A Constitutional Right to Wear Saggy Pants? Some Say New Ban Could Violate First Amendment
- Posted on July 21, 2011 at 8:39pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
Under the new Collinsville, Ill. measure, wearing pants that sag below the waist is prohibited. (Media credit: Susan NYC via Flickr)
It started last week when the city council of Collinsville, Ill. voted 3-2 to outlaw saggy pants. By the new ordinance, wearing pants that hang below the waistline is illegal, punishable by a $100 fine and community service for the first offense, and a $300 fine and more community service for repeat offenders. Now, a law professor is saying the city’s ban could be a violation of the First Amendment and others say it could even lead to racial profiling. Southern Illinois University professor Cheryl Anderson told St. Louis Today the ban could open the city up to lawsuits. “You can argue that wearing clothes is an expressive act, and that the First Amendment protects expressive acts,” Anderson said. “Most cities who have talked about these ordinances have backed away from this because of all the litigation to sort out.” Area attorney Thomas Falb, who specializes in civil rights cases, agreed, saying the ban is distinctly unfair. “It strikes me as something being suspiciously unconstitutional,” Falb said. “If I had a client arrested, [filing a lawsuit] would be the first thing I would do.” City Councilwoman Liz Dalton proposed the law after she said she received complaints from citizens about people wearing their pants too low, exposing their underwear. Collinsville Mayor John Miller opposed the measure and was one of the two votes against it.
In the wake of the measure’s passage, others expressed concern about how it will be enforced, with police seemingly able to pick and choose whom they cite. The sagging trend began in the 1990s and was associated with young black men, although is not exclusive to any particular group today. “I think it creates more police interaction for young black men based not on the evidence that they‘re involved in some sort of criminal activity but based purely and simply on what they’re wearing,” Ed Yohnka of the American Civil Liberties Union told St. Louis Today. “And frankly, it creates more hostility between the police and a segment of the community that already feels targeted and besieged. Rev. Avery Duff, pastor of the New Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church, a historically black church in Collinsville, agreed. “I‘m not saying it’s aimed to target blacks, but eventually I think it will,” Duff said. “You’re not going to see the middle-aged, middle-income white guy wearing sagging pants.”
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 679 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 636 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Have You Seen the Giant ‘Sand Obama’ Sculpture in Charlotte? 312 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 135 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 184 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 135 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (140)
jrfox
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 7:18amIt is funny how trends get started!!!
This one, as stated, started in the prison system!! It indicated to all inmates that the guy was gay and available!!!!
Some kid saw it and thought it meant he was tough!!!!
I laugh everytime I see it!!!
At least we simply wore bell bottoms or boot cut levi’s!!! They were covering the undies!!
Report Post »frodis
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 8:03amIf that’s ok then everyone should be allowed to walk around in their underwear.
Report Post »JayCee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 8:33amHow low can they go before it is no longer a constitutional right?
Report Post »The knees?
The ankles?
No pants at all?
Cotswolds
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 8:33amThey passed an ordinance like that in Baton Rouge, LA in the ‘90’s. It didn’t stick, of course. It IS an unjust law, IMO. But, I could see how you could argue for it along public decency standards (we can’t walk around naked in public) but where do we draw the line. I know the cops here love the trend. It makes it MUCH easier to catch fleeing criminals when they have to run with 1 hand holding up their pants!
Report Post »4smohrs
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 10:56amI think we should let them all move to the forest and live in trees and fling crap at each other!
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 10:57amOne could argue that demanding people wear clothes was a violation of the 1st amendment if that is the case. Do all these pants on the ground idiots want to stare at some 50 years bloated nudist wringed gray ballsac because that‘s wear this law suit will be headed and it’s always these 40 and 50 something fat guys that you see at nudist colonies.
Report Post »TXMD
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:12amYou are correct – it started in prison. However the initial reason for the sag was because in prison (city or county jail in particular) the intake personnel remove shoelaces, belts and other items of clothing or effects that could cause the person to do harm to self or others. The result in almost all cases was pants falling down without a belt. So, the left (or right) hand had to be used to keep them from falling beyond the ankles. Everybody had this, but the cute fellas were in big trouble because they couldn’t keep the pants up while holding hands. FROM A STREET PERSPECTIVE OF OF A LONG TIME MEMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY, I KNOW THE TREND IS VIEWED AS SORT OF A GOOD THING. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE TURDS TO RUN FAST WHILE BEING PURSUED. THE SAG MAKE THEM EASIER TO CATCH WHEN THEY BOLT.
