IS THIS FAIR???

[AUBURNJAC 53]

Ok... so have you heard about the law/city ordinance that the City of Greenville, Al just imposed? It states: According to WSFA today, the Greenville city council passed an ordinance on Monday to ban the saggy pants fashion fad from city streets.

Individuals caught with more than four inches of their underwear or rear end showing will face fines ranging from $25 to $200, says the report.

So, let me start by saying that I hate baggy/saggy pants and the type of thugs that they represent for the most part. I also believe that businesses should be able to have whomever they want as their guests (i.e the signs in front of many bars that ban corn rows, saggy pants, etc...).

HOWEVER!!!! I DO NOT believe that a city, a state or the U.S. government has ANY RIGHT WHAT-SO-EVER to tell it's citizens how they can/cant dress! That is complete bullspit in my opinion! What is your opinion on this matter? Apparently the cities of Demopolis and Selma have similar ordinances on the books and Huntsville is considering it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I think a local government does have the right to enforce some standards of decent dress. Note, the restriction isn't against baggy pants per se, it's against pants that show too much underwear or bare ass. If you want pants with huge legs that bunch up on your shoes and the crotch seam hangs almost to your knees, have at it.

And they aren't saying you can't wear this in your own backyard or at a private party or something, you just can't do it in public (on city streets). Just like you're welcome to walk around buck naked in your own home and even nude sunbathe in your own backyard if you have a privacy fence. But you can do neither on public walkways.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Gotta be some line in between walkin' around nekkid and wearing clothes.

[CCTAU 3,369]

Gotta be some line in between walkin' around nekkid and wearing clothes.

AMEN! Why should I be subjected to someone else's butt crack. Good for them. Fine the crap outta these little thugs.

[jaredm2012 0]

Gotta be some line in between walkin' around nekkid and wearing clothes.

AMEN! Why should I be subjected to someone else's butt crack. Good for them. Fine the crap outta these little thugs.

Nice

[arnaldoabru 11]

Gotta be some line in between walkin' around nekkid and wearing clothes.

AMEN! Why should I be subjected to someone else's butt crack. Good for them. Fine the crap outta these little thugs.

What about a cleavege crack?

[AFTiger 282]

Gotta be some line in between walkin' around nekkid and wearing clothes.

AMEN! Why should I be subjected to someone else's butt crack. Good for them. Fine the crap outta these little thugs.

What about a cleavege crack?

You have somethiing against cleavage? Figure

[autiger4life 3]

I love when all the republicans become okay with stepping on freedoms of Americans and democrats hate it when it has to do with their moral position. I understand the rear end showing because that is public indecency, but underwear? Why can't I go in public with just my boxers on. They are as short as many who go out for runs. What about shirts off on runs or cleavage on women?

Be honest, this is about the people who wear them, not how they are worn.

Edit: Auburnjac, thank you for being consistent.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

It's a free country, if they want to show their butt crack, move to somewhere butt cracks are popular. Good on you Greenville!

[eibua12 81]

I just opened a CrackSpackle stand. Please pass the word people working in the Trades get half-off on Wednesday. Check me out on twitter @spacklethecrack

Thanks for the help in advance.

Here is my opinion: Doesn't effect me do I don't care because I am still trying to figure out how the immigration bill in Georgia is a problem

[au2004ece 30]

People will always support the taking of freedoms if it is other people's freedoms.

[autigeremt 6,969]

The Libertarian in me says enough is enough. However, if the City put forth a vote by the citizens and the people wanted the law, then I'd be all for it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

People will always support the taking of freedoms if it is other people's freedoms.

Yep. I'm a regular fascist totalitarian. The nerve of me expecting people not to show bare ass and underwear in public! Next thing you know I'll be wanting them to outlaw sex acts in public restrooms.

Om nom nom. I love gobbling up freedoms.

[Aufan59 99]

I'm fine with banning the buttcrack, but what is wrong with underwear? It is clothing, so it should be fine to show.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I'm fine with banning the buttcrack, but what is wrong with underwear? It is clothing, so it should be fine to show.

It is clothing...to be worn under other clothing. Hence the name underwear.

Look, no one's talking about the occasional bra strap or accidental showing on the edge of the undies when you bend down to get something. But I don't want to take my 6-year old daughter out to eat or to the park and have some ignoramus walking around with his pants sagging below his ass and showing practically all of his underwear. It's just not appropriate in public. Do what you want at a private party or in your own house. Dress appropriately in public.

[Aufan59 99]

I'm fine with banning the buttcrack, but what is wrong with underwear? It is clothing, so it should be fine to show.

