It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atlanta considers banning baggy pants and more...

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I live in Ga, and No this supposed law brought up by religious groups will not pass.

Due to the racial make over of GA and specially the rap capital of the US Atlanta, this will be lobbied by very influential people in the entertainment business.

Rest assure that this is not the first time that it has been brought up before.

But the racial card will be pull out plus the civil liberties groups will intervene and nothing is going to happen.




posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
This stupidity WILL FAIL in the courts. Many towns have tried thgis and it always fails. Indecency is already defined by the Supreme Court and it involves overt sexual conduct or the showing of intimate body parts, not clothing lines and straps!!

It is a way for local politicians to placate the black ministers that are getting an earfull from the congrgants about how awful the youth look, etc. Just like all thru history. It will NEVER pass legal muster, never. No way. Obscenity was defined in court cases many years ago and there is no way that clothing that covers the nipples and genetalia can be called obscene.

To be obscene, an act must shock the conscience and cause the viewer to be offended to a degree that cannot be had by merely assuming that what is under the clothing is there; it must be seen to be obscene. For example, ' flipping off ' a cop may not be wise, but it is NOT illegal in any state, the federal courts have ruled. No gesture would be obscene unless it aroused ' prurient desires ' and rose to the level of inciting sexually indecent images in the minds of the observer.

This is Atlanta after all, predominately black and with a huge young population that wears the fashions of their culture. The preachers and conservative ' leaders ' in that community are always raving about the youth having bad examples and leaning toward the worst..but they fail to see the obvious: limiting clothing that does not reveal body parts is silly and accomplishes nothing.

Will Atlanta have the equivalent of the sharia police that they have in Iran ,etc., that go around whipping people for wearing clothes that they don't like? Will the police arrest ladies with the wrong bra on? Will the jails be full of those who wore the wrong pants out to a movie? Where does this stupidity end? If a person chooses to wear a thong why is that bad? Because to people who lust after the flesh, like most conservative mouthpieces, they see the hint of undies as a stimulating and sexual thing..sick as it may be.

Next they will ban lengerie models from store windows because anyone viewing them might think of BED time and BED means sex, right? That is what this is all about actually, the linking of sexuality to clothes. Certain clothes makes the old fogies think about ' nasty ' things and so they think that by outlawing certain things, that they will reduce the amount of sex that people will think about. Sex to them is a BAD thing, unles within marriage of course and with no frills!! Basic missionary or nothing is good enough for 'em!!.

This is a sick and twisted mindset that should be kaughed out of the first court in gets to, and it will. NO judge in their right minds would allow this case to go any further. It is patently illegal and unConstitutional; it is NOT OBSCENE to show clothing lines and types thru clothes. unless certain body parts are shown and inspire lewd and lacivious reactions from the observer, it is NOT obscene. End of story.

This is just more big brother nonsense and it will fail miserably in the courts, as it always does. Palm Beach has a law that no one can go topless on the streets; men included. They think that a mans bare chest is an affront to the Palm Beach moneyed matrons and so thet insist on shirts off of the beach. But even Palm Beach would never try and ban certian tyupes of underwear and what shows under clothes..it is ridiculous and doomed to fail. Why don't the righteous and morally perfect ninnies who support this idiocy get a life and leave the young people alone. Just because some old fogies think about sex whenever they see anyone not covered from head to foot does not mean that we all think that way.

God help the USA when the laws are used to deny expression and fashion in the name of ' decency ' even tho there is no flesh showing!! Amazing . How could any thinking person not see the obvious lunacy in such laws? If Atlanta has the money to burn on attorneys and such then go for it, but do not be suprosed when the first federal judge to hear this throws it out as unlawful prior restrain of free speech. Unless it is OBSCENE according to community standards, then it is legal. And anyone that thinks that the Atlanta area is a bastion of hometown values and apple pie America hasn't been there for a few decades!!

Bad laws; we have all we need and we need no more. Drop the phony indignity over a shapely young thing in a tight and sexy outfit and go back to your communities and fight for real change, like jhobs and housing and fighting bigotry. Let the silly side issues solve themselves without making new and repressive laws.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by I See You
Let them wear their baggy pants and what not. What it does is gives me a warning to avoid that individual. Most people who dress that way are usually no good, maybe not all but most. So yeah I'd rather have that little bit of a warning.

That is very true, I dident think of that


Even if you cant see them you sure can hear them and that is also a good way to notice their presence. Some of them truly are devoid of all morals and mannerism and this is coming from me a 19 year old.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
No way can I keep up with your circular arguments and maintain a logical debate.

However, I would urge you to re-read my posts and I think you will find that I did not advocate any such thing, implied or otherwise. However if the Atlanta city council wants to spend precious taxpaying dollars to protect me from butt-cracks, I would think them foolish (Just as foolish as the silly doopy-drawered kids!) but I won't be too distraught over it. I can't see that citizens would allow it to create much of a slippery slope. Besides, butt-crackers are not a protected class.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


Sorry to disagree with your statement but dress fads are nothing more than trends that young people seems to favor at certain times in the life as an expression of Independence and defiant to what is considered the norm.

My son and many other young men and women no necessarily black goes through the same stage and they chose what is best for them.

Tattooing, body piercing and many other forms of expressions should be banned along with baggy pants if it was considered damaging to society.

But the same way that tattooing and body piercing has been for centuries in this world it will be the trends made by young generations with each passing generation.

AT least my son now 21 is over and done with the piercing, not really the tattooing, but gone are the baggy pants.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack


Is this person infringing upon any of your individual rights?



