A bill is working its way through the Tennessee legislature that makes it illegal to wear pants low enough to show underwear or a person's buttocks. The bill passed the House subcommittee Wednesday and will be set for review in the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
The proposed bill "makes it a criminal offense punishable by fine and community service only to knowingly wear pants below waistline to show underwear or buttocks," according to the Tennessee General Assembly Web site.
"If the law passes, and they make it a criminal violation, then we would have to enforce it just like any other," said Bruce Harber, director of The University of Memphis Police Services.
Exactly how Police Services would enforce the "Saggy Pants Bill" if it is made into a law is uncertain as of now.
"There are just so many things that are proposed, you can't spend a lot of time on anything until it becomes reality or a law," Harber said.
House Bill 2099 is sponsored by State Rep. Joe Towns and State Sen. Ophelia Ford, both Memphis democrats. Those who violate the bill will pay fines of $200 to $1,000 and serve 40 to 160 hours of community service. If passed, proceeds from the fines would go towards buying school books as well as band and sports equipment.
Some people are wondering if Tennessee legislators could be allowed to pass a law regarding the way that Tennessee citizens dress.
"I think there could easily be constitutional challenges," said Barbara Kritchevsky, law professor. "One could argue that it interferes with freedom of expression. The state argument could be that it's indecent. They can prohibit you from walking around naked."
Whether the bill would be violating freedom of expression or stopping public nudity is causing a bit of a debate.
"I suppose it depends on how public nudity is defined," said Heather Larsen-Price, an assistant professor of political science who does not believe the bill should become a law. "If someone's butt is showing, that could be public nudity. But if their clothing is showing, that's got to be freedom of expression in someway, and I don't think they should limit that."
Some U of M students are also arguing whether the bill is constitutional.
"If we have freedom of speech, why can't we have freedom of dress?" said Chade Wright, freshman biology major. "If people want to let their pants sag, let them sag. Who cares?"
Shannon Bradley, junior political anthropology major, said there are more pressing issues than baggy pants.
"That's freedom of our speech," Bradley said. "To bring it to that point to make it a law, there are other things to worry about."
The state should be worrying about crime, the economy and drunk driving, some students said - not saggy pants.
The Senate version of the "Saggy Pants Bill" has not begun moving yet.
