Can freedom of speech be applied to indecent exposure?
According to the Associated Press, the new police chief of Flint, Mich., is going to crack down on crack. Not the drug, but the kind that can be seen when young men wear their trousers too low on their hips.
Many residents fear that this order will unfairly target African-Americans. The American Civil Liberties Union already has a lawyer, Greg Gibbs, on the case. The precedent for the ACLU is to oppose any restriction on clothing.In May 2008, the ACLU won a case in Florida over the wearing of rainbows in a high school. On their Web site, the ACLU reported, “Principal David Davis admitted under oath that he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbols supporting equal rights for gay people. Davis also testified that he believed rainbows were “sexually suggestive” and would make students unable to study because they’d be picturing gay sex acts in their mind.
The principal went on to admit that while censoring rainbows and gay pride messages he allowed students to wear other symbols many find controversial, such as the Confederate flag.”
We find this ridiculous—rainbows are banned but not a symbol that is related to racism and hate crimes?
The banning of the saggy pants is also ridiculous. Imagine if someone tried to outlaw the wearing of Wranglers in Oklahoma under the assumption they are so tight that they are “too sexually suggestive.”
Lawmakers and the elderly always seem to have a problem with the clothing of the youngsters.
Remember the days when a young woman was “trashy” for wearing a skirt above her knee and a long-haired young man was a “dirty hippy?” Instead of focusing on the loose jeans, the police should be focused on preventing violent crimes or getting doughnuts.
—The Daily O’Collegian
Editorial Board
Loading ...
All Articles