Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BlzerLet me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.
If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :) -
Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
wonder what size pants they buy? 32 x 12
My Fan Page http://theusualgamer.net/MyFanPage_Heelfan71.aspx
Heelfans Blog http://www.operationsports.com/Heelfan71/blog/
Comment
-
Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
I think you're just ignorant personally. You can't stop people from gathering just because they wear their clothes a certain way. Even if they wore their clothes like everyone else,the same group would be gathing. So that isn't gonna stop anything.You may think what I said is stupid, but this is the intent of the law. The law makers want to keep certain people/the perception of certain people off the streets. Whether these people are committing crimes or not, they present a certain stereotype that the communities don't want around. They either change their appearance or they go somewhere else.Comment
-
Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
Not saying I agree with it, but it will stop the "look" that they are trying to get rid of if people are really getting fined and have to pay it. I also don't think it fixes any problems or stops people from gathering. If it actually gets people to go somewhere else, all it does is move people somewhere else, doesn't fix anything.
What it does is move people out of the areas where the politicians who created/voted for the law to somewhere else. That is what they want to happen, they can take that back to the people who voted for them. It is all trying to create a perspective that look everything is fine, by just moving/making people go somewhere else.
I think in London there was a story a year or 2 ago they installed speakers to play a high pitched noise where only people under 25 could hear it. It would keep them away from areas where businesses didn't want them hanging out, creating a bad perspective and keep customers away.Comment
-
Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
Ive think youve just explained to yourself in this thread why the law is unconstutionalComment
-
Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
guys who wear proper fitting pants are infinite times more attractive IMOComment
-
Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
I still don't think it is unconstitutional because the law doesn't "directly" target any one group, it does indirectly, but that would have to be argued. It is enforcing indecency laws, so I don't think it would matter for the 1st Amendment, you don't have the right to walk around naked. The fines probably will be what does it in though.Comment
-
Re: Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge
It is unconstitutional because it directly infringes on one's right to free speech. The Supreme Court has held that the clothes one wears constitutes speech, as such a prohibition with criminal penalties on the clothes one wears (outside of a school setting) infringes on your 1st Amendment rights. Secondly, the fine is excessive, as such it violates the 8th Amendment as well.I still don't think it is unconstitutional because the law doesn't "directly" target any one group, it does indirectly, but that would have to be argued. It is enforcing indecency laws, so I don't think it would matter for the 1st Amendment, you don't have the right to walk around naked. The fines probably will be what does it in though.Comment

Comment