Crossdressing is protected by the first amendment.

[vetobob9]

When you think about it, the clothing you wear is a form of expression and, as long as it is not obscene, is protected by the first amendment. You don’t need a good reason to do it because you have the right to wear what ever you want regardless. The only restriction on this type of first amendment activity is that you can’t use it to engage violence, harrassment, or public obscenity. So if anyone wants to harass you for what you wear, tell them the first amendment of the US constitution says you can wear whatever you want regardless of your gender.

[eluuzion]

Ah, America...what a concept Things always appear so hopeful on paper don't they.

I think "what you have a right to do" and "what you actually can do" was clarified by Georgie B Admin with the privacy issues and the 4th amendment.

Didn't you get the memo? It is called "every man for him/her self". What is supposed to happen and what actually occurs rarely match up these days.

But hey, I am sure it has something to do with keeping the oil, cough cough...er, ah I mean keeping us safer...

You are supposed to be able to walk down the street and not get mugged or raped or robbed too. But I don't think I will go out dressed and walk down any street by myself. But hey, that is just me...

[ColleenW]

When you think about it, the clothing you wear is a form of expression and, as long as it is not obscene, is protected by the first amendment. You don’t need a good reason to do it because you have the right to wear what ever you want regardless. The only restriction on this type of first amendment activity is that you can’t use it to engage violence, harrassment, or public obscenity. So if anyone wants to harass you for what you wear, tell them the first amendment of the US constitution says you can wear whatever you want regardless of your gender.

Legally yes, there is policeman who is going to arrest you for cross dressing and put you in jail but what you can do legally and what society thinks you should do, in this case, are vastly different. Of course, it's really in your own head. You don't have to submit to the norms of society.

[Kate Simmons]

Unfortunately, the first amendment won't prevent a person from being beaten up or worse. This is where good judgment and common sense come in.

[linnea]

Our rights are protected, but as several have already responded, that doesn't prevent people from violating them. There is often a huge difference between what is and what ought to be.

[eluuzion]

Unfortunately, the first amendment won't prevent a person from being beaten up or worse. This is where good judgment and common sense come in.

Denise,

Unfortunately, Common Sense died in 1998 in Indianapolis, Indiana

Here is a link to the obituary
http://www.suddenlysenior.com/deathofcommonsense.html

[Loni]

i would say the first amendment protecting cross dressing is a bit of a stretch.

that would be like saying the second says i can have and carry a full auto machine gun. (i would like that ).

[sandra-leigh]

When you think about it, the clothing you wear is a form of expression and, as long as it is not obscene, is protected by the first amendment.

One problem with that theory is that the definition of "obscene" has to do with "community standards", so if a community decides that cross-dressing is obscene then it has the right to ban it.

If you think that this can't happen due to the First Amendment, then you haven't been reading the phrasing of the "saggy pants laws", a number of which are phrased in terms of clothing "appropriate" to the person's sex. As a number of places were strongly advised that that affected cross-dressing but they choose to pass the laws with that wording anyhow, the implication is that those places wanted to block cross-dressing.


The First Amendment does not protect non-citizens of the USA, and it doesn't protect citizens outside of the USA even when it is official agents of the US government who are accosting them. Read about "extraordinary rendition" for more information on those legal theories.

[kellycan27]

Ah, America...what a concept Things always appear so hopeful on paper don't they.

I think "what you have a right to do" and "what you actually can do" was clarified by Georgie B Admin with the privacy issues and the 4th amendment.

Didn't you get the memo? It is called "every man for him/her self". What is supposed to happen and what actually occurs rarely match up these days.

But hey, I am sure it has something to do with keeping the oil, cough cough...er, ah I mean keeping us safer...

You are supposed to be able to walk down the street and not get mugged or raped or robbed too. But I don't think I will go out dressed and walk down any street by myself. But hey, that is just me...

You have the freedom to move to a better country if you like.

[Karen564]

tell them the first amendment of the US constitution says you can wear whatever you want regardless of your gender.

[SIZE=2]Really.......YOU show me where it says that...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Word for word..[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]In fact find me ANYTHING in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights stating any such thing...[/SIZE]

[Persephone]

You may be right, Vetobob, but in addition to the concerns others have expressed, the problem with relying on something like the First Amendment is that it takes a long time, probably years, for the court system to reach that conclusion. Once it does, of course, you will probably have done a great service to the crossdressers who come after the decision.

As it happens, such a case is currently underway in Guyana. You can read about it (click here).

Denise,

Unfortunately, Common Sense died in 1998 in Indianapolis, Indiana

Here is a link to the obituary
http://www.suddenlysenior.com/deathofcommonsense.html

Ah, America...what a concept Things always appear so hopeful on paper don't they.

