Do I detect a trend? Wouldn't it be great says an entire, baffled generation . . .
An 8-8-07 AJC Political Insider post noted:
Last night, Julius Stroud of Monroe County, a military retiree, spoke for an entire, baffled generation.
He asked his county commission — think Forsyth, Ga., down I-75 way — for a prohibition on young men who can’t keep their pants pulled up. Stroud wants an amendment to the county’s indecent exposure law, according to today’s Macon Telegraph.
“When I see these young men with their pants down on their hips or lower with their boxer shorts showing, or sometimes the tops of their butts, I tell them to pull them up,” he said. “Most of them do. I’ve done it enough, they see me coming, they pull them up. But some don’t. They just look at you.”
Stroud didn’t say anything about punishment, but I’m thinking suspendered sentences.
Today the AJC under an article with the headline "Proposal would ban underwear-exposing pants" reports:
Exposed boxer shorts and thongs would be illegal in any public place in Atlanta if the City Council approves a proposed amendment to the city's indecency laws.
The proposed ordinance states that "the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments" would be unlawful in a public place.
Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, . . . said any legislation that creates a dress code would not survive a court challenge. She said there's no way the law could be enforced in a nondiscriminatory way. She said it targets a cultural phenomenon that came out of the black youth culture.
"This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling," Seagraves said.
Several cities have considered banning saggy pants but only one is known to have adopted a measure, Seagraves said. Delcambre, La., is the only city she knows of that passed such an ordinance. It carries a fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public, according to a description of it in Martin's proposed ordinance.
Last night, Julius Stroud of Monroe County, a military retiree, spoke for an entire, baffled generation.
He asked his county commission — think Forsyth, Ga., down I-75 way — for a prohibition on young men who can’t keep their pants pulled up. Stroud wants an amendment to the county’s indecent exposure law, according to today’s Macon Telegraph.
“When I see these young men with their pants down on their hips or lower with their boxer shorts showing, or sometimes the tops of their butts, I tell them to pull them up,” he said. “Most of them do. I’ve done it enough, they see me coming, they pull them up. But some don’t. They just look at you.”
Stroud didn’t say anything about punishment, but I’m thinking suspendered sentences.
Today the AJC under an article with the headline "Proposal would ban underwear-exposing pants" reports:
Exposed boxer shorts and thongs would be illegal in any public place in Atlanta if the City Council approves a proposed amendment to the city's indecency laws.
The proposed ordinance states that "the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments" would be unlawful in a public place.
Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, . . . said any legislation that creates a dress code would not survive a court challenge. She said there's no way the law could be enforced in a nondiscriminatory way. She said it targets a cultural phenomenon that came out of the black youth culture.
"This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling," Seagraves said.
Several cities have considered banning saggy pants but only one is known to have adopted a measure, Seagraves said. Delcambre, La., is the only city she knows of that passed such an ordinance. It carries a fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public, according to a description of it in Martin's proposed ordinance.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 9:30 AM
2 Comments:
But what a ponderous effect this would have on "gentlemen" who sit a bars and experience "plumber butt". We must always be wary of the law of unintended consequences.
This is very true. I did leave the last paragraph out of the PI post. It provides:
Commissioner Jim Ham perhaps had the most pertinent question: “Would this also cover plumbers?”
Post a Comment
<< Home