Now, private establishments can have dress codes. For example, a restaurant can stipulate that one must wear a jacket, or have a shirt/shoes on. Public establishments can have similar dress codes, but they can be challenged pretty effectively in court if the people writing/enforcing them are not EXTREMELY careful.
As for the courtroom...
This situation is due solely to the power judges are given to enforce order and decorum in their courtroom. They have special discretionary powers in there that are difficult to challenge. "Contempt of court" can be used to enforce basically whatever the judge wants. Judges can basically overrule "free speech" in the courtroom on an ad-hoc basis, but this power does not extend even an inch beyond the courtroom doors and a second beyond the court's being in session (excepting the punishments, which can extend well beyond...).
In addition, some lawyers would argue treason, but that's often contested.
Doing it in a courtroom within the powers of a judge's courtroom while court was inb session. Judges have the arbitrary power to completely fuck anyone in the courtroom, even in the stands.
A judge could tell me to take my tie off, or ask me to leave for no reason, and I would be obligated to comply or risk contempt.
Rym has it down. Plus it's not like the judge's request was that onerous and the person in question was warned.
I will say that jail was an excessive punishment for this form of contempt though. A small fine would've been more appropriate.
Presumably, if the judge's punishment and/or requirements were considered excessive or uncalled for, he could later face some sort of repercussions for this. However, given that the judge basically just said, "please pull your pants up" in one case and "please don't act like you're masturbating in my court by putting your hands down your pants" in another case, I don't think this is unreasonable.
Rym has it down. Plus it's not like the judge's request was that onerous and the person in question was warned.
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the judge at all, and I think his actions were ludicrous. I'm simply stating why he is able to do this in the first place. A city can't make a similar demand for public spaces in the vast majority of cases.
... As long as the order does not violate your civil rights.
There is a long history of precedent for judges using their powers to enforce an arbitrary dress code. The courts have generally agreed that they do have this power when it comes to certain forms of speech.
I don't like it that much, but that's how they get away with it. Extreme power in a very limited venue.
Besides, aren't we blowing this all way, way out of proportion? Even the judge to an extent by tossing the guy in jail (as I said, a small fine would've been more appropriate if a penalty was truly necessary, but remember, this guy had been asked and warned to pull up his pants). Except for Mr. Pantsdown and Mr. May-be-masturbating-in-court, this judge seemed pretty chill with the dress codes he asks for in his court room. It's not like he's saying you have to wear a full 3-piece suit or anything.
I dislike legal power being used to impose arbitrary, ill-thought-out, and possibly racist restrictions on anyone. And I REALLY dislike "it's not that bad" as a defense for abuse of power.
Fair enough, Rym, and to be honest, I agree with the general principle of that as well. I know I don't like to feel like I'm obligated by law to dress a certain way when I visit the post office, a Smithsonian museum, city hall, etc. However, I also feel like failing to heed what I consider to be a reasonable request from a judge shows a belligerence to the whole legal system that may justifiably be considered contempt. The unfortunate thing is that it happened to overlap with First Amendment issues in this case because said request involved how someone was wearing his clothing. Now, I for one can't see why someone would want to go around showing off their underwear (unless it's for something like No Pants Day), let alone why you'd want to do that when going to court and hoping not to piss off the judge. However, that's me, and not this person. I'd probably feel stronger if I was wearing one of my Red Sox shirts and had to meet a judge who was a Yankees fan who was holding me in contempt for wearing that Red Sox shirt.
Now if the request of the judge didn't have to do with pulling his pants up -- say the person was refusing to pay attention to the judge when being directly addressed with issues pertinent to the hearing and the judge cited him for contempt on that issue, I doubt we'd see the same outcry we've seen in this thread.
FWIW, if I were the judge, I probably wouldn't have even noticed that this guy's pants were down, nor would I have really cared. I figure if this guy wants to look like a moron, he's welcome to do so. On the flip side, I would realistically never go to court wearing anything more informal than business casual (with the exception perhaps of traffic court), but that's just a matter of my own personal sense of etiquette concerning what one does when they go to court.
