Post by outgirl on May 8, 2004 0:13:02 GMT -5
Get Serious!
Senator Targets Sagging Pants w/ A New Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill takes a crack at wearers of low-riding pants
www.dailypress.com/featur...columnists
Tony Gabriele
Time now for that exciting journalism feature you all didn't know you were waiting for, "Underpants in the News."
We are referring, of course, to underpants as a constitutional issue.
The First Amendment, as you know, guarantees freedom of religion, a free press and free speech. Now the question has arisen, does it also guarantee a free show of your skivvies?
The question has been raised in Louisiana, where a state legislator has introduced a bill that would require Louisianans to keep their pants up.
According to the Associated Press, state Rep. Derrick Shepherd declared last week that he is sick and tired of seeing young people walking around in low-slung pants that expose their boxers, or thongs, or whatever they are or are not wearing underneath, and he wants the majesty of the law to stop it.
"If parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there ought to be a law," Shepherd was quoted as saying. His bill, an amendment to Louisiana's obscenity law, would allow fines of up to $500, and maybe even jail time, for those whose low-riding pants unduly expose their "intimate clothing." Or skin where their intimate clothing should be.
You will not be surprised to hear the local American Civil Liberties Union folks take a dim view of this. Joe Cook, the ACLU's head guy in Louisiana, told the AP he doubts showing off the top couple inches of your Fruit of the Looms would fit any constitutionally allowable definition of obscenity.
The ACLU, of course, considers just about any human expression, including Jell-O wrestling and intestinal gas, as constitutionally protected free speech. But Cook did make another striking point:
What, he asked, about all those plumbers and repairmen?
Many a workman, his tool belt tugging at his trousers as he bends over in the course of his honest toil, has been known to thereby reveal his taste in underpants fashions, or even expose a portion of his, um, hips.
Would these good, hardworking folk become lawbreakers in the state of Louisiana?
Which leads to the reason I have a personal concern in this matter.
Now, I don't go around wearing youthful, fashionable pants of low-slung design. I have studiously avoided wearing any stridently fashionable clothing since 1973, when I confess to having appeared in public wearing bell-bottom pants and a Quiana shirt. (I have been penitent about this ever since. Especially since there may be photographs, which could be used to blackmail me.)
Nonetheless, I do have some trouser issues.
At my age, a man tends to have a broader waistline than recommended by your major clothing designers. Some men deal with this by keeping their belt cinched tightly, creating the ever-popular belly-hanging-over-the-belt-buckle look.
Others, such as myself, decide to loosen the belt a notch and continue breathing. However, then the belt line becomes subject to gravity. Instead of remaining at the belly's equator, it tends to slide down into the southern hemisphere. And there I am, an inadvertent low-rider.
Most of the time, underpants exposure is blocked by the shirttail that has simultaneously slipped out of my pants. But I envision a scenario in which I am visiting Louisiana, which I am told is hot and humid, so I am wearing a light, airy shirt, which gets wafted upward by a breeze off the Mississippi at just the wrong moment when my pants have slipped downward and a policeman is walking by. And I am haled before a judge bent on making an example of out-of-staters who flout the obscenity law by flaunting their undies.
Imagine the shame: convicted in Louisiana of both flouting and flaunting.
Sorry if that sounds paranoid, but I saw "Cool Hand Luke" at an impressionable age, which left me with an unreasoning fear of any involvement with the Louisiana criminal justice system.
So while I sympathize with Rep. Shepherd's dismay at bad fashion, his bill probably would be unconstitutional. And even if it weren't, the proposed punishment is way too harsh.
Instead of criminalizing insufficient trouserage, perhaps public-spirited citizens could assemble peaceably (the First Amendment does provide for that), approach the offender, and chant: "I see London, I see France, I see Mary's underpants."
And if I ever do go to Louisiana, I'll play it safe and wear suspenders. I can do that, since I believe they're no longer fashionable.
