New Law in ATL Against Sagging Pants
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/..._sagging_pants


I'm all for this. I do have some first amendment concerns, but I think its worth it! What do you all think?

yeah, virginia tried this a while back, last year i believe, and it didnt last. i think it ended because people felt the saggy pants part targeted black youth/males, although the thong part of the law is universal if you ask me.

i dont really have an opinion one way or the other, i dont show my thongs, my hubby wears a belt, so we wont be affected in any way! it just boils down to a lack of home training/supervision.

As much as I hate the look of sagging pants, I can't condone legislating fashion faux pas. If the concern is that children see it and want to emulate it, then their mammas need to show them what's up. And as long as their business is COVERED, I really don't care. Even the jogging bras aren't any different than a bikini at the beach.

I'm not really sure how you can make any of those things illegal ... I mean, a jogging bra has more coverage than a bikini. :rolleyes:

I don't think the pants thing will work because it is targeting young black males.

But if it will stop girls from walking around with their bra straps hanging out...I'm all for it. IT'S CALLED A RACER BACK, PEOPLE, LOOK INTO IT.

Well, I see this as an attempt of the community to place some limits on what the young people are doing. Society has a way of determining what it will and will not tolerate and I think that while it seems like something like sagging pants isn't a big deal, it symbolizes a problem that is surfacing in the broader culture that is spreading. When the clothing issue first started a while ago there was a certain sense that it was simply the kids expressing themselves in that way and it would pass and yada yada yada. Instead what has happened is the kids have and are adopting a mentality that pretty much anything goes and that is not good.

With regard to parenting, yes, I agree that there are many parents who could do more and should be the first line of attack against their kids do that they shouldn't. But I also think that parents need help, especially when there are as many forces coming at the kids that the parents cannot control that well. Time have changed and the things kids face nowadays are much more threatening and widespread than they were years ago when parents had more control over the kids and there was more respect for authority among the kids. I know that there are parents who are doing all that they can to raise their kids right and STILL face battles trying to counteract the forces and trends that are out there.

Getting back to the law, I think you have to be careful when you legislate against certain things because of the constitution and what it provides regarding freedom or speech and expression, etc., but no rights under the constitution are absolute and there are times where the government can legislate against something normally deemed a constitutional right. I think the issues our community are facing call for more serious action. Not all things associated with "black culture" are all that good and there is a need for some measure of limitation or control over what goes on in our community. Just because the sagging pants came out of black culture (if that is even the case) doesn't mean it needs to stay a part of it or that it is great for our culture or our children or our community. If the legislators find that putting a stop to this will lead to the ability to better organize and lead our communities and children then I think its a good thing.

I really don't see this initiative as "targeting young black males" in the sense that it is derogatory and, therefore, should not be passed for that reason alone. The only analogy I can make here is that just because legislators have a particular group in mind when they enact a law does not mean they are invidiously targeting that group to enact a law that will oppress them. Legislators had white males in mind when they legislated against lynching or cross burning. The anti lynching or anti- cross burning laws were not enacted to OPRESS that group, but was to address a broader social problem. You can relate that same principle to this. They may have had black males in mind when they thought of the ordinance, but not to oppress them, rather to address a broader social problem that has resulted from their actions. Strange comparison, I know, but it was the first one that I thought of when I read the comments on this law targeting black males. Sometimes I think it helps to look at these things from both side to help realize how important flexibility in the law is. If white males had been able to claim that the anti lynching or cross burning laws should have been struck down simply because they unduly targeted them and infringed on their constitutional rights to speech and epxression (which they technically did, except for the lynching) those laws ever would have passed. It was the necessity of control that the laws addressed that caused them to stick. Now, sagging pants are in no way in the same realm as what was being caused by the acts of the lynchers and cross burners, but the legal principles are waht I am trying to highlight here.

As I said, regardless of the group who started the activitiy, if it is causing problems in the society, then society can and should address it.

-And, as with other aspects of "the culture" its no longer just black males who allow their pants to sag so I don't even think it would unduly target young black males at this point.

In any event, the law does not disallow regulations just because it will have a greater impact on a certain race or group of people. It must be shown that there was discriminatory intent when the law was passed that will cause it to be struck down. Here, I don't see discriminatory intent. It may not have passed or lasted in other states, but I think it may eventually stick if the problems the law seeks to address outweigh the threat the law poses to their constitutional rights, which is all that is needed for a law like this to pass. If its struck down, I don't think it will be on discrimination grounds. It will have to be struck down on other grounds because the discrimination just is not there, in my opinion.

why do i just KNOW you look in the back of Glamour shaking your head at
the black barred DON'Ts? :D


http://mirror21.video.blip.tv/Niccif...8-304-dont.jpgdoes anyone else find this offensive, because this is what that law would try to prevent...THANK GOD!

I've got no problem with the law. While it clearly is aimed at black teens, any ignant can wear his pants sagging in public, so it speaks to the issue not the person.

http://mirror21.video.blip.tv/Niccif...8-304-dont.jpg[/QUOTE]

Now I'm definitely against this. That thong is being asked to stretch like $5 two weeks from payday. that just ain't right.

Exactly. While seeing a young man's pants practically at his knees makes me want to beat him with my belt then make him wear it, to make it illegal is going overboard. The land of the free can't make you pay because your pants are sitting too many inches below your waist. That's just too much. And as far as racial profiling, I can't really speak on that. I'm from an extremely diverse area, so this is not something associated with Black teens to me--all boys wear their pants like this, no matter what they are. *shrug* But I can see how it can be construed as a racial attack (and rightfully so) in a not-so-diverse place like Atlanta, so I'll let others debate it out.

You think so? I guess it depends on your definitions, but still ...

Oh, I know that ATL has many cultures represented. I just mean that it'd be one thing if the city was such a melting pot that you couldn't say there was a specific race being targeted but, since Atlanta is known as "the Black Mecca," no one could really make that argument stick.

So you're using diverse to mean a how much different groups blend?

Legislating fashion is one of the more ridiculous things I have heard. I have NO problems with private and public schools being allowed to set standards for appropriate clothing, that makes sense. This is just dumb.

If parents are tired of seeing their 14-year olds aping these fashions then they need to make sure that little Susie isn't out there buying thongs with their money, not expecting a police officer to waste their time arresting, or more likely ticketing her, for being a fashion victim.

Waste of time and effort on legislation that would be about as effective as laws on the books banning the drinking of coca-cola on Sundays.

By diverse I mean how many cultures/races are represented vs. how many there are. Atlanta encompasses many cultures/races yet when people think "Atlanta" many, if not most, think "Black people." So while it may be "diverse" it does not always appear so to everyone.