I think "what you have a right to do" and "what you actually can do" was clarified by Georgie B Admin with the privacy issues and the 4th amendment.

Didn't you get the memo? It is called "every man for him/her self". What is supposed to happen and what actually occurs rarely match up these days.

I'd really like to understand how you can agree with http://www.suddenlysenior.com/deathofcommonsense.html and make the second comment, Eluuzion. The two seem very opposite to me, especially since 1998 was Willie C., not Georgie B.

I agree with Kelly.

[JamieOH]

well, as you also stated, if it isnt to harrass, and there are those who will claim that you are harrassing people walking around in a skirt, as demonstrated by the guy arrested for wearing a women's swimsuit at the beach, he wasn't harrassing, people, but they claimed he was trying to get people to see him wearing it, and that was harrassment.. It will be a long time until the full protection is there, but as long as we stick together, and are smart we should be ok

[Stephanie Anne]

Never forget this:

Regardless of whether or not something should be guaranteed equally and regardless of whether or not you belong to a christian religion, you are still governed under their belief structure. How else can you explain how the right of gay marriage and ENDA has not passed?

[NathalieX66]

Anything is protected by the first amendment....it jsut means that the Federal government leaves it up to each of the 50 states to decide what they want for laws. In my case, New Jersey says: "New Jersey's new law prohibits discriminatory practices in employment, housing and public accommodations based on "gender identity or expression" http://www.nctequality.org/news06.html

[kymmieLorain]

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CLOTHING OR CLUB MEMBERSHIP IS ILLEGAL

Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with may institute and prosecute a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief including the award of compensatory monetary damages. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen vs. California, 403 U.S.15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writings or designs. In addition, the right of an individual to freedom of association has long been recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, a person's right to wear the clothing of his choice, as well as his right to belong to any club or organization of his choice is constitutionally protected, and persons or establishments who discriminate on the basis of clothing or club memberships are subject to lawsuit


Kymmie

[Kaitlin the cd]

When you think about it, the clothing you wear is a form of expression and, as long as it is not obscene, is protected by the first amendment. You don’t need a good reason to do it because you have the right to wear what ever you want regardless. The only restriction on this type of first amendment activity is that you can’t use it to engage violence, harrassment, or public obscenity. So if anyone wants to harass you for what you wear, tell them the first amendment of the US constitution says you can wear whatever you want regardless of your gender.

The first amendment also protects obscene clothing and speech.

[SandraAbsent]

Ok this is a topic that really hits me. Despite my crossdressing which is a rather liberal concept, I am a strict conservative in most areas of my life. The first amendment protects our rights to free speech period end of discussion. The intention of this amendment was designed to protect US citizens from legal or political persecution for criticism against the state. I don't believe the US Constitution is a living document that should be molded or shaped to adapt to current events. Its intention was to protect the citizens from the state and to define the roles of local, state, and federal government. What has been attempted time and time again is to use the Constitution to define morality. This is absolutely incorrect. Morally it is incorrect to cheat on your spouse, but legislating it has never been done, and for good reason. This is the entire premise behind why abortion is legal. There are many who feel that this action is completely immoral, but it is not the job of government to legislate it unless it puts another life in danger. Hence the giant abortion debate. I view it this way in the GLBT community. We are not protected by the constitution when read verbatim, however when strictly read, there is no verbage which restricts our choices to pursue what we are born to be. With that being said, if a local or state government passes legislation which prohibits us it becomes a question of whether that body has the right to legislate the morality of current times. Does crossdressing harm the public as a hole or national security? Absolutely not, so there is no need for legislation against it. We are protected under the constitution in the realm of voting, employment, and status of citizenship. Maybe this makes sense or maybe it doesn't, but it is simply my two cents worth.

[telawilson]

Ok this is a topic that really hits me. Despite my crossdressing which is a rather liberal concept, I am a strict conservative in most areas of my life. The first amendment protects our rights to free speech period end of discussion. The intention of this amendment was designed to protect US citizens from legal or political persecution for criticism against the state. I don't believe the US Constitution is a living document that should be molded or shaped to adapt to current events. Its intention was to protect the citizens from the state and to define the roles of local, state, and federal government. What has been attempted time and time again is to use the Constitution to define morality. This is absolutely incorrect. Morally it is incorrect to cheat on your spouse, but legislating it has never been done, and for good reason.

