Pull up your pants or face a fine

March 30, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One northern Indiana town is considering an ordinance that would require people to wear their pants a certain way.

Merrillville officials have discussed banning people from wearing saggy pants in public. It’s not a novel idea – several cities and towns across the country have banned the style. In Albany, Ga., city officials say that an ordinance banning saggy pants – defined as pants or skirts worn more than three inches below the top of hips – has netted nearly $4,000 in fines from 187 citations. Albany instituted its ban in November 2010.

Officials seeking to ban the style apparently aren’t fans of the look – often pants are worn so low that most of one’s underwear is shown and a belt is needed to keep the pants in place. I’ve also seen people holding up their pants with one hand as they walk. What people will do for fashion!

There are concerns that if a ban is adopted, it could be challenged as unconstitutional. Some worry that bans could be imposed on other styles of dress.

What do you think – should a town be able to dictate how its residents dress?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Whole heartedly - I agree!
    Yes a city can dictate how its citizens dress if how they dress offends laws of the city. I think that wearing your pants so low that you can see your underwear is indecent exposure, which I believe is against the law. If that attitude was taken when it first started as a fashion statement we may not be talking about this issue now. Just like wearing a dress so short I can see your underwear or cut so low I can see far more breast that I care to.
  • no problem
    Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT