Riviera Beach, Florida became the latest in a series of towns and cities to pass an anti-sagging law. The law, which passed with 72% of votes, grants police officers the ability to fine those with sagging pants or shorts caught exposing their underwear $150 for first time offenders.  Repeat offenders are subject to a $300 fine, or up to 60 days in jail, where men will undoubtedly fear displaying their backsides again. 

The city says they don't really want to jail anyone, they just want people to pull up their pants.  And they aren't alone.

In June 2007, town officials in the 2,231 person town of Delcambre, La., which lies 80 miles from Baton Rouge, passed a similar law that carries a fine of as much as $500 or six-months in jail.  

In Mansfield, LA, population 5,496, saggers face fines up to $150 plus court costs associated with the heinous "crime."  The worst saggers face up to 15 days of jail time. 

Mansfield Police Chief Don English believes the law, which takes effect Sept. 15, will set a good civic image. Clearly these saggers will look much more professional in prisoner jumpsuits.

Ironically, the sagging style began in prisons, where oversized uniforms were issued without belts to prevent suicide and their use as weapons. The style spread through rappers and music videos from the ghetto to the suburbs and around the world.

It appears the recent spree of sagging crackdowns is an effort to combat the defiant, "thuggish" culture infused into teens and young adults by rap culture.  Many believe the attitudes held by saggers to be synonomous with the disrespectful nature of their dress and are attempting to curtail the powerful influence of rap culture through legislation - an effort that flies in the face of one's freedom of self expression.  Or does it?

Councilwoman Annette Lartigue of Trenton, NJ, whose putting together legislation to ban sagging, says no.  “It’s a fad like hot pants; however, I think it crosses the line when a person shows their backside,” Lartigue told the Times. “You can’t legislate how people dress, but you can legislate when people begin to become indecent by exposing their body parts.”

Naturally, civil liberties groups vehemently oppose any legislation that prevents an individual from expressing his/herself freely, with the notable exception of private schools, which do have a right impose dress codes.  But is there a point at which one's dress translates to obscene? Should there be?

What if a man walked around Manhattan wearing nothing more than a fig leaf to make a biblical statement that we're all decedents of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?  Would expressing a religious view that many hold dear be construed as indecent?  Probably not in Manhattan, but it's possible, albeit ironic, inside the Bible belt. 

The reality is that legislating fashion - despite the strong desires of the fashionistas in New York, Los Angeles, and Paris - constitutes an attempt to suppress individuality and enforce the will of the majority opinion on the minority.  Our governmental structure accepts this process in cases of public policy, where the minority vote is overruled in favor of policies that benefit the majority of the population.  But in this situation, the majority of the public receives no benefit from people pulling up their pants, other than a relief from their own meddlesome minds.