Jason: Racist? Aren't you jumping the gun here? I've seen both black dudes and white dudes wear clothes like that.
It probably is jumping the gun, yes. But you have to ask: What was the judge's motivation? The sagging pants could not have been having an effect on the court's proceedings. The judge admits in the story that he has a double standard for dress -- that shorts and sandals are okay, but sagging pants are not. The article states that the man's underwear were showing but says nothing at all about exposed private parts. There is no security risk cited. He imagines that sagging pants might cause some in his courtroom to feel unsafe... why? That sounds very much like a faux excuse for racist motivation. There is nothing inherently threatening about sagging pants.
It probably is jumping the gun, yes. But you have to ask: What was the judge's motivation? The sagging pants could not have been having an effect on the court's proceedings. The judge admits in the story that he has a double standard for dress -- that shorts and sandals are okay, but sagging pants are not. The article states that the man's underwear were showing but says nothing at all about exposed private parts. There is no security risk cited. He imagines that sagging pants might cause some in his courtroom to feel unsafe... why? That sounds very much like a faux excuse for racist motivation. There is nothing inherently threatening about sagging pants.
You do have a point there, especially with the "threat" part. There is a stereotype that associates the wearing of saggy pants with thuggish behavior. I wouldn't quite call it racist, but I'll concede that said fashion does seem to be most common with urban African-Americans (though, as I've said, I've seen plenty of white dudes who are into urban black culture dress similarly as well). Personally, I think that said judge just considered it "disrespectful" to be showing off your underwear in public, but I'm not one to pick the most malicious reasons to explain a behavior when there are other equally likely but less malicious reasons to choose from. The fact that the judge indirectly cited the thuggish stereotype by mentioning the fashion as "threatening" does mean there is potentially some validity to the racism argument you put forward, even though I don't consider it the most likely reason.
Of course, part of me also feels like there are more important civil rights issues to be concerned with outside of your ability to wear saggy pants in court. Let's deal with the bigger issues, such as voter ID laws that are pretty much designed to disenfranchise poor, often minority, voters using dubious claims of "voter fraud" as a justification, first before we deal with issues like "is a judge wrong to ask someone to pull up their pants in court?"
I'm thinking about this from the Positive Tickets thread perspective. How the hell are we optimistically expecting people to act better with a reward in mind when they can't even act upon the common sense advantages given to them?
Although I don't think jail time is appropriate (or even a fine for that matter), I think pulling that kind of stunt deserves a swift courtroom bitch-out. And don't dismiss it as freedom of speech - it's close enough to being indecent that a judge can decide to address it, and if it subconsciously affects a decision in the end, so be it.
Edit: Forgot to refresh the thread from, like, 2 hours ago. FINRATS to everything above me. Maybe I'll chime in tonight.
I don't think it was anywhere close to being indecent.
Indecent? Depending on how much is showing and the local laws, perhaps not. Impolite, quite possible, although what one considers impolite may vary with the individual.
It's not the job of the court to regulate manners or etiquette or respect.
Also, it is null to argue that "there are more important things." We're on a forum about Japanese cartoons, comic books, and computer parts. Also, it's a false dichotomy to say that any given civil rights or political concern has to measure up to an arbitrary threat level to warrant discussion.
I don't think it was anywhere close to being indecent.
Indecent? Depending on how much is showing and the local laws, perhaps not. Impolite, quite possible, although what one considers impolite may vary with the individual.
Like I said, any laws in any locality regarding the amount or presence of visible underwear is almost guaranteed to collapse in the face of any judicial challenge. ;^) Underwear in outdoor public places, and most indoor public places, cannot be made illegal in any generalized sense.
The day Abe Vigoda is supposed to die, he will appear on Conan and say, "My Earthly Ministry is ended, my holy works are complete. Scribe my lessons upon clay and papyrus, that your childrens' children shall know the virtue I have taught."
And then, he'll simply ascend into space, disappearing into the celestial spheres as he passes the moon.
