RON PAUL suspends his campaign. You should see the level of ...self denial Ron paul people are in.
Oh, I'd believe it. There is a hell of a lot of denial that one has to be in just to support the mad old coot in the first place, it's not that much of a stretch.
1) I think saggy pants are stupid. 2) Things that are stupid are not necessarily illegal. 3) Dress is a form of speech. 4) This speech did not present a clear and present danger to anyone. 5) This judge should stick his head up his ass.
1) I think saggy pants are stupid. 2) Things that are stupid are not necessarily illegal. 3) Dress is a form of speech. 4) This speech did not present a clear and present danger to anyone. 5) This judge should stick his head up his ass.
1) I think saggy pants are stupid. 2) Things that are stupid are not necessarily illegal. 3) Dress is a form of speech. 4) This speech did not present a clear and present danger to anyone. 5) This judge should stick his head up his ass.
In what way is showing your underwear a form of speech? It's not like he's wearing a t-shirt that says "judges suck!" or anything like that. Granted, I think jail is a bit harsh for this, but a warning to "pull your pants up" followed by a relatively small fine if he did not comply would be somewhat appropriate. FWIW, the person in question here was previously warned to pull up his pants and didn't comply.
I also agree that walking with your pants down is not a danger to anyone, though one may argue it could be indecent exposure.
1) I think saggy pants are stupid. 2) Things that are stupid are not necessarily illegal. 3) Dress is a form of speech. 4) This speech did not present a clear and present danger to anyone. 5) This judge should stick his head up his ass.
I am not sure this is news really, I mean this is not uncommon, at least as far as the fact that you are required to dress appropriately for a courtroom. I am not sure I think he should have went to jail but I have seen people kicked out of a courtroom for wearing a t-shirt and shorts. I guess depending on why he was going in front of the judge there might be a reason to hold him in contempt of court rather than let him leave and come back another day but I did not see what his offense was on the article.
I am not sure this is news really, I mean this is not uncommon, at least as far as the fact that you are required to dress appropriately for a courtroom. I am not sure I think he should have went to jail but I have seen people kicked out of a courtroom for wearing a t-shirt and shorts. I guess depending on why he was going in front of the judge there might be a reason to hold him in contempt of court rather than let him leave and come back another day but I did not see what his offense was on the article.
In addition, the judge mentioned in the article says he has no problem with people showing up in a t-shirt and shorts. He just asks that they keep their pants pulled up and their hands out of their pants.
@Lou: I know you enjoy your brown government-issued jumpsuit, comradeski, but I prefer to choose how I present myself. Speech does not have to be political to be protected.
@Lou: I know you enjoy your brown government-issued jumpsuit, comradeski, but I prefer to choose how I present myself. Speech does not have to be political to be protected.
Dude, it's not about loving a brown government-issued jumpsuit. It's about not looking like a dumbass. Even if his t-shirt said, "Go Red Sox!" and the judge was a Yankees fan (to use a non-political example), he has every right to wear it in the court room. I get the impression that even if this judge was a Yankees fan and the guy was wearing a Red Sox shirt, he'd be okay with it. The judge had said that he has no problem with shorts and t-shirt as long as you keep your pants pulled up. The problem was that the dude was walking around with his underwear showing. You can't convince me that walking around with your underwear showing is speech in any form unless you're posing for an underwear ad or something along those lines. Even so, it's generally considered borderline indecent exposure to walk around in public with your underwear showing as opposed to in a photography studio where you're taking pictures for said underwear ad.
It isn't in New York (and pretty-much anywhere else). I can wear boxers (and nothing else) and go wherever I want on the streets.
Local laws may vary, of course. I'm operating under AB's convention dress code rules, which I assumed were based on local laws here in Boston.
FWIW, I'll give that the "No pants ride" that happens in NYC every year could be considered speech. I had forgotten about that. However, I doubt that this person was making any speech statement of any sort by refusing to pull his pants up when asked.
@Lou: I know you enjoy your brown government-issued jumpsuit, comradeski, but I prefer to choose how I present myself. Speech does not have to be political to be protected.
Dude, it's not about loving a brown government-issued jumpsuit. It's about not looking like a dumbass. Even if his t-shirt said, "Go Red Sox!" and the judge was a Yankees fan (to use a non-political example), he has every right to wear it in the court room. I get the impression that even if this judge was a Yankees fan and the guy was wearing a Red Sox shirt, he'd be okay with it. The judge had said that he has no problem with shorts and t-shirt as long as you keep your pants pulled up. The problem was that the dude was walking around with his underwear showing. You can't convince me that walking around with your underwear showing is speech in any form unless you're posing for an underwear ad or something along those lines. Even so, it's generally considered borderline indecent exposure to walk around in public with your underwear showing as opposed to in a photography studio where you're taking pictures for said underwear ad.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not speech. The only exceptions are the typical threats and fire in a crowded theater. There is no difference between what you right now and an old lady who is shocked at a backwards hat.
It isn't in New York (and pretty-much anywhere else). I can wear boxers (and nothing else) and go wherever I want on the streets.
Local laws may vary, of course. I'm operating under AB's convention dress code rules, which I assumed were based on local laws here in Boston.
In almost every case, laws about underwear or exposed breasts in public outdoor spaces are destroyed in court when actually challenged.
I am fairly sure there is no legal problem whatsoever having exposed undergarments in Boston. Even if there were, the simple answer is to wear briefs under boxers, making the latter outerwear.
Laws against this particular sort of thing are ludicrous, unenforceable, and often overturned in any manner of judicial review.
It isn't in New York (and pretty-much anywhere else). I can wear boxers (and nothing else) and go wherever I want on the streets.
Local laws may vary, of course. I'm operating under AB's convention dress code rules, which I assumed were based on local laws here in Boston.
FWIW, I'll give that the "No pants ride" that happens in NYC every year could be considered speech. I had forgotten about that. However, I doubt that this person was making any speech statement of any sort by refusing to pull his pants up when asked.
You don't have to be making a statement for something to be speech. Speech is not just political speech. I could wear all my clothes inside out for no reason at all. That's still speech, and it's still protected, even though it means nothing and I'm not trying to say anything by doing it.
What is decorum? There is objectively no difference between boxers and shorts, just as there is objectively no difference between a bra and a bikini top. In this case, it's fogeyism discriminating against a class-based dress pattern. The man in question was not showing an legally "obscene" excretory parts. It's not like the judge could see the guy's penis. The old judge was just upset because this guy was sporting an urban* dress style that he deems personally offensive.
Comments
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2012/06/15/judge-gives-man-jail-for-wearing-saggy-pants-to-court/
1) I think saggy pants are stupid.
2) Things that are stupid are not necessarily illegal.
3) Dress is a form of speech.
4) This speech did not present a clear and present danger to anyone.
5) This judge should stick his head up his ass.
Scott [X]
Rock [.]
I also agree that walking with your pants down is not a danger to anyone, though one may argue it could be indecent exposure.
FWIW, I'll give that the "No pants ride" that happens in NYC every year could be considered speech. I had forgotten about that. However, I doubt that this person was making any speech statement of any sort by refusing to pull his pants up when asked.
I am fairly sure there is no legal problem whatsoever having exposed undergarments in Boston. Even if there were, the simple answer is to wear briefs under boxers, making the latter outerwear.
Laws against this particular sort of thing are ludicrous, unenforceable, and often overturned in any manner of judicial review.
*Urban is code for black.