Comments on: Baggy pants ban “unconstitutional,” rules US judge http://elmonteblog.com/2008/09/17/baggy-pants-ban-unconstitutional-rules-us-judge/ Federal, State, and Local Politics Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:11:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: DeNaye Mack, East http://elmonteblog.com/2008/09/17/baggy-pants-ban-unconstitutional-rules-us-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-4636 DeNaye Mack, East Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:10:39 +0000 http://elmonteblog.com/2008/09/17/baggy-pants-ban-unconstitutional-rules-us-judge/#comment-4636 This was a bad move because its a case of "slippery slope," if they can make a law against baggy pants, they could ban people from wearing black on Tuesdays or make fines for cleavage. Dumb stuff like that. Like Tiffeny said I thought that in America we are suppose to have freedom of expression, the government shouldn't tell people what they can and can not where, unless they can some how prove that it will cause a breach in peace. Which would fall under the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment. For example, yelling bomb in an airport is a First Amendment exception because it can be potentially dangerous. Baggy pants are only potentially dangerous to the person who's wearing them because they might trip and fall on their face or somehow have an embarrassing situation where their pants fall to their ankles. Just because I despise the sock and sandals look doesn't mean I'm going to create a petition to make it against the law. Even its a horrible crime against my vision. =/ This was a bad move because its a case of “slippery slope,” if they can make a law against baggy pants, they could ban people from wearing black on Tuesdays or make fines for cleavage. Dumb stuff like that. Like Tiffeny said I thought that in America we are suppose to have freedom of expression, the government shouldn’t tell people what they can and can not where, unless they can some how prove that it will cause a breach in peace. Which would fall under the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment. For example, yelling bomb in an airport is a First Amendment exception because it can be potentially dangerous. Baggy pants are only potentially dangerous to the person who’s wearing them because they might trip and fall on their face or somehow have an embarrassing situation where their pants fall to their ankles. Just because I despise the sock and sandals look doesn’t mean I’m going to create a petition to make it against the law. Even its a horrible crime against my vision. =/

]]> By: Tiffeny Chang http://elmonteblog.com/2008/09/17/baggy-pants-ban-unconstitutional-rules-us-judge/comment-page-1/#comment-4569 Tiffeny Chang Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:48:53 +0000 http://elmonteblog.com/2008/09/17/baggy-pants-ban-unconstitutional-rules-us-judge/#comment-4569 Thats stupid. Sagging your pants doesnt harm anybody. It doesnt hurt or distract anyone. By starting this law, the state is taking away freedom of expression. How is America called a "free country" if a person isnt even allowed to wear their pants the way they want? Thats stupid.
Sagging your pants doesnt harm anybody. It doesnt hurt or distract anyone.

By starting this law, the state is taking away freedom of expression. How is America called a “free country” if a person isnt even allowed to wear their pants the way they want?

]]>