It seems like all of our courts lately, especially the Supreme Court are avoiding making conclusive rulings at all costs. They seem to only make the smallest possible ruling. In this case they said that these particular instances should not be fined, but did not take the opportunity to say anything about fines for indecency in general.
It's your job to make those decisions! How are we supposed to go about doing our business when the law remains vague. Clarify that shit once and then we won't have to have another huge wave of lawsuits float to the top. If congress doesn't like what you ruled, they can rewrite the law to be more specific.
Ever since they made that call in the 2000 election the supreme court has tried as hard as it can to not be called political by sidestepping issues like it's going out of style. That and maybe they just want to make sure more lawyers have jobs... :-p
Comments
As for the courtroom...
This situation is due solely to the power judges are given to enforce order and decorum in their courtroom. They have special discretionary powers in there that are difficult to challenge. "Contempt of court" can be used to enforce basically whatever the judge wants. Judges can basically overrule "free speech" in the courtroom on an ad-hoc basis, but this power does not extend even an inch beyond the courtroom doors and a second beyond the court's being in session (excepting the punishments, which can extend well beyond...).
- Incitement to imminent lawless action
- Threats
- Libel/slander
- False commercial speech
- "Obscenity" (bullshit)
- Defamation
- Discriminatory harassment
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
- Child pornography
In addition, some lawyers would argue treason, but that's often contested.
A judge could tell me to take my tie off, or ask me to leave for no reason, and I would be obligated to comply or risk contempt.
I will say that jail was an excessive punishment for this form of contempt though. A small fine would've been more appropriate.
Presumably, if the judge's punishment and/or requirements were considered excessive or uncalled for, he could later face some sort of repercussions for this. However, given that the judge basically just said, "please pull your pants up" in one case and "please don't act like you're masturbating in my court by putting your hands down your pants" in another case, I don't think this is unreasonable.
I don't like it that much, but that's how they get away with it. Extreme power in a very limited venue.
Now if the request of the judge didn't have to do with pulling his pants up -- say the person was refusing to pay attention to the judge when being directly addressed with issues pertinent to the hearing and the judge cited him for contempt on that issue, I doubt we'd see the same outcry we've seen in this thread.
FWIW, if I were the judge, I probably wouldn't have even noticed that this guy's pants were down, nor would I have really cared. I figure if this guy wants to look like a moron, he's welcome to do so. On the flip side, I would realistically never go to court wearing anything more informal than business casual (with the exception perhaps of traffic court), but that's just a matter of my own personal sense of etiquette concerning what one does when they go to court.
Jason: Racist? Aren't you jumping the gun here? I've seen both black dudes and white dudes wear clothes like that.
Of course, part of me also feels like there are more important civil rights issues to be concerned with outside of your ability to wear saggy pants in court.
Although I don't think jail time is appropriate (or even a fine for that matter), I think pulling that kind of stunt deserves a swift courtroom bitch-out. And don't dismiss it as freedom of speech - it's close enough to being indecent that a judge can decide to address it, and if it subconsciously affects a decision in the end, so be it.
Edit: Forgot to refresh the thread from, like, 2 hours ago. FINRATS to everything above me. Maybe I'll chime in tonight.
Also, it is null to argue that "there are more important things." We're on a forum about Japanese cartoons, comic books, and computer parts. Also, it's a false dichotomy to say that any given civil rights or political concern has to measure up to an arbitrary threat level to warrant discussion.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/17/us/obit-rodney-king/index.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18470718
20 sons left to go, though only five are real choices. Things are going to get interesting.
And then, he'll simply ascend into space, disappearing into the celestial spheres as he passes the moon.
http://morningjournal.com/articles/2012/06/21/news/doc4fe345d45ac2e644153178.txt
It's your job to make those decisions! How are we supposed to go about doing our business when the law remains vague. Clarify that shit once and then we won't have to have another huge wave of lawsuits float to the top. If congress doesn't like what you ruled, they can rewrite the law to be more specific.