - BAD.
Glad we settled that.
Except for dead people on meathooks. Of course, you’d be just controlling people if you are against it.
The line is pretty clear for anyone serious -— when someone is only hurting themselves, the government historically did not get involved.
Well, until nanny-staters like you got control.
I am sure you will love the snazzy Mao uniform Obama will have for you. Very conservative!
(Re: Meat hooks, BTW, that’s a public nusance and health hazard, among other things.)
You know nothing of our history then. In Jefferson’s Virginia, you would have been flogged if you walked around in public in your skivvies. In Adam’s Massachusetts and most of early America, shops were required to be closed on sundays. What a bunch of nazis, eh?
They would have laughed at the village idiots with their pants too low, not wasted tax money putting them in jail for bad fashion sense.
Yeah right. In a country that did not let women even vote (too bad that changed) with states that outlawed buggering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.