July 2010
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jun   Aug »

Month July 2010

Ridiculous, but not illegal

Wearing saggy pants that hang from your thighs and expose your underwear may be ridiculous, but it is not illegal, a Bronx judge has ruled.

“While most of us may consider it distasteful, and indeed foolish, to wear ones pants so low as to expose the underwear … ‘people can dress as they please, wear anything, so long as they do not offend public order and decency,'” Criminal Court Judge Ruben Franco wrote in People v. Martinez, 2009SX048784.

In April 2009, defendant Julio Martinez received a summons because, as the arresting officer wrote, Martinez wore “his pants down below his buttocks exposing underwear [and] potentially showing private parts.”

The sole charge was disorderly conduct and the sole factual allegation was that the defendant wore his pants troublesomely low.

Penal Law §240.20(7) defines “disorderly conduct” as intentionally “caus[ing] public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creat[ing] the risk thereof [by creating] a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act serving no legitimate purpose.”

… The judge cited a Wikipedia article, which defines “sagging” as “a manner of wearing trousers … below the waist, hanging below the waist area and therefore revealing much of the underwear.”

Lawmakers in Atlanta and Louisiana, among other places, have proposed banning the low-slung style. In New York, however, the right to wear pants as low as one wishes, so long as decency is not offended, remains unabated, the judge concluded.

“The Constitution still leaves some opportunity for people to be foolish if they so desire,” Franco wrote, quoting People v. Gorman, 274 N.Y. 284.

(via New York Law Journal)

Puerile attempts by adolescents to outdo each other

A Long Island, N.Y., judge has thrown out a $6 million defamation action filed by an Oceanside teenager against four former classmates who set up a Facebook page on which they joked that the teen used heroin and contracted AIDS by having sex with animals in Africa.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Randy Sue Marber ruled that no reasonable person could believe that the allegedly defamatory statements were facts.

“A reasonable reader, given the overall context of the posts, simply would not believe that the Plaintiff contracted AIDS by having sex with a horse or a baboon or that she contracted AIDS from a male prostitute who also gave her crabs and syphilis, or that having contracted sexually transmitted diseases in such manner she morphed into the devil,” Justice Marber held in Finkel v. Dauber, 012414/09.

“Taken together, the statements can only be read as puerile attempts by adolescents to outdo each other.”

(via New York Law Journal)

The Buddha is a Buddha. The shed is a shed.

I assure you that these answers to your questions are not intended to be funny.

(via the Telegraph)