After careful thought, I have to agree with the arguments in favor of banning baggy pants. It is not a question of freedom of speech but rather a standard of acceptable clothing that has been set by an institution - the school. We all have experienced and adhered to "minimum" requirements of acceptable clothing in many situations. For example, many places of business clearly state that service or entrance to the establishment can be refused if no shirt or shoes are worn. Is it not true one cannot appear in court in front of a judge while wearing shorts or flip-flops or even a hat? Don't many employers require their employees to wear certain types of clothing or uniforms while on the job? So what's the difference between a school banning baggy pants and an employer not allowing sneakers at work? There is none. After all, we are talking about children who are being told what the appropriate attire to wear while attending school. The ban does not and should not extend outside of school.
Now to the main reason why baggy pants are banned - indecent exposure, which in turn can lead to the distraction of other students. Where do we draw the line on decency? What's decent or fashionable for some people may be considered vulgar and indecent to others. So why even bother arguing what's decent and what is not? It's somewhat irrelevant in my opinion because if we accept the fact that as an institution, it has the right to set standards on what it feels is acceptable and appropriate attire while attending school, then whether it's decent or not doesn't really matter after that point. Courts do it. Businesses do it. So why not schools?
Can a person argue that wearing no clothing at all is also a form of free speech? I believe so but there’s a place and time for when it’s appropriate. If society as a whole considers public nudity offensive and indecent, then the majority side should have the final say on whether it’s acceptable to be nude in public or not. After all, we are a democratic society with the power to set our own rules and guidelines. If public nudity is acceptable by most, then it should be allowed.
Do you believe that a law prohibiting people from wearing only underwear would be unconstitutional? Yes I do because it would infringe on people’s freedom of choice. Besides, one man’s definition of underwear is another man’s bathing suit. Where would we draw the line and define what should be considered underwear? However, there could be exceptions to the law made just as there are areas where smoking isn’t allowed in certain public places.
Can any limits be placed upon what clothing one may wear? Sure, especially on private property or places of business and on public property where certain levels of decency are expected. We practice this today. Appearing in front of a judge requires one to wear appropriate attire. Certain jobs require uniforms to be worn at all times and prohibit certain articles of clothing.