(TMU) — In recent decades, cities and states throughout the country have been slowly and silently criminalizing saggy pants. A new bill proposed in the South Carolina will threaten fines for anyone who has pants that hang more than three inches below the waistline, even if their skin is not exposed.
On February 15th, South Carolina lawmakers introduced House Bill 4957, which states that it will be illegal for men or boys to be seen in public “wearing his pants more than three inches below the crest of his ileum exposing his skin or undergarments.”
Thestate.com pointed out that the lawmakers spelled “ilium” wrong in the bill, which is the correct spelling of a part of the hip bone. Instead, they typed ileum, which is a part of the small intestine.
If the bill passes it will allow police to write fines that increase with every ticket. The first offense would carry a $25 fine, the second offense would carry a $50 fine and/or up to 3 hours of community service, and a $75 fine and/or 6 hours of community service thereafter.
Wendell Gilliard, one of the main sponsors of the bill, told WCIV, “We have to lead by example. The pants now are being worn below the knees.”
Seeing someones underwear may seem strange to some, but when you think about it, its really just another piece of cloth, and the person is still covered. The fact that people would think that it something like this can be legislated or outlawed shows that we live in a control freak culture, where threats and force are used to mold society according to the whims of politicians and special interest groups.
While lawmakers insist that jail time will not be imposed on offenders, people have been arrested for sagging pants before.
In 2015, two Tennessee high school students were arrested for indecent exposure for wearing their pants below the waistline.
What are your thoughts?
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us