Report Post »arvadadan
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 12:58pmMy father used to say similar about the hat on backwards, it was so the bill did not get in the way…
Report Post »smokie
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 1:51pmTXMD is correct.
Report Post »Let the thugs keep their fashion statement. When the economy started dipping, I hit the mall for extra jobs until the mall went down. At least twice a week there was robbery, and a good many of the theives were caught by their own big pants. They trip and fall. Sometimes their pants fall halfway down and rip, too, adding embarressment to the arrest.
It’s fun to watch. Let them keep thier big saggy pants. Let them hoist themselves on their own pitards.
edcoil
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:39pmSouthern Illinois University professor Cheryl Anderson told St. Louis Today the ban could open the city up to lawsuits. “You can argue that wearing clothes is an expressive act, and that the First Amendment protects expressive acts,”
Professor Anderson is an idiot. The First Amending protects SPEECH not ACTS. Speech, ends at your nose.
Report Post »naed5048
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:42pmI’m sure all gays love this trend. It seems that kids who do this is either secrectly gay and enjoy showing their as- … Why else would they do it? I think it should extend to the galls too….. YES ladies… go for it….. Now… would like increase rape cases ?/
Report Post »Libertarian
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:37pmIts a state decision. “Congress shall make no law prohibiting saggy pants.”
Report Post »Zer0
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 10:39pmIt’s funny how everything is a racial issue…taxes, debt, and not exposing your buttocks in public. Really? I see Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks wearing their pants like that. Where is the racial issue? It seems Progressives and ambulance-chasing lawyers simply oppose any common-sense laws, especially when it comes to basic public decency and decorum.
I have a great idea! I’m gonna start a trend exposing my p e n i s through the fly of my pants and sue whoever arrests me for violating my 1st ammendment rights, and if that doesn‘t work I’ll cry like a school yard sissy, “RACISM!!!!”
Report Post »Doc
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 7:08amI’m disappointed. On one hand most of these posters rant and rave about less government then rant and rave wanting government to intervene in something that’s actually harmless to society. Make up your minds folks. Do you want government meddling or not?
Report Post »Aside from your tender sensibilities, what difference does it really make if these kids want to look stupid…? The best thing is to simply ignore them.
Mstr Smith
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:51amPants worn like that mean that they are Submissive Bottom Gays and are looking for anal sex.
Report Post »quicker
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 7:02amIs it any wonder that more blacks are caught by the police shoots it`s hard to runwith your pants around your knees.
Report Post »Papa Joe
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:37amI drive in the ghetto’s all day long, on every corner there are black thugs hanging around doing nothing but collecting entitlements from obama, and they all walk around with their pants drooping below their asses, I think we need one more entitlement for the black communities is for obama to spend billions for belts! There seems to be a shortage of belts. Oh yes the white wiggers who envy the black thugs are wanna bee’s, more brain dead misfit’s, The only positive i can see that the below the asses pants are good for, it makes it easier for the Police to catch these misfit’s!!
Report Post »quicker
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:51amNow you know all these guy are looking for is a boyfreind
Report Post »1TrueOne55
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:18amYeah because they have to use a belt so tight to keep them there that it pinches their quads so they can’t really run unless they either drop their pants or hike them up past their faces to hide their Identity… But saying that it is a 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue shows you how far out of the box we have gotten away from the founding fathers idea of Freedom of Speech in Newspapers and fliers posted in the public square.
Report Post »Old Vermonter
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:36amBack in the 50s they were trying to ban dungarees, today known as jeans. They tried banning long hair when the Beatles came on the scene. How many remember the absolutely silly leisure suits?
The kids are wearing pants under their pants. They aren’t showing everybody their naked butts. But I‘ll guarantee these same people would have a different attitude if it were a 20 year old girl with her pants down and she’s wearing a thong.
It’s a fad. Granted, a silly fad, but nonetheless a fad. And it’s succeeding in ******* off the grownups. And that’s what fads try to do.