True, but, taken literally, very few of our rights would be available to us. Look at it this way: If I was to walk around downtown with a sign reading "Local police are often discourteous to motorists," the police couldn't bust me for it, assuming that I didn't need a permit or something like that. In other words, they couldn't censor my message. But the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech..." Taken literally, me with the sign doesn't have anything to do with Congress making a law. There are two ideas at play: the 9th amendment says that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved by the people (i.e., just because it's not there doesn't mean you don't have it) and that the Supreme Court has set legal precedent over 200+ years that says that gov't agencies can't abridge one's freedom of expression unless some very specific criteria are met.

So the intent was indeed that it be a malleable document, but not subject to the whims of the time. It takes quite a lot to amend it.

One thing I have heard of regarding CD-ing is falsification. Cops can bust you if they think you're trying to conceal your identity for nefarious purposes.

[JulieC]

i would say the first amendment protecting cross dressing is a bit of a stretch.

that would be like saying the second says i can have and carry a full auto machine gun. (i would like that ).

Actually, this very argument was used back in the 1980s in New York. Some women who chose to go topless were arrested. They defended themselves on first amendment grounds and won.

It's not much of a stretch. How you dress is a form of expression. "Speech" as protected by the first amendment is not just what is said, it's what is expressed.

[DonnaT]

The flag-burning cases of 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and 1990 (United States v. Eichman), the Supreme Court accepted that non-speech means applied to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Accordingly, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment.


http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/....php?p=2169981

[eluuzion]

You have the freedom to move to a better country if you like.

Yes, for now, that is still an option…

An option I decided to explore when I was 21 years old. I moved to Cali, Colombia, S.A.
I have also lived in the Dominican Republic for a short time, as well as visiting other countries outside the U.S. I still have many friends in other countries.

In my opinion, if your motivation for moving to another country, another state, another city or another residence is to “escape” your responsibilities or restrictions imposed by that of your former residence…you will be disappointed. (“The grass is always greener philosophy”)

That “strategy” will likely result in the realization that you have simply traded the undesirable aspects of your county of origin for those present in a country you will never be as familiar with as your own. I chose to remain in the U.S. and endeavor to orchestrate changes from my own backyard. It has been successful for me…

In my case, I decided that living in the U.S. ultimately provided me with the greatest opportunities to control my own lifestyle. With a little creative thinking, I have successfully resolved many, if not all of the greatest annoyances and restrictions I encounter(d) in my life.

Life may be short, but I am enjoying every minute of mine…”there’s no place like home”.

If there is a will, there is a way…

Just my thoughts…

[kellycan27]

In my case, I decided that living in the U.S. ultimately provided me with the greatest opportunities to control my own lifestyle. With a little creative thinking, I have successfully resolved many, if not all of the greatest annoyances and restrictions I encounter(d) in my life.

Bingo.. my point exactly. This country may not be perfect but we do have "rights" and opportunities that a lot of people in other countries don't.



Kel

[eluuzion]

Bingo.. my point exactly. This country may not be perfect but we do have "rights" and opportunities that a lot of people in other countries don't.



Kel

I agree with your statement being one that any person could make with regards to the country where they were born and live in. (not just those born or residing in the U.S.)

[sandra-leigh]

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cohen vs. California, 403 U.S.15 (1971) that individuals have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to wear clothing which displays writings or designs.

Tell that to the reporters who were banned from White House press conferences for wearing shirts that referred to the other main political party or which referred to events such as the inequities in the Florida elections that got Bush his second term.

Tell it to the accredited journalists and accredited GOP delegates who were banned from GOP conventions and threatened with jail for "trespass" for wearing shirts or pins that were critical of the policies of the major candidates.

Tell it to the people who have been asked to leave a mall and never come back because they were wearing a skirt or dress that was against the (unpublicized) mall dress-code -- and since malls are private property in the USA, any bizarre dress code is legal -- including (and this has really happened) being banned for wearing "Support The Troops -- Bring them Home" pins when everyone else around is wearing the equally political "Support The Troops" pins.

Here is what the First Amendment means in practice in the USA: you have the freedom to be nearly as loud and obvious as you want if you are promoting an opinion that advocates more government or Big Business control of people's lives or stricter old-Testament-style morality judgments -- but if you advocate more true personal freedom (not controlled by government or big business) or advocate ethical behaviour not derived from "an eye for an eye, a stoning for a cross-dresser" then "You are disturbing the peace" and are an Unlawful Assembly if there are more than 2 of you together in one place and you need a Parade Permit to walk along the sidewalk together with your rainbow-flag backpacks.

[Alicia_lynn419]

I agree to a point... but just to throw some fuel on the fire.. It takes the 2nd amendment to protect the rest of 'em. I would be more concerned about a personal attack/physical violence than police harassment. Being crossdressed is not a crime.... what you do while crossdressed is another story.