[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0le]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I truly hope that this does not go through. It seems like every way I turn, there's some new politician trying to impede our rights and freedoms as citizens of the United States. First, no smoking, second, no alcoholic beverages, third, no loose clothing, next we'll all have to be wearing matching sets of clothing and all have the same hairstyle.


[edit on 25-8-2007 by MHSdefend]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Well, this is just a clothing fad anyways, and even though the pants-falling-off look effectively disgusts me, it will be gone soon enough. I shudder to think what could be next though, but I feel the laws in place regarding indecent exposure and such are fine to deal with whatever the next fad may be.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I agree that it is offensive to see the young men wearing their pants at their knees and showing their underware. I much prefer the tight jean look on men.
I am also offended when I see a female with her boobs exposed in an indecent manner being barely covered. As long as there are more men in political power than women we won't see any laws being passd against female exposure.
The first time my parents saw me in a T-shirt sans bra they looked at me as if I had commited the crime of the century.

IMHO a man wearing a 2 piece suit, long sleved shirt plus undershirt and a tie wrapped around his neck is not very smart. Since it is mostly government officals, preachers and car salesmen who wear suits...keep on earing them...it gives the rest of us a way to subdue you with your pretty tie around your neck.


Don't tell us how to dress Atlanta.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Couldent have said it better .... the baggy pants hanging halfway down is almost just as bad as the girls with the ultra short shorts and skirts.

Maybe I was raised differently then most of my generation but I just dont understand why alot of the kids I go to school with want to walk around looking like gangsta idiots. It really makes no sense to me.


freedom of choice
it doesn't have to make sense to you



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


congrats, very well put. This just disgusts me, its like when they blame say video games for murders, ridiculous. Hopefully your right and this doesn't get very far.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by luis9343]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by luis9343

congrats, very well put. This just disgusts me, its like when they blame say video games for murders, ridiculous. Hopefully your right and this doesn't get very far.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by luis9343]


no it is not at all the same thing

it's proven that music and video games do affect behavior, you cannot avoid it.

A brain surgeon once said he's been working with the brain for 30 years and he has yet to find anything that stimulates the brain more than music.

video games very much affects behavior and so does music.

but ya this law is stupid, perhaps they got inspired by sharia law



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I can remember kids sagging their pants back when I was in junior high. That was almost 15 years ago, so I don't think it could really be considered a fad. Though, I personally do not wear baggy, sagging clothes and whatnot, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that any level of government would ever try dictate how people may and may not dress (beyond our decency laws, of course).

Private businesses should have every right to impose their own dress code, the government should not.

What I want to know is how they would enforce this law. I'd love to watch that. You think they'd be writing tickets all over the place for every single person sagging their pants while hookers are strolling freely up and down Ponce? Ha, there are plenty of things for our cops to be concerned with, and making sure everyone is dressed nicely is not one of them.

Of course, proposed amendments such as this will not pass and aren't designed to do much more than cause some chatter. What a great way to make a name for yourself councilman C.T. Who? At least that's my theory anyways.

edit: grammar

[edit on 2007/8/28 by evilod]

[edit on 2007/8/28 by evilod]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Wow, what can I say. I believe clothing should be optional whenever you are outdoors or in public property. That's how I came into the world. Whether you believe god put me there or not I don't see the difference. We all came into the world that way. HOW can they legislate anything to the contrary?

Needless to say I disagree with the ordinance change.

Vas



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by I See You
Let them wear their baggy pants and what not. What it does is gives me a warning to avoid that individual. Most people who dress that way are usually no good, maybe not all but most. So yeah I'd rather have that little bit of a warning.


I second the motion.

Freedom of expression is on one hand, a wonderful way to nonverbally communicate oneself to the outside world. It's also a great way to let an impoverished (insert various connotations here) individual "express" him or herself when they can't find a nice, congenial verbal response to things they are going through.

Besides, my friends and I have had endless hours of fun in our youth flipping quarters and pennies into the butt cracks of offenders.

It's loads of fun.

But as far as this ordinance, oh phooney on it all!

Bra straps? That's going a bit puritanical, and sounds to me like the lawgivers have some personal issues they're trying to compensate for under the guise of law making.

Silly, just silly.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
In 2020, you'll see Atlantian females wearing the Christian version of Burka's I guess :p

Man, I sure hope this type of idiotic laws isn't what lawmakers waste their time with in the US these days.

Baggy pants never killed anyone, sports bra's might if you consider the men drooling at a girl wearing a sports bra crashing into another car :p

They people act asif there aren't already enough silly laws still registered all over the world.

Check out this site for some doozies:

www.dumb.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   
LOL... i thought they were banning baggy pants cause they always seem to contain weapons.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If you owned your own business, whould you hire an individual who can to the interview with their pants half-way down?

No you wouldn't. Dressing like that shows most business owners that the individual would not take a job seriously. The jobs which are availible to these individuals are the Wal-Marts, K-marts, etc. No "corporation' would find this exceptable (maybe there are a few.....just a few.....like programming).

If people do not present themsleves properly, it affects their standing, dressing right provides a 'professionalism' which can help people our of their current status.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Well we know why everyone on 'Star Trek' wore the same thing all the time, to stop arguments.
Come up with a glitzy 'uniform' and there you go. Everyone's the same.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
people who insist on dressing like they are trashy with the desire to be thought of as such, deserve the attention they get.

putting a law in place will do nothing at all but invent some other way to push the envelope.

its funny though: these men that weir their pants with the boxers showing don't seem to know that they are participating in a known prison behavior that stands as an open invite for homosexual activity.

women do it for the same attention, so they shouldn't be too shocked when dozens of men want to talk to them because of their choice of clothing.

no mystery there.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join