Report Post »RAanvil1
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:04amI got a lot more important things to do with my hands than to hold my pants up all day. If one of these saggers came into my business looking for a job he would not get it. And really ladies do you like to see men, and I use that term loosely walking around with there butt hanging out? I guess if your a young teen trying to find your space in life its one thing, but once you hit thirty time to pull your pants up and be a man.
Report Post »Nucular Bush
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:27amEvery generation has stupid fashion fads.. go look at your high school yearbooks. Individuality must be supported. Let your freak flag fly. If I wore my pants like that my underwear would look like cornflakes poured into a hefty bag(not a pretty sight). It must be hard to run wearing pants and belts around your thighs so i’m guessing these kids are just misunderstood, not criminals.
Report Post »Shiroi Raion
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:06amThis only violates freedom of speech if they’re talking out their @$$es. This is the most moronic fad I can remember.
Report Post »pwatkins
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 4:51amHope and Change…lol. The norm is going to be the men show their rears and the women cover eveything but their nose and mouth….sounds like a new rewritten Obama constitution to me…how about the rest of you?
Report Post »Fredhead
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:08amWhat does wearing your pants down, with underwear/ boxers exposed have anything to do with the first ammendment?
Report Post »it’s not speech, it’s almost , in your face K.M.A porn on parade, in public!
odd, and here I thought that most despised what was jokingly referred to as the plumber’s cut, hard working individuals,, but those that choose this, style , if you wish to call it that, chose not to work.
anyone else find a bit of irony in this?
violation of the first ammendment, My rear end!
pun intended
Fredhead
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:28amNow I grasp the concept that for some odd reason that now-a-days among the youth, that prison fashions are cool, , cool? when the hell did this happen?
Report Post »I was raised to believe that prisons were filled with mean and nasty people that smelled bad, and had crooked teeth.
likwidlizard
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 4:26amI don’t like seeing some worthless brainfart showing me his nasty drawers. Why don’t they crawl off the plantation long enough to get a good education. No company will hire these parasites and I’m sure the folks are tired of feeding and babysitting them. This is the garbage the baby boomers kids have created. I hope you’re proud of yourselves. By the way, my son’s a U.S. Marshall now and he hauls this kind of fugitive vermin right back to prison. And if they don’t want to comply–they might die. Which saves the taxpayers lots of money. ;)
Report Post »FlowerBell
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 4:19amJust saw this driving through town today. The first thing that came to mind was “Village Idiot”
Perhaps our toothless elderly folks should start walking around with their dentures hanging half out of their mouths, I bet the baggy pants crowd would get a real kick out of that. I can already hear the screams of disgust. We are forced to go around having someone flash their stinky old underwear in front of us. I just chalk it up to classless vulgarian trash.
Report Post »drdoctor
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:44amsimple fix…………….PULL UP YOUR DANG PANTS!!!!!!!
Report Post »GadsdenPatriot
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:37amWe don’t need a new law, it’s already called indecent exposure.
Report Post »The_Outlaw
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:33amHave these ‘wanna be gangstas’ cited for ”indecent exposure” with a minimum fine of $500.00 for the first offense. Watch how quick those saggy pants get pulled up!
Report Post »back2front
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:42pmNot true, they will just rob someone to pay the fine.
Report Post »Wes Hardin
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:31amThe police state is alive and well in America. How long will it be before everyone has to present themselves for dress inspection by the local Nazi?
For a country that was supposedly founded on the ideas of personal freedom and liberty those things are sorely lacking in the 21st century.
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 4:08amYawn. This kind of comment is seriously tired. What about the freedom to walk down the street with your children and not have someone’s @ss in your face?
Communities have the right to set standards for their community. You don’t have the right to accost anyone with your free speech, and you don’t have the right to accost them with your indescent dress.
People really need to get a much better understanding of our federal system versus our local systems. And, your rights stop at the point the aversely affect another. Basic decorum is expected and demanded. Pull your damned pants up and keep ‘em up.
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:16amCuban tourists?
Report Post »ArmedPrincess
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:13amAs unattractive as I find this fashion to be, no one should have the right to tell one how to dress. As long as your not sagging your underpants along with your pants & being indecent let them look as silly as they want. If you don’t like it mind your own business & go about your merry day. Every little ban here & there is another chain around our necks.
Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »777patriot
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:52amYou seem to be a freedom loving Gal. Thank You well said.
