No Bigger Fish To Fry?
We should all be as lucky as Cocoa, FL, a place that's such a problem-free paradise that they have time for this nonsense:
COCOA — The city council passed a saggy-pants ordinance Tuesday night, but put off enforcement until Jan. 1.
The ordinance will ban pants or skirts that expose underwear or skin more than 3 inches below the waistline. It will only be enforced on streets, sidewalks and other designated city property.
[snip]
The first written citation would come with a civil fine of $25, following an initial verbal warning.
Really? They've got nothing better to worry about than this?
Look, I don't like young people either. I find their fads, especially the one targeted by this ordinance (if you're unclear, click on the link for the story, there's a picture representing it very well), obnoxious and distasteful.
But really. Just because I find something obnoxious and distasteful isn't a reason to fine it. It's not public nudity, it's not causing a disturbance, it doesn't cause any harm (except for to the dignity of the wearer). It's merely obnoxious and distasteful.
- Comment (87)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Does not a community have the authority to set its own decency standards and to determine the best method of enforcing those standards? I say levy the fine on the parents if the saggy pants wearer is a minor.
Nov '11
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Really? Decency standards?
Its just a fad and a stupid one. Is it worth fining people for their idiotic fads?
Sep '12
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Did you know that this fad is based on gang/prison culture? It isn't a fad alone, it is the context and the statement that is makes as well as it's just icky. This is what I learned here in Racine, Wisconsin from police who explained it to me after my son was randomly made victim of gang violence in his high schools' halls. I say, ban it!
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
I say you should go to a country that does not understand the word freedom.
Edited on November 1, 2012 at 4:01pmDec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Just a fad? How long do fads last? According to wiki (I know, bastion of good info) it's been a pop cultural thing since the '90s. Fads don't span generations.
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Ok, so we have free expression unless the message is icky. Gotcha
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Look, I think the bill of rights would have worked better had they stopped with "Congress shall make no law," but the truth is people in voluntary association in their communities have the authority to set standards of public behavior through their governments if the people believe other methods of controlling the behavior have failed.
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Foxman
Ok, so we have free expression unless the message is icky. Gotcha · 3 minutes ago
Free expression? Exactly what is being expressed?
Mar '11
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this. However, in exchange for the heavy hand of government, it'd be nice to see some opprobrium heaped upon this behavior by a public that feels offended enough to pass an ordinance but not so offended that they'll shame the person to his face.
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
The King Prawn
Foxman
Ok, so we have free expression unless the message is icky. Gotcha · 3 minutes ago
Free expression? Exactly what is being expressed? · 4 minutes ago
Did you read waht I was responding to : "it is the context and the statement that is makes as well" I can express solidarity with breast cancer victims with a pink ribbom (I think this has gotten out of hand, but that's another issue). I can express sympathy for those unjustly incarcerated by dressing like an idiot. it's in the constitution.
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Illiniguy
Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this. However, in exchange for the heavy hand of government, it'd be nice to see some opprobrium heaped upon this behavior by a public that feels offended enough to pass an ordinance but not so offended that they'll shame the person to his face. · 4 minutes ago
I think the behavior has been around long enough for shaming to have failed as a control mechanism. Plus, if the statement being expressed is "I'm a dangerous gang banger," then how much in your face shaming is wise?
Sep '12
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Hey Foxman, peace! It is part of gang culture. It isn't merely a fad. Some glorify gang violence with that statement. And some are in gangs who are glorifying their gang identities.
Added note: Nobody should be exposed to rear-end crackage for hygenic reasons. So, ick-factor is also important.
Foxman
Ok, so we have free expression unless the message is icky. Gotcha · 14 minutes ago
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Foxman
The King Prawn
Foxman
Ok, so we have free expression unless the message is icky. Gotcha · 3 minutes ago
Free expression? Exactly what is being expressed? · 4 minutes ago
Did you read waht I was responding to : "it is the context and the statement that is makes as well" I can express solidarity with breast cancer victims with a pink ribbom (I think this has gotten out of hand, but that's another issue). I can express sympathy for those unjustly incarcerated by dressing like an idiot. it's in the constitution. · 1 minute ago
Find me one young asshat expressing sympathy for the unjustly imprisoned and we'll talk. Until then, the argument is all hypothetical and not grounded in reality.
Dec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
When people sround my age (54) start complaining about the way youths dress today. I ask them for a picture of themselves circa 1976. Johnny Carson dressed like a clown back then.
Edited on November 1, 2012 at 4:35pmDec '10
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
The King Prawn
Foxman
The King Prawn
Foxman
? · 4 minutes ago
Did you read waht I was responding to : "it is the context and the statement that is makes as well" I can express solidarity with breast cancer victims with a pink ribbom (I think this has gotten out of hand, but that's another issue). I can express sympathy for those unjustly incarcerated by dressing like an idiot. it's in the constitution. · 1 minute ago
Find me one young asshat expressing sympathy for the unjustly imprisoned and we'll talk. Until then, the argument is all hypothetical and not grounded in reality. · 6 minutes ago
Right after you show the idealogical purity clause in the first amendment.
This is talking about our basic freedoms here people.
Becky, Please explain the the hygeine issues of showing rear cleavage. Are we going to call CDC in against plumbers? They do a lot of work in kitchens you know
Nov '11
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Well, lets call it a fashion then.
You find it distasteful, but is it harmful in any way?
I disagree with men wearing dress shirts with their suits in any color other than white. Can I get that banned?
Nov '11
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
You speak of the community, but its obviously not the whole community. If this is enough of a problem that nanny busybodies see the need to ban it, then its obviously more than a couple of people doing it. What about their standards?
It's not the whole community, its just a bunch of busybodies who find it distasteful and want to ban it. It's a tiny group of people imposing their will on everyone.
(Extrapolate that last bit if you dare.)
Nov '11
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
Not for nothing, but so what? The problem is with the gangs if they're engaging in crimes, not what people wear.
You can claim solid colors are a part of gang culture. You can claim, as the Schenectady school district did, that beads are a part of gang culture, banned them in the school, and got sued by a kid who got suspended for wearing a rosary in memory of his brother.
You may think the problem is gangs, and it may be, but these kinds of bans also catch up people just living their lives or trying to express themselves and not hurting anyone.
Edited on November 1, 2012 at 7:55pmApr '11
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
- Robert Heinlein
Jul '11
Re: No Bigger Fish To Fry?
@Fred - normally, I would support you - but this is a pretty small community voting on the subject. Free people have the right to come together and vote on things like these. You should see Boca Raton, the only city that has a re starbucks sign, in keeping with the city's aesthetic requirements. It's not for everyone, clearly, I don't live in Boca; but the people who live there keep voting for it.