What do you think- is this new law racially motivated

[Beka]

and purposefully discriminatory towards certain cultural communities?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6751777.stm


Low-slung trousers are fashionable among some young people
A mayor in the US state of Louisiana says he will sign into law a proposal to make wearing saggy trousers an act of indecent exposure.
Delcambre town council unanimously passed the ordinance earlier this week making it a crime to wear trousers that show underwear

(must admit my initial reaction was "hurrrrah can England outlaw the wearing of jeans so tight it gives people 4 buttocks and a T-bar fully visible thong line" )

[Jeri]

I don't think so - but only because pretty much all young guys, regardless of race, wear them that way. I do think it's a waste of money and an invasion of personal freedom - and very well could be racially motivated in La.

[Lori]

I do think it's a waste of money and an invasion of personal freedom - and very well could be racially motivated in La.

I agree. I see no reason to consider exposing underwear an act of indecency. It seems like a very unnecessary law. I see a huge difference between somebody walking around with no pants on and somebody showing some underwear. Honestly, if a guy wants to walk around with his boxers on, as long as his penis isn't hanging out, I see no reason to consider it legally indecent. A restaurant shouldn't have to serve him, and private establishments should have the right to have whatever dress codes they want, but this sounds more like older people punishing younger people for participating in a fad they don't like.

[Jo]

Here is the actual ordinance:
The ordinance states, "It shall be unlawful for any person in any public place or in view of the public to be found in a state of nudity, or partial nudity, or in dress not becoming to his or her sex, or in any indecent exposure of his or her person or undergarments, or be guilty of any indecent or lewd behavior."
http://www.knbc.com/news/13496108/detail.html

I need to go think about this after I get 2 more kids dressed. I'll be back later.

[Lori]

Here is the actual ordinance:
The ordinance states, "It shall be unlawful for any person in any public place or in view of the public to be found in a state of nudity, or partial nudity, or in dress not becoming to his or her sex, or in any indecent exposure of his or her person or undergarments, or be guilty of any indecent or lewd behavior."
http://www.knbc.com/news/13496108/detail.html

I need to go think about this after I get 2 more kids dressed. I'll be back later.

That seems like an awfully broad and potentially repressive law. I mean, if the arresting officer and judge think pants aren't becoming to women, can they cite me for walking around in jeans? And, who decides what a decent or indecent exposure of undergarments is? If I put on granny panties with pants that sit below my waist, and my underpants show when I bend over, can I get written up?

It's seems like an overly broad, highly subjective ordinance that I can't imagine is constitutional.

[Beka]

Thanks for that Jo- we just got the jist of it from the BBC site so it's interesting to see the full article.

Lori i gleened the same aspect from it as yourself, technically this law would allow them to prevent women wearing trousers and jeans if those in authority have a more conservative pre-feminist revolution world view.

[Jeri]

or in dress not becoming to his or her sex

In this case, i think it's more likely to be a sexist/homophobic law

[Kristen]

I don't think so - but only because pretty much all young guys, regardless of race, wear them that way. I do think it's a waste of money and an invasion of personal freedom - and very well could be racially motivated in La.

I was just going to come on here and say that where I live, pants that don't reach up to your butt cheeks are worn by people of every nationality! :p There aren't a lot of minorities in my immediate neighborhood, but I've seen more than my fair share of checkered boxers since we've lived here. Maybe it's different in La?