Report Post »tt arnette
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 9:52amwell said
Report Post »B_rad
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:10amCommunities have the right to set standards for their community. There is no freedom of expression. Since everyone is likening this to free speech, consider that you cannot legally stand on a street corner and spew vulgarities at passers-by. Personally I’d like to see more ordinances dealing with profanity of bumper stickers and t-shirts. Just look at the FCK H8 garbage from the other article. If I were in public with my nephew, I’d be p!ssed to see someone wearing that crap.
As far as the baggy pants are concerned, it is widely accepted that the trend got started in prisons. Apparently in prison, wearing your pants like that told the other inmates your rear end was available for their… um, pleasure. Tell that to the next punk you see with his pants hanging down to his knees.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:09amI for one also hate people who where saggy pants. Its like, dude, nobody wants to see your butt you piece of trash. It just ticks me off
Report Post »Steve
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:08amIntresting article.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Low-Hanging-Pants
My relative in prison had a different answer. Seems in prison—and it may depend on which prison you’re in—the only ones who wear their pants low are either looking for a “daddy” to protect them or they already have a daddy and are telling other prisoners to stay away or there will be a price to pay.*
Report Post »In other words, low hanging pants means that you are being sodomized or want to be sodomized by another prisoner. More often than not, it is a way to keep from being beaten or killed by other prisoners. Daddy is your protector.
(For those of you who do not know what “sodomized” means, it’s really quite simple: Someone is having anal intercourse with you and you are now their “bitch.”)
The fad started among young men who had been in prison and, having been released back into a frightening world, were once again looking for a “daddy.”
I wonder if the kids who wear their pants down low realize the real signal they are sending.
Henrys_Ghost
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:18amSTEVE, Here’s a great idea, goes with your explanation of this “fad”, let’s have a work release type program with convicted homosexuals or bi sexual felons whose sole responsiblity is to seek out these low pants wearing type people and proposition them for “what they are advertising” Kinda of a Scared Straight approach,(Pun inteneded), just an idea, discuss……….
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:06amThis is a local issue, not federal. That being said, This place has the right to make this ban. The first amendment only states congress cannot make laws banning freedom of speech… And this isn’t even speech! The 1st amendment does not say physical expression, just verbal! And since the 14th amendment doesn’t apply the first amendment to state and local governments (by its original intent), this law is perfectly fine.
Report Post »glenng2
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:05amLock the animals up.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:41amI don’t think the Constitution / 1st Amendment protects indecent exposure.
That said, it is up to local ordinances to define decent/indecent exposure.
1st amendment covers FREEDOM OF SPEECH – it enables us to speak truth to power.
There is even SPEECH that is not protected.
This is not SPEECH.
Fortunately, this trend is waning. Stop giving it headlines and it will go away in another 3-5 years.
What is bothersome is, public personalities who dress bizarrely for shock effect, KNOWING FULL WELL that children model themselves and experiment with everything they see, especially when it comes from people they admire.
Time for celebrities to GROW UP and be RESPONSIBLE.
Report Post »cloudedpoliticalviews
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:17amCould be a violation? No, it is clearly a violation of one’s 1st Ammendment rights! Look, it might be a little tasteless in the eyes of others, but that is a form of expression that people choose because they have the freedom to do so. This is just another example of how much government is tying to take over. Now people have to wear clothing a certain way. It‘s bad enough that we can’t be proud to be Americans for fear of hurting the feelings immigrants. I don’t wear saggy pants; heck, I don’t even live in Illinois. I don’t need 5 people to vote on how I should wear my clothing on a day to day basis. The only time that is really called for is in a professional environment. Other than that, kiss my a$$.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:56amThe 1st ammendment protects SPEECH, not “expression”. And even free speech does not guarantee libel, incitement to riot or obscenity.
Report Post »justsaying
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 9:00amYou must be a product of the public school system.
Report Post »DaveOregon
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:16amHe’s correct – you have a Constitutional right to be stupid! Showing that your too dumb to know how to wear your pants is your right – as long as your not exposing body parts. ‘Course, restuarants havea no shoes no hirt policy – they can also instigate a no “purposely stupid” policy too! When the hommies and ganger wanna be‘s can’t get no food – they just might get the point.
Report Post »