Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
suggest you research NYC and its salt ban, and the large soda ban
A 16 oz. soda IS a large soda and you can buy as many of them as you like and there is no salt ban.If anyone in NY has been arrested for using salt feel free to enlighten us with a link to the story.
Yes, and I noted that there was another Supreme Court decision that ruled that wearing the American flag can be 'protected speech', which would extend to wearing black arm bands (at a school, in a protest), again as 'protected speech'.
However, I would suggest that the mere wearing of saggy jeans, for instance, in an ordinary setting (i.e., not in school, not as part of a protest) may not be considered 'protected speech'.
Mind: I am not saying that this ordinance is, or is not, Constitutional. I am interesting in seeing how people 'think' about such issues.
Recall the famous statement that "Free speech does not extend to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater".
Likewise, while some clothing can be 'protected speech' (depending on content and circumstances) other clothing may not be protected speech.
For instance, "no shirts, no shoes, no service" is commonly seen. Do you think that a person has a 'first amendment' right to wear no shirt or shoes into a restaurant? Is that 'protected speech'.
I note that one of the leading Supreme Court cases is this: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). The petitioner had appeared in a courtroom wearing a jacket with the logo "F*** the Draft". The Court found that the State could not arrest said individual based on the 'content' of his 'speech'. Note that in this case the individual was at risk of jail time (which can also make a difference on how the Court views cases).
Some would say has long has their genitles are covered its their right. its also the right of people thru elected official to make rules ;which is what this is. The rules by representation often overrules the individuals. Use to be people basically did this without government but that has changed it seems.
Yes, and I noted that there was another Supreme Court decision that ruled that wearing the American flag can be 'protected speech', which would extend to wearing black arm bands (at a school, in a protest), again as 'protected speech'.
However, I would suggest that the mere wearing of saggy jeans, for instance, in an ordinary setting (i.e., not in school, not as part of a protest) may not be considered 'protected speech'.
Mind: I am not saying that this ordinance is, or is not, Constitutional. I am interesting in seeing how people 'think' about such issues.
Recall the famous statement that "Free speech does not extend to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater".
Likewise, while some clothing can be 'protected speech' (depending on content and circumstances) other clothing may not be protected speech.
For instance, "no shirts, no shoes, no service" is commonly seen. Do you think that a person has a 'first amendment' right to wear no shirt or shoes into a restaurant? Is that 'protected speech'.
I note that one of the leading Supreme Court cases is this: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). The petitioner had appeared in a courtroom wearing a jacket with the logo "F*** the Draft". The Court found that the State could not arrest said individual based on the 'content' of his 'speech'. Note that in this case the individual was at risk of jail time (which can also make a difference on how the Court views cases).
I would be interested in any and all thoughts.
These kinds of laws or ordinances have nothing to do with free speech. This isn't about sexually provocative clothing. The sagging style was popular when I was in high school over 20 years ago.
That style of dress really became popular after Kriss Kross released that song Jump, those kids wore huge shirts and pants backwards and I remember at the time people thought it was cute and silly, but not criminal.
Now some want to pretend that this style of dress that has been around for over 2 decades is just now being noticed as being offensive. LOL
Look ordinances like this are used to specifically target certain groups of people who usually don't have much political or social power for increased police scrutiny and harassment, and it criminalizes behavior that isn't criminal.
Anything else is just people flapping their gums about nonsense.
"Obama, speaking just prior to the 2008 election appeared on MTV and stated that laws banning thepractice of wearing low-slung pants that expose one's underwear were "a waste of time". However, he did follow that up with the statement: "Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. Some people might not want to see your underwear. I’m one of them."
Many municipalities/school districts ban sagging pants:
These kinds of laws or ordinances have nothing to do with free speech. This isn't about sexually provocative clothing. The sagging style was popular when I was in high school over 20 years ago.
That style of dress really became popular after Kriss Kross released that song Jump, those kids wore huge shirts and pants backwards and I remember at the time people thought it was cute and silly, but not criminal.
Now some want to pretend that this style of dress that has been around for over 2 decades is just now being noticed as being offensive. LOL
Look ordinances like this are used to specifically target certain groups of people who usually don't have much political or social power for increased police scrutiny and harassment, and it criminalizes behavior that isn't criminal.
Anything else is just people flapping their gums about nonsense.
Good, it will keep some of the riffraff off the boardwalk. I live by this place and it is INFESTED with gangster wannabes causing trouble.
These kinds of laws or ordinances have nothing to do with free speech. This isn't about sexually provocative clothing. The sagging style was popular when I was in high school over 20 years ago.
That style of dress really became popular after Kriss Kross released that song Jump, those kids wore huge shirts and pants backwards and I remember at the time people thought it was cute and silly, but not criminal.
Now some want to pretend that this style of dress that has been around for over 2 decades is just now being noticed as being offensive. LOL
Look ordinances like this are used to specifically target certain groups of people who usually don't have much political or social power for increased police scrutiny and harassment, and it criminalizes behavior that isn't criminal.
Anything else is just people flapping their gums about nonsense.
Thanks for your reasoning.
I suspect you are right: that this ordinance is more about 'specifically targeting' a group of people (which, I note, at least one other poster mentioned).
That would take us out of the 'first amendment' realm and into the 'fourteenth's equal protection' clause.
So! Let us imagine Kate Upton (above) walking down this Boardwalk in the swimsuit that she is wearing so well.
Now, coming the other direction, is a young male, wearing saggy jeans that show 3 inches of his underwear in back (as per said ordinance, if I recall rightly).
The Boardwalk Police ogle Ms. Upton, but give the young male a ticket for failure to abide by the local ordinance.
I do not see any rational basis for the distinction.
Hence, I think a civil rights group may well have a basis for a lawsuit against the city.
However, there may be arguments that are being overlooked. Let us see what others have to say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
