"Dress Code" - Florida law criminalising baggy pants unconstitutional

Remove all ads!

Here's the whole story:

But at least, in Saudi Arabia the kid would have probably been publicly flogged for his indecent clothing, so the Florida law stands out for its leniency. Terrifying that it needed a judge to tell the Floridans about the constitutionality.

But kidding aside, since the 'dress code' the charge against Hart meant a violation of his probation on a marijuana possession charge, this law is an idiocy with consequences.

 

I completely agree, and I particularly like the 'Monty Python' comparison. The fashion is completely tasteless, insulting, degrading, and entirely legal. Probably a first amendment thing, if nothing else. How you dress has repeatedly been ruled on as a matter of speech.

 

I certainly don't like that "look" either, but I agree that it is ridiculous to legislate against it. Unless the guy's arse was hanging out, his clothing was not indecent. As pointed out, short shorts cover far less than a typical pair of boxers, and they are legal.

 

Government is becoming more and more intrusive. California is now banning toys from "Happy Meals" unless they meet a certain nutritional standard.

I hope this law is declared unconstitutional and that others take up the fight to get such laws banned. Here in New Jersey the State EPA has declared illegal the idling of vehicles for more than 3 minutes publicly or privately. I understand the fine is $250 US dollars.

I believe that it was in California that a Bar did an expensive renovation getting all the necessary permits. After the renovations where made an inspector ordered the owner to remove the bar and reposition it because a person in a wheel chair would not fit behind the bard. The owner pointed out that a person in a wheel chair wouldn't be able to reach the top of the bar to serve drinks. I am suprised he wasn't ordered to lower the bar.

Common sense seems to have disappeared these days.

 

To hell with the baggy pants -- criminalize spandex! My God, don't you people realize what you look like in spandex!?!?

Thongs for men has my vote as well.

 

That's true, but it appears McDonald's has already found a work around. While it is illegal to sell a $2.99 Happy Meal and include a free toy, it isn't illegal to sell a $2.99 toy, and include a free Happy Meal.

I am quite certain that I have stopped at red lights waiting for the green arrow to make a left hand turn for more than three minutes. Are we supposed to turn our engines off?

That would also make it illegal to warm up your car in the winter.

 

I hadn't heard that. Good for McDonald's.

Yes, I think that is what they are primarily trying to stop. Could be a problem if stuck in traffic in winter, too.

 

A lot of warm climate places have instituted such bans. At least that's what I have heard. Some yammering occurred here in Edmonton, and it was quickly shut down by people saying that it is simply too cold here for anti-idling laws to be feasible, reasonable, or followed.

The fact it was even brought up tells me that the freaking tree-hugging, peacenik, hemp-wearing, tell-everyone-else-how-to-live-their-lives crowd of modern day Luddites has far too much power in public policy.

 

On the other hand, do you know how much fuel you can save as a trucker just by not idling all night? Quite aside from the environmental impact, this saves money too. That's why we don't have problems with anti-idling laws over on this side of the atlantic. Fuel's too expensive to waste like that. Except of course in very cold places.

Anyway, those baggy pants... I don't care about them, but I do think it looks quite ridiculous when you see them walking, using one hand to keep their pants from dropping down to their ankles. It's just not very practical.

To outlaw this way of wearing trousers seems quite stupid, and there are other ways of dressing yourself that are far more offensive to my eyes. Like the aforementioned thongs. But since when is the government also the fashion police? Seems to me that's not a direction we'd want to go to.
Unless of course you want to do a Red vs Blue in real life.

 

and

It seems rather unenforcable to boot. If you're warming your car up in front of your house, even if a police car happens to be driving down the street, he'd have to stop and wait for three minutes to make sure you were over the limit, and most cops just don't care enough to do that. Especially in the cold weather - they'd have to get out of their warm cozy cars to place the ticket on your windshield!

Yes, I imagine a truck idling all night would consume quite a bit of fuel, but the ordinance in question applies to time frames as short as 3 minutes! I don't know how much fuel you'd save by not letting your car idle for 3 minutes, but I cannot imagine it's a hell of a lot.

 

Aldeth, you have a good point there.

My problem is that I see Government agencies becoming law makers and Government in general becoming more and more intrusive. This 'political correctness' thing has gotten way out of hand. Our elected officials are human beings just like the rest of us. I believe in laws to protect society from itself but I also believe in the rights of individuals.

 

Some people are so tiresome! It's like a justicial cat and mouse game. "Look what silly, patronizing law I just came up with" vs. "I just did an utterly stupid, unreasonable and immoral thing and I'm getting away with it cause I found a loophole!"

 

I get the first part, not the second. I need help on the "stupid, unreasonable, and immoral" part.

 

Oops! Sorry Aldeth. That part has little to do with this thread. My bad...

I just find it silly that while some people are suggesting/creating laws for anything (like what we're talking about here), there are also people who think it's okay to circumvent loopholes. It's all about laws, laws, laws... I do understand they are important, but there is also a thing called common sense. It tires me.

 

I think it's been long established that common sense is not really as common as it suggests it is.

Here in the Philippines, we too had some rules/laws that became ridiculous because of the lack of common senses. An example is the toll rates, any vehicles with at least 6 wheels are considered as trucks and should pay higher tolls. So some mini-vans (pic#1) that's just a tad longer than a mini-Cooper and probably a half-size taller but with 6 tiny wheels had to pay a much higher toll fee than a Ford Expedition. And to make it worst, some 6 wheeler trucks (pic#2) gets away with lower toll fees by removing the 2 rear wheels.

Pic#1


Pic#2



And sedans with bicycles attached on the roof are being charged the actual rate of the truck in pic#2. Although the bicycle thing had been corrected now but I don't know if the 6-wheel issue is still in effect.

I guess I am agreeing with MoN, it is silly how some people create laws for limiting somethings and there are people who just think it's okay to exploit the loopholes. I can understand the later ones because some of these laws are just stupid.

 

About the fuel consumption when idling:

My car's 2.0 l turbodiesel engine uses up anywhere between 0.6 and 1.7 liters per HOUR when idling, depending on the outside temperature, operating temperature of the engine itself and whether I have lots of the car's electronics working at the same time or not.

0.6 = Warmed up engine without A/C, anywhere between shorts to light jacket weather
1.7 = Cold start at -20 C, no preheat; side mirror, rear window, seat and interior heaters set to max.