It is clothing...to be worn under other clothing. Hence the name underwear.

Look, no one's talking about the occasional bra strap or accidental showing on the edge of the undies when you bend down to get something. But I don't want to take my 6-year old daughter out to eat or to the park and have some ignoramus walking around with his pants sagging below his ass and showing practically all of his underwear. It's just not appropriate in public. Do what you want at a private party or in your own house. Dress appropriately in public.

Ban plain white T-Shirts, or undershirts from showing?

I just don't see what is wrong with underwear showing. It is clothing so you aren't exposing yourself. It is telling people that they cannot wear clothes in a certain way.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I'm fine with banning the buttcrack, but what is wrong with underwear? It is clothing, so it should be fine to show.

It is clothing...to be worn under other clothing. Hence the name underwear.

Look, no one's talking about the occasional bra strap or accidental showing on the edge of the undies when you bend down to get something. But I don't want to take my 6-year old daughter out to eat or to the park and have some ignoramus walking around with his pants sagging below his ass and showing practically all of his underwear. It's just not appropriate in public. Do what you want at a private party or in your own house. Dress appropriately in public.

Ban plain white T-Shirts, or undershirts from showing?

I just don't see what is wrong with underwear showing. It is clothing so you aren't exposing yourself. It is telling people that they cannot wear clothes in a certain way.

They've long since stopped calling them undershirts. It's just a t-shirt. Plus, it's not covering up anything you're not already allowed to expose in public on a man.

You're straining this a little too fine here. Just use common sense. Little kids shouldn't be seeing some strangers tighty-whiteys, boxer briefs or whatever in public. It's that simple.

[au2004ece 30]

I'm fine with banning the buttcrack, but what is wrong with underwear? It is clothing, so it should be fine to show.

It is clothing...to be worn under other clothing. Hence the name underwear.

Look, no one's talking about the occasional bra strap or accidental showing on the edge of the undies when you bend down to get something. But I don't want to take my 6-year old daughter out to eat or to the park and have some ignoramus walking around with his pants sagging below his ass and showing practically all of his underwear. It's just not appropriate in public. Do what you want at a private party or in your own house. Dress appropriately in public.

Ban plain white T-Shirts, or undershirts from showing?

I just don't see what is wrong with underwear showing. It is clothing so you aren't exposing yourself. It is telling people that they cannot wear clothes in a certain way.

They've long since stopped calling them undershirts. It's just a t-shirt. Plus, it's not covering up anything you're not already allowed to expose in public on a man.

You're straining this a little too fine here. Just use common sense. Little kids shouldn't be seeing some strangers tighty-whiteys, boxer briefs or whatever in public. It's that simple.

It is you that is straining to define some clothes as unfit for your eyes while others are fine.

It is a silly topic but we have a law happy society that wants to create new crimes out of rather innocuous happenings. That should be stopped.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I'm fine with banning the buttcrack, but what is wrong with underwear? It is clothing, so it should be fine to show.

It is clothing...to be worn under other clothing. Hence the name underwear.

Look, no one's talking about the occasional bra strap or accidental showing on the edge of the undies when you bend down to get something. But I don't want to take my 6-year old daughter out to eat or to the park and have some ignoramus walking around with his pants sagging below his ass and showing practically all of his underwear. It's just not appropriate in public. Do what you want at a private party or in your own house. Dress appropriately in public.

Ban plain white T-Shirts, or undershirts from showing?

I just don't see what is wrong with underwear showing. It is clothing so you aren't exposing yourself. It is telling people that they cannot wear clothes in a certain way.

They've long since stopped calling them undershirts. It's just a t-shirt. Plus, it's not covering up anything you're not already allowed to expose in public on a man.

You're straining this a little too fine here. Just use common sense. Little kids shouldn't be seeing some strangers tighty-whiteys, boxer briefs or whatever in public. It's that simple.

It is you that is straining to define some clothes as unfit for your eyes while others are fine.

It is a silly topic but we have a law happy society that wants to create new crimes out of rather innocuous happenings. That should be stopped.

I specifically said that "innocuous" or accident happenings are different. Purposely walking around with your pants hanging halfway or all the way below your ass is a whole different thing. I just don't think it's some big abrogation of personal freedom to say "when you're in public places, keep your pants up so kids don't have to see your underwear or your private parts."

[Aufan59 99]

They've long since stopped calling them undershirts. It's just a t-shirt. Plus, it's not covering up anything you're not already allowed to expose in public on a man.