Tony Gabriele can be reached at 247-4786 or by e-mail at tgabriele@dailypress.com
Copyright © 2004, Daily Press
Senator Targets Sagging Pants w/ A New Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill takes a crack at wearers of low-riding pants
www.dailypress.com/featur...columnists
Tony Gabriele
Time now for that exciting journalism feature you all didn't know you were waiting for, "Underpants in the News."
We are referring, of course, to underpants as a constitutional issue.
The First Amendment, as you know, guarantees freedom of religion, a free press and free speech. Now the question has arisen, does it also guarantee a free show of your skivvies?
The question has been raised in Louisiana, where a state legislator has introduced a bill that would require Louisianans to keep their pants up.
According to the Associated Press, state Rep. Derrick Shepherd declared last week that he is sick and tired of seeing young people walking around in low-slung pants that expose their boxers, or thongs, or whatever they are or are not wearing underneath, and he wants the majesty of the law to stop it.
"If parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there ought to be a law," Shepherd was quoted as saying. His bill, an amendment to Louisiana's obscenity law, would allow fines of up to $500, and maybe even jail time, for those whose low-riding pants unduly expose their "intimate clothing." Or skin where their intimate clothing should be.
You will not be surprised to hear the local American Civil Liberties Union folks take a dim view of this. Joe Cook, the ACLU's head guy in Louisiana, told the AP he doubts showing off the top couple inches of your Fruit of the Looms would fit any constitutionally allowable definition of obscenity.
The ACLU, of course, considers just about any human expression, including Jell-O wrestling and intestinal gas, as constitutionally protected free speech. But Cook did make another striking point:
What, he asked, about all those plumbers and repairmen?
Many a workman, his tool belt tugging at his trousers as he bends over in the course of his honest toil, has been known to thereby reveal his taste in underpants fashions, or even expose a portion of his, um, hips.
Would these good, hardworking folk become lawbreakers in the state of Louisiana?
Which leads to the reason I have a personal concern in this matter.
Now, I don't go around wearing youthful, fashionable pants of low-slung design. I have studiously avoided wearing any stridently fashionable clothing since 1973, when I confess to having appeared in public wearing bell-bottom pants and a Quiana shirt. (I have been penitent about this ever since. Especially since there may be photographs, which could be used to blackmail me.)
Nonetheless, I do have some trouser issues.
At my age, a man tends to have a broader waistline than recommended by your major clothing designers. Some men deal with this by keeping their belt cinched tightly, creating the ever-popular belly-hanging-over-the-belt-buckle look.
Others, such as myself, decide to loosen the belt a notch and continue breathing. However, then the belt line becomes subject to gravity. Instead of remaining at the belly's equator, it tends to slide down into the southern hemisphere. And there I am, an inadvertent low-rider.
Most of the time, underpants exposure is blocked by the shirttail that has simultaneously slipped out of my pants. But I envision a scenario in which I am visiting Louisiana, which I am told is hot and humid, so I am wearing a light, airy shirt, which gets wafted upward by a breeze off the Mississippi at just the wrong moment when my pants have slipped downward and a policeman is walking by. And I am haled before a judge bent on making an example of out-of-staters who flout the obscenity law by flaunting their undies.
Imagine the shame: convicted in Louisiana of both flouting and flaunting.
Sorry if that sounds paranoid, but I saw "Cool Hand Luke" at an impressionable age, which left me with an unreasoning fear of any involvement with the Louisiana criminal justice system.
So while I sympathize with Rep. Shepherd's dismay at bad fashion, his bill probably would be unconstitutional. And even if it weren't, the proposed punishment is way too harsh.
Instead of criminalizing insufficient trouserage, perhaps public-spirited citizens could assemble peaceably (the First Amendment does provide for that), approach the offender, and chant: "I see London, I see France, I see Mary's underpants."
And if I ever do go to Louisiana, I'll play it safe and wear suspenders. I can do that, since I believe they're no longer fashionable.
Tony Gabriele can be reached at 247-4786 or by e-mail at tgabriele@dailypress.com
Copyright © 2004, Daily Press
