Athenæum

Previous entry | Next entry

02/10/2005: :: Criminally Absurd

Virginia Seeks To Outlaw Low-Rider Pants
from Washington Post

The lower house of the Virginia Legislature has voted overwhelmingly to impose a $50 fine on anyone caught wearing pants low enough to see some undergarments. Below, the bill in question:

Source: Virginia Legislative Information System

HOUSE BILL NO. 1981
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the House Committee for Courts of Justice
on February 4, 2005)
(Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Howell, A.T.)
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-387.1, relating to indecent display of below-waist undergarments.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-387.1 as follows:

Section 18.2-387.1. Indecent display of underwear.

Any person who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner, shall be subject to a civil penalty of no more than $50. "Intimate parts" has the same meaning as in Section 18.2-67.10.

Some insighful comments from the Post writer Marc Fisher:

"Virginia yields to no state in its protection of individual rights. This year, the legislature has stood tall against the threat to freedom posed by the use of cameras to enforce the law against running red lights. Lawmakers made certain that Virginians would not be barred from entering a day-care center with a loaded gun. And the House is poised to reject an effort to restrict teenagers' use of cell phones while driving.

But there is an odd gap in Virginia's protection of your liberties. Somehow, these same legislators are only too happy to get inside your marriage, your bedroom and even your pants."


Thursday the 10th of February, prof_booty noted:


The roll call:

(floor) 02/08/05 House: VOTE: PASSAGE (60-Y 34-N)

YEAS--Abbitt, Amundson, Armstrong, Athey, Barlow, Black, Carrico, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Councill, Cox, Dillard, Dudley, Fralin, Gear, Griffith, Hall, Hamilton, Hargrove, Hogan, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Hurt, Ingram, Janis, Johnson, Jones, S.C., Keister, Kilgore, Landes, Lingamfelter, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., McDonnell, McDougle, McQuigg, Miller, Moran, Morgan, Nutter, Parrish, Plum, Pollard, Purkey, Putney, Rapp, Reese, Reid, Scott, E.T., Shannon, Sherwood, Shuler, Suit, Tata, Wardrup, Ware, R.L., Weatherholtz, Welch, Mr. Speaker--60.

NAYS--Albo, Alexander, BaCote, Baskerville, Bell, Brink, Bryant, Byron, Callahan, Ebbin, Eisenberg, Frederick, Joannou, Lewis, Louderback, Marrs, May, Melvin, Miles, Nixon, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Petersen, Phillips, Rust, Scott, J.M., Sickles, Spruill, Stump, Van Yahres, Ward, Ware, O., Watts--34.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Hull, Jones, D.C., Saxman, Van Landingham, Wright--5.


Thursday the 10th of February, awiggins noted:


Surely, even in such a utopian paradise as Virginia, there must be more pressing problems then this.

Would it be alright if they were wearing this thong:
Jesus Thong


Monday the 21st of February, Froman noted:


Hey look ... crotch sniffing Jesus!!!