Alabama beach town bans "vile and vulgar" t-shirts

[SuperMillionaire]

Mayor wants 'vile' t-shirt ordinance | Fox10tv.com (http://www.fox10tv.com/news/local/baldwin-county/mayor-wants-vile-t-shirt-ordinance)

Orange Beach council to vote on vulgar t-shirt ban | Fox10tv.com (http://www.fox10tv.com/news/local/baldwin-county/orange-beach-council-to-vote-on-vulgar-t-shirt-ban)

Orange Beach Approves Tacky T-shirt Ordinance (http://www.wkrg.com/story/21801765/orange-beach-approves-tacky-t-shirt-ordinance)

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20130328/NEWS02/303280023/

The beach town of Orange Beach, Alabama has banned the sale of t-shirts that are deemed "vile and vulgar" from the town's stores. Mayor Tony Kennon declared that when he visited a town shop that sells various souvenirs to tourists, especially during spring break, he was disgusted at the various messages that appeared on these t-shirts, including messages about glorifying sex, drugs, alcohol, profanity, greed, and suicide. He told the town's residents not to take his word for it, but to go in there and see for themselves, and when they did, they all agreed with him about the negative messages on these t-shirts. He then decided to put an ordinance on these t-shirts, prohibiting the t-shirts from being sold to people under 21, and have them hidden from view, out of the desire to protect his town's family-friendly image, and the council voted 4-1, in favor of the mayor's view, and with that, those t-shirts, along with various other souvenirs with questionable messages, were effectively outlawed.

Personally, I agree with him on this. I haven't been to that particular beach town, but I've been to many others, and I've seen a bunch of t-shirts with all sorts of nasty slogans and images. For instance, I remember seeing a shirt that said, "I Got [bleep]-faced," and I thought, "why are they selling shirts with these kinds of messages? It's disgusting and offensive." I also hope that other beach-side towns follow suit and start banning these t-shirts from being sold to people under 21.

[Elskidor]

Kinda goes against the first amendment don't you think? I don't see the problem with the shirts though. I mean, if people don't like the shirts then they don't have to look at them, read them or give them power by feeding them so much attention.

[Jinx]

Yeah, because who cares about Freedom of Speech and the rights of the business owner to sell whatever merchandise they want (that aren't illegal)?

[Quindiana Jones]

I find Americans a bit gobby anyway. It's about time someone finally stood up to nip that first amendment malarky in the bud. :up:

[Mirage]

Yeah, because who cares about Freedom of Speech and the rights of the business owner to sell whatever merchandise they want (that aren't illegal)?

Yeah, so all they have to do is to make the merchandise illegal!

[fire_of_avalon]

Kinda goes against the first amendment don't you think?
No.

Yeah, because who cares about Freedom of Speech and the rights of the business owner to sell whatever merchandise they want (that aren't illegal)?
They can still sell them.

I don't have a problem with people selling stupid tshirts but I also don't have a problem with a community deciding to make ordinances since that's pretty much what local government is for.

[Madame Adequate]

I hate the kind of tacky crap that sells in places like that (Blackpool please leave), but I'm preeeeeetty sure this isn't a thing that is, or should be, legal to do. Nor should it be.

[Jessweeee♪]

First you take the sex toys out of Spencer's and now the god awful T-shirts? wtf are they supposed to sell now?

[Calliope]

What a depressing thread. Who are all these people queuing up to buy tasteless t-shirts while on holiday, enough to warrant having an entire shop or shops devoted to such products? Why go the trouble of buying and wearing a shirt proclaiming to everyone that you just got smashed, when it's probably evident in your other appearance and demeanor anyway?

Oh well, here is a NSFW link. (http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2013/10/17/alienation/) I suppose there will always be a lowest common denominator of culture, in which I sometimes revel. All of this merchandise will be available for purchase online, which should curb anyone's disappointment at not being able to spend twenty dollars on a novelty t-shirt.

I'd be interested to see if there is going to be any policing of people wearing such shirts, but until then I don't really care because I think souvenirs are usually tacky and wasteful as opposed to meaningful, I consider them tasteless but not offensive or threatening, and people can buy these products elsewhere if they truly want to. I would like to see things taken a step further and simply ban all t-shirts with any slogans or advertising on them. Go on, I dare you.

[Shorty]

All they have left are their tacky posters in the corner of the store now.

I am not in favor of this ordinance because it makes it harder to spot the idiots, who should be able to dress like idiots if they so choose.

[comma]

What's the problem? This isn't the first place in the country that has banned vulgar t-shirts.

It doesn't violate the First Amendment. Where were you when public intoxication was outlawed? Isn't that, like, violating your right to speak your mind and be who you are? Nope. This sums it up pretty well:


The right to free speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A statute is deemed to be overly broad and violative of the Constitution if it prohibits speech that is merely offensive to certain persons. The prohibited speech must constitute "fighting words," which are defined as words that have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom the words are directed. Fighting words include profane, obscene, and threatening words.

[Psychotic]

I have no intention whatsoever to step foot inside Alabama, so let them make whatever wacky t-shirts or laws they want.

[nik0tine]

The right to free speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A statute is deemed to be overly broad and violative of the Constitution if it prohibits speech that is merely offensive to certain persons. The prohibited speech must constitute "fighting words," which are defined as words that have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom the words are directed. Fighting words include profane, obscene, and threatening words.Nothing on any of these T-shirts, or really on any T-shirt period, could ever qualify as "fighting words".

Local governments have no right to implement an ordinance like this, irrespective of what it's own community thinks and wants. The right for one store owner to make a meager profit off of shameless garbage like this completely supersedes the desire of an entire community to project a "family friendly" image.

[The Man]

Nothing on any of these T-shirts, or really on any T-shirt period, could ever qualify as "fighting words".I dunno about that. If someone wore a t-shirt that said "Kill all niggers" I'm pretty sure that would qualify as fighting words.

Regardless, banning shirts like this is ridiculous.

[nik0tine]

At what point do we draw the line, then? Can we tell Neo-Nazis that they can't wear their stupid band shirts or SS