Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2013, 10:38 AM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,664,523 times
Reputation: 2225

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
I always find funny is the wearing flipflops with socks
LOL me too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2013, 10:43 AM
 
12,265 posts, read 6,466,132 times
Reputation: 9430
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 10:53 AM
 
13,684 posts, read 9,003,085 times
Reputation: 10405
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
First amendment

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 11:09 AM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,816,250 times
Reputation: 18304
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 11:11 AM
 
4,837 posts, read 4,165,843 times
Reputation: 1848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
Not when she was in her 20's. She did not get sloppy fat until she started getting drugged up and passed between the Kennedys like a prostitute.
Incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 11:15 AM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6031
people have a problem with seeing someone's rear end on a boardwalk ?

kind of reminds me of the last time i went to the beach and saw a girl in something like this


complaining about someone sagging/seeing to much skin.

Last edited by picmod; 01-10-2014 at 03:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 11:16 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,294,075 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,707,495 times
Reputation: 20674
"Obama, speaking just prior to the 2008 election appeared on MTV and stated that laws banning the practice 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:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagging_(fashion)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 11:34 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,447,180 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 11:38 AM
 
13,684 posts, read 9,003,085 times
Reputation: 10405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top