Boston criminalizes "saggy" pants

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

source

Urban youth in the Boston area are the target of a new ad campaign aimed at putting an end to sagging pants. Today (January 25) the Black Mental Health Alliance of Massachusetts’ (BMHAM) campaign hits televisions throughout the region to encourage the youth to pull up their pants. The campaign goes as far as to outline the ramifications of sagging your pants in Massachusetts, stating that wearing pants that sag could result in fines of $300 and even prison, for up to three years. [emphasis mine]

Jim Crow is still very much alive.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So I'm guessing these BMHAM folk are a bunch of uncle toms?

[Quail]

What? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Where do you draw the line between okay trousers and "saggy" trousers? Surely there are more important "crimes" to worry about than poor fashion choices? Although, it could seem a little more sinister when I wonder what kind of people might wear saggy trousers.

[Yuppie Grinder]

hoodrats themselves put an end to saggy pants like 5 years ago

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Part of me wants to believe that this article was ghostwritten by The Onion.

[l'Enfermé]

Hipster bullshit is way worse than saggy pants they should ban that too.

[Art Vandelay]

Hahaha this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

[Ele'ill]

So is the sale of baggy pants banned too?

[Revoltorb]

I'm not sure if anyone else watched the commercial but it's apparently from:

"The Commonwealth of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 272 `Crimes against chastity, morality, decency and good order`, Section 16 `Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior" (emphasis added)

What the fuck is that bullshit? Especially considering the relevant section (found here: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...leI/Chapter272 ) reads:

Section 16. A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.

Nowhere in there do I see anything about particular styles of dress. Fuck Boston, every single thing I learn about it makes me like this place less and less.

[Le Libérer]

It is clearly unconstitutional according to the 1st and 4th amendments. I spoke out against the ordinance here in La. where it is used as a tool for racial profiling. This tactic feeds easily into creating criminal charges against young black men who have not committed any crime. I can add more to this thread when I get home.

[Le Libérer]

I'm not sure if anyone else watched the commercial but it's apparently from:

"The Commonwealth of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 272 `Crimes against chastity, morality, decency and good order`, Section 16 `Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior" (emphasis added)

What the fuck is that bullshit? Especially considering the relevant section (found here: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...leI/Chapter272 ) reads:

Nowhere in there do I see anything about particular styles of dress. Fuck Boston, every single thing I learn about it makes me like this place less and less.

Right. It takes further ordinances to outlaw sagging and at that point becomes unconstitutional. All states already have obsentity laws on the books.

These ordinances are written so vague that it could apply to anyone in their front yard sun bathing or my favorite example, our friendly plumbers.

This is from my talking popints when I addressed this,

Banning saggy pants in public is an insult to the Constitution and puts people at risk of being arrested for behavior that offends some people's sensibilities, but is not criminal. The impact of ordinances like this proposed saggy pants ban will be far reaching: it gives police the opportunity to stop and search people, even if the officers have no reason to believe they have committed any wrongdoing apart from a "fashion crime." They create misdemeanor offenses for innocent behavior, leading to a criminal record that could follow young people for the rest of their lives. Enforcement of this ban could easily lead to racial profiling, including targeting certain neighborhoods or areas, even though young people of all colors wear sagging pants. Saggy pants bans will have long lasting harm in our communities as well as close doors of opportunity."

[Sir Comradical]

Fuck that, Ima sag them shits in solidarity.

[MP5]

This reads just like a Onion article. I don't think Ive seen anyone even wearing saggy pants up here in about 5 years so is Boston suddenly having such a high threat level from so many youths wearing saggy pants that they have to go and ban them?

This is why i never say "now Ive heard it all" anymore because once i do something like this comes along.

[Yazman]

Is it actually real? I mean, is this a real thing?

Assuming this is actually real, my main reason for opposition to this, is that I don't think the government has any goddamn business regulating what clothes people can and can't wear, or how they can wear them. I don't care what clothes it is - it's our decision to decide what we will wear and not some fucking politician's decision.

[Le Libérer]

Oh it's real ok. Here the same Commissioner tried to have pajamas banned in public too, it was because there were 2 women offended seeing young black men in a Walmart sporting pajama bottoms. There was no obsentity violations, everything was covered proper.

He dropped this asinine idea, but made national headlines with his attempts to make a name for himself. My girl Rachel Maddow covered it on her show.
Source

A commissioner in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, has about had it with people wearing their pajamas around town. Commissioner Michael Williams is pushing for an ordinance that would ban PJs in public, after he saw unexpected parts of someone wearing low-slung pajamas at the Walmart.

"Pajamas are designed to be worn in the bedroom at night," Mr. Williams tells the local Shreveport Times.

The people of Shreveport, some of them anyway, see it differently. One man tells the Times he's an American who pays his bills, so he doesn't see what the issue should be with PJs in public. Then there's this mom:

Tracy Carter, also of Shreveport, was out shopping Thursday with her 3-year-old son, Aaron — she in her Valentine's Day fuzzy pajama pants and Aaron in dinosaur pajamas."We all wear our pajamas out," Carter said. "I can get out of the bed and go to the store, and they're covering everything. I've got a 3-year-old, a 5-year-old and a 12-year-old to deal with."

The Caddo Parish sheriff says the biggest problem with a no-pajamas rule would be defining what exactly counts as pajamas.

From the commissioner himself:

Pajamas are designed to be worn in the bedroom at night," Williams said. "If you can't (wear pajamas) at the Boardwalk or courthouse, why are you going to do it in a restaurant or in public? Today it's pajamas," Williams said. "Tomorrow it's underwear. Where does it stop?"

His sound bite for saggin' was, "Today saggin', tomorrow Victoria Secret, next everyone will be walking around naked," Really he said that. Over and over and over.

But seriously, I know this thread is about Boston, but the south rules institutional racism, for example, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, the state with the most incarcerated is Louisiana, and the city in La. with the most arrests is Shreveport La. This mean the most incarcerated in the world is Shreveport, LA. Rachel broke it down nicely here.

+ YouTube Video

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Is it actually real? I mean, is this a real thing?

Assuming this is actually real, my main reason for opposition to this, is that I don't think the government has any goddamn business regulating what clothes people can and can't wear, or how they can wear them. I don't care what clothes it is - it's our decision to decide what we will wear and not some fucking politician's decision.

An activist I know mentioned the successful fight against this in New Orleans, I believe. The law was utilized by police to pick up Black men who had otherwise not committed any crimes.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I'm pretty sure Boston also banned moshing a year or so back.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm pretty sure Boston also banned moshing a year or so back.

Now that just crosses a line...

[Yazman]

I'm pretty sure Boston also banned moshing a year or so back.

See, I don't get laws like this. How can you ban moshing? How could that possibly be enforced unless they put cops at every single gig to watch the crowd?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

See, I don't get laws like this. How can you ban moshing? How could that possibly be enforced unless they put cops at every single gig to watch the crowd?

They don't have to have cops at every crowd. it's that notion of panopticism -- just knowing that surveillance is possible is enough to deter certain behaviors in some circumstances.