You're straining this a little too fine here. Just use common sense. Little kids shouldn't be seeing some strangers tighty-whiteys, boxer briefs or whatever in public. It's that simple.

So ban clothing based on what you call it?

So you are fine with bikini bottoms, even though they expose more than boxer briefs?

If you aren't indecently exposing your body parts, then why should you be told what clothes you can wear or how you can wear them?

Let me guess, you don't like your children watching Doug the cartoon either? COVER THEIR EYES, EXPOSED UNDERWEAR:

Give me a break.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Honestly never heard of the cartoon so it really isn't relevant to me.

But if I was in public with my 6-year old daughter and some strange man right in front of us has his pants hanging down below his ass so I (and she) can see his tighty whiteys, that's really not something I'd like for her to see or explain at this point in her life. Forgive me for believing some things fall under "Basic Walking Around Sense That Shouldn't Require Explanation."

I don't think this is a hard concept and there's a bit of arguing for the sake of arguing going on here. Normal people should understand that certain clothes or levels of dress are appropriate in some settings and not in others. It's not a hardship or some ax blade at the roots of Liberty and Freedom for people to deal with that. Sorry.

[au2004ece 30]

I'm fine with banning the buttcrack, but what is wrong with underwear? It is clothing, so it should be fine to show.

It is clothing...to be worn under other clothing. Hence the name underwear.

Look, no one's talking about the occasional bra strap or accidental showing on the edge of the undies when you bend down to get something. But I don't want to take my 6-year old daughter out to eat or to the park and have some ignoramus walking around with his pants sagging below his ass and showing practically all of his underwear. It's just not appropriate in public. Do what you want at a private party or in your own house. Dress appropriately in public.

Ban plain white T-Shirts, or undershirts from showing?

I just don't see what is wrong with underwear showing. It is clothing so you aren't exposing yourself. It is telling people that they cannot wear clothes in a certain way.

They've long since stopped calling them undershirts. It's just a t-shirt. Plus, it's not covering up anything you're not already allowed to expose in public on a man.

You're straining this a little too fine here. Just use common sense. Little kids shouldn't be seeing some strangers tighty-whiteys, boxer briefs or whatever in public. It's that simple.

It is you that is straining to define some clothes as unfit for your eyes while others are fine.

It is a silly topic but we have a law happy society that wants to create new crimes out of rather innocuous happenings. That should be stopped.

I specifically said that "innocuous" or accident happenings are different. Purposely walking around with your pants hanging halfway or all the way below your ass is a whole different thing. I just don't think it's some big abrogation of personal freedom to say "when you're in public places, keep your pants up so kids don't have to see your underwear or your private parts."

It is innocuous for somebody's underwear to be showing. Why give the government the right to take money by force (rob these people) because you disagree with how they dress?

This also give police another thing they can make up for why they stop somebody so they can get away with illegally searching them.

[au2004ece 30]

I don't think this is a hard concept and there's a bit of arguing for the sake of arguing going on here. Normal people should understand that certain clothes or levels of dress are appropriate in some settings and not in others. It's not a hardship or some ax blade at the roots of Liberty and Freedom for people to deal with that. Sorry.

It isn't appropriate to wear dirty shoes or have a bad haircut or to get fat. What if they made laws against those things? There is not much difference.

You argument is as bad as this: I don't want to explain to my children why people get fat, so we should just ban that.

[Aufan59 99]

Honestly never heard of the cartoon so it really isn't relevant to me.

But if I was in public with my 6-year old daughter and some strange man right in front of us has his pants hanging down below his ass so I (and she) can see his tighty whiteys, that's really not something I'd like for her to see or explain at this point in her life. Forgive me for believing some things fall under "Basic Walking Around Sense That Shouldn't Require Explanation."

I don't think this is a hard concept and there's a bit of arguing for the sake of arguing going on here. Normal people should understand that certain clothes or levels of dress are appropriate in some settings and not in others. It's not a hardship or some ax blade at the roots of Liberty and Freedom for people to deal with that. Sorry.

Yes, we are arguing for the sake of arguing because we couldn't possibly disagree with you.

Why should government tell you how you can dress, as long as you aren't indecently exposing yourself?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I find it funny that some of the very same conservative voices that are all up at arms about this loss of freedom and liberty have been all but silent on the actual freedoms lost in the PATRIOT Act, the direct violations of the Bill of Rights when the government deems a US citizen to somehow be tied to terrorists, and other law enforcement intrusions since 9/11.

Sorry, I just think you guys are being silly just to keep some sort of amorphous libertarian street cred.