Baggy Saggy Pants now Illegal in Dublin, Georgia

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-05/justice/georgia.baggy.pants.law_1_baggy-pants-dublin-residents-indecent-exposure?_s=PM:CRIME http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-05/justice/georgia.baggy.pants.law_1_baggy-pants-dublin-residents-indecent-exposure?_s=PM:CRIME

Should wearing baggy pants be made illegal? Yes! According to the mayor of Dublin, Georgia, Phil Best and presumably many of its residents, it is now a crime punishable by up to 200 dollars in fines.

The amendment to the municipality's indecent exposure ordinance prohibits the wearing of pants or skirts "more than three inches below the top of the hips exposing the skin or undergarments." Patrolling for offenders will be left to local police in the town about 140 miles southeast of Atlanta. Violators could face fines ranging from $25 to $200, or court-mandated community service.

"That's not our intent, we'd (rather) not fine anybody but we are prepared to," Best said.

The mayor said after about a year of fielding complaints, he put the city attorney to work researching how other localities have dealt with the derriere dilemma. The result was that council members decided to put exposure due to baggy clothing in the same category as masturbation, fornication and urination in public places.

Personally i think it's a trend that has captured the youth of today. It is for all practical purposes a fashion statement, a way for young people to express themselves among themselves.

However, many people especially older people find it offensive to display your underwear in public. Many schools have banned this dress style but it is prevalent on the streets of any town in America. It transcends race and economic status.

It may be offensive to some people but is it illegal? Are laws against public indecency to be decided by local ordinances or is there a national standard for indecency?

Is it a generational thing or is there something more sinister to it? Is it a way for young people to rebel against society? Are our morals under attack?

These are some of the questions that lawmakers and parents as well have to consider. Parents especially have to ask themselves is it okay for my child to dress like this? In the end however, the way one dresses is their own business. I find it hard to equate showing underwear with "masturbation, fornication and urination in public places" as laid out in the Dublin ordinance.

It may be offensive to some people but if no "private parts" are exposed how can it be considered "indecent"? Is there a basic difference between a bra and panties and a bikini? At the beach a bikini is completely acceptable attire. What if someone wore that same bikini and walked down the middle of main street, would that be considered indecent exposure? Or if someone stripped down to bra and panties at the pool, would that be considered indecent exposure?

I think there needs to be a distinction between "indecent" and "inappropriate". When schools and businesses set a dress code policy, they are well within in their rights to do so. When government tells people how they should dress in public, they are, in my opinion, trampling on people's right to free speech, protected by the Constitution. Just because you don't like how I dress does not give you the right to legislate away my right to dress as I see fit.

It may not be appropriate in some people's mind to expose your underwear but there is no indecency in doing that. I consider the KKK an inappropriate organization to join but it is protected under the Constitution.

Riviera Beach, Florida passed a ban against sagging pants in recent years, but the legislation was later declared unconstitutional after a court challenge. It remains to be seen if this ordinance in Dublin, Georgia gets challenged in court, but if it does, it will be the case to watch.

Keith Bardwell Resigns and Faces Lawsuit

In the face unanimous and universal condemnation from politicians to civil rights organizations, Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell did what everyone was telling him to do – he resigned. Read the background story here.

The office of Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne said it had received a statement from Mr Bardwell saying: “I do hereby resign the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009.”

Keith Bardwell was the JP who refused to marry an interracial couple in Louisiana because of his concern for the kids of such a union. He was unapologetic about his attitude and genuinely did not seem to realize what all the fuss was about, as seen in this interview with CBS:

Bardwell was first elected in 1975 as justice of the peace in Ponchatoula, La., a town 55 miles north of New Orleans. His term was set to run through 2014, and he had said that even before the flap, he hadn’t intended to run for re-election.

The couple Mr Bardwell refused to issue a license for – Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32 – have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against him.

“We’re saddened that it took national attention to this issue, which was decided back in 1967 by the Supreme Court, and also that it took public admonishment from other elected leaders in order for him to resign,” said Laura Catlett, a lawyer for Humphrey and McKay.

The Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal who had previously called for Bardwell to resign, said Bardwell made the right decision.

“What he did was clearly wrong and this resignation was long overdue,” the governor said in a statement.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said Bardwell’s refusal to marry the couple reflected terribly on the state.

“I am deeply disturbed by Justice Bardwell’s practices and comments concerning interracial marriages,” she said. “Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long.

“By resigning … and ending his embarrassing tenure in office, Justice Bardwell has finally consented to the will of the vast majority of Louisiana citizens and nearly every governmental official in Louisiana … We are better off without him in public service,” she said.

Catlett said the resignation won’t stop the lawsuit, which also names Bardwell’s wife as a defendant.

“This does not in any way change the fact that he, with his wife’s help, discriminated against an interracial couple while he was a public official,” Catlett said.

 

Follow me on Twitter

New York State Bans Texting

As of November 1, 2009, New York State's law against texting while driving went into effect. The new law forbids the use of mobile devices for reading, typing and sending text messages while driving. Fines can be as much as $150. It does not apply to GPS or "hands free" phone use.

It is however, only a secondary offense. That means that in order to be ticketed for texting, a primary offense such as speeding or disobeying a traffic signal must occur first. You cannot be pulled over and ticketed just for texting behind the steering wheel.

If that is a comfort to some diehard enthusiasts of the practice, consider this video below. Produced by the Gwent Police Department in Wales, it shows the bloody outcome of texting while driving. It is very graphic in nature but illustrates the possible hazards of distracted driving.

In total, 18 states plan to have texting-while-driving bans on the books by January, 2010. But only New York and Washington state have the bans listed as secondary enforcement.

"Secondary enforcement is really sending the wrong message to the public," said Judith Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. "It's basically saying this law is not that important."

Follow me on Twitter