Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:24 am
Kinda means plumbers will have to start wearing overalls, don't it?
Because of the way it's worded, there will be those who challenge the ordinance as being unconstitutionally vague. But then again, it was U. S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964):
"It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
So, as distasteful as it is that persons think it is a fashion statement to go around with droopy drawers, others will see enforcement of this ordinance as harassment and a violation of freedom of expression. Me? I just think the whole matter is just stupidity: stupidity in wearing such, and risking tripping and physical injury of various sorts, and stupidity of the city's counsel that wasted its time on such.