This week, the Delcambre Town Council declared overly saggy pants are obscene. Delcambre, which is located just west of New Iberia, passed an ordinance that carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine for being caught in pants that show undergarments. The law includes exposure of the buttocks, genitals and undergarments of both men and women. It forbids “nudity, partial nudity,” “dress not becoming to his or her sex” and “any indecent exposure of his or her person or undergarments.” Mayor Carol Broussard told the Associated Press that he pledged to sign the ordinance and also claimed the ordinance is not racially driven. Dress codes are acceptable when dealing with schools and workplaces. They can prevent gang violence and bullying in schools and may lead to greater productivity in the work place. But any government-mandated dress code for the general public is unconstitutional. Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, a bra strap is not obscene. Miller v. California created the following three-part test to determine what is obscene: whether the average person, applying contemporary standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Obscenity in the context of the First Amendment generally refers to explicitly sexual acts that are generally accessible by the public. Boxer shorts and bras are not explicitly sexual items. They do not meet Miller’s requirements for obscenity.
Does this mean a woman cannot go running in a sports bra?
Will the Delcambre Police Department arrest toddlers for running around their family’s backyard in a t-shirt and underwear? Obviously regulations must exist. No shoes, no shirt, no service has worked for until now.