Wearing a hoodie in Oklahoma could cost you a 500 dollar fine

[bigdarryl]

Isn't this Unconstitutional and coming from the party(republicans) of less Government.I mean where does it end you could make it a crime for a woman to wear a short dress out in public http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/03/3607687/oklahoma-hoodie-ban/

[Union Scribe]

1. I thought Republicans liked hoods?

Maybe there's a klan exemption in the wording.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. White hoodies, hoods and hoodlums

are exempted.

[NYC_SKP]

4. There's a Klan exemption:

(provisions) shall not apply to the pranks of children on Halloween,
to those going to, or from, or participating in masquerade parties,
to those participating in any public parade or exhibition of an
educational, religious or historical character, to those wearing
coverings required by their religious beliefs, for safety or medical
purposes, or incidental to protection from the weather,
to those participating in any meeting of any organization within any building
or enclosure wholly within and under the control of said
organization, and to those participating in the parades or
exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, sporting groups, mascots
or other amusements or dramatic shows.

If they're friendly with local law enforcement, they'll get a pass.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Well it seems unconstitutional but unless it's challenged and defeated it will become law.

Are Saggy Pants bans unconstitutional?

Why does the ACLU care about saggy pants?

September 11, 2012

ACLU TO PROTEST SAGGY PANTS BAN- the headlines proclaimed! When the Hinds County Board of Supervisors considered banning saggy pants in public, the ACLU-MS opposed the ban and organized a protest. Our members and supporters called and emailed asking, "What's the Problem?"

Banning saggy pants in public is an affront to the Constitution and puts people at risk of being arrested for behavior that offends some people's sensibilities, but is not criminal. The impact of ordinances like the proposed saggy pants ban in Hinds County will be far reaching: it gives police the opportunity to stop and search people, even if the officers have no reason to believe they have committed any wrongdoing apart from a "fashion crime." They create misdemeanor offenses for innocent behavior, leading to a criminal record that could follow young people for the rest of their lives. Enforcement of this ban could easily lead to racial profiling, including targeting certain neighborhoods or areas, even though young people of all colors don sagging pants.

Government policy-makers have no right to dictate or influence style, nor do they have the right to protect themselves and the greater public from seeing clothing they dislike. In fact, clothing is a form of expression protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
A governmental body seeking to regulate content based expressive conduct, such as wearing saggy pants, must show that asubstantial government interest exists in regulating the conduct, that the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and that the regulationactually furthers that government interest. The courts have been clear that government cannot ban speech simply because others find it distasteful. There is no evidence linking saggy pants to crime or public safety. It is true that the Constitution does not protect actual obscenities; however, while we might not like the look, the style covers as much as shorts or swim trunks would.

Banning sagging pants, or any other form of attire, also violates a liberty interest guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court found it so obvious that individuals possessed a liberty interest in their personal appearance that itassumedsuch a right to exist. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this assumption. No governmental interest in banning sagging pants is sufficient to overcome this liberty interest.

http://www.aclu-ms.org/news/2012/09/11/why-does-aclu-care-about-saggy-pants

[IdaBriggs]

5. These idiots make my head hurt. From the article...

Republican Senator Don Barrington will introduce the bill, which would make it a misdemeanor to “wear a mask, hood, or covering” either while committing a crime or in order to intentionally conceal one’s identity.

So, WHILE COMMITTING A CRIME this is an "added misdemeanor" that will simply be additional revenue for the criminal justice system, but IF NOT COMMITTING A CRIME, then the "thought police" step in to determine whether you have a hood up because it is raining out or because you are "trying to conceal your identity"? What "magic" will be used to determine that?

Oh, I know - the magic of "can you afford the time and money to fight this type of bullshit while someone sits on a bench with a vested interest in raising revenue so you CAN'T win?"

[bigdarryl]

6. The first person that gets charged and fine will challenge this in Federal Court

Even if they don't have the resources any Civil lawyer will be gladly take this case for free

[hexola]

7. Same guy who voted "Yea" to international sale of Horsemeat for human consumption.

https://votesmart.org/bill/16184/42641/45930/don-barrington-voted-yea-passage-sb-375-authorizes-the-international-sale-of-horse-meat-for-human-consumption#42641

[QuestionableC]

8. Don't many jurisdictions ban the wearing of masks in public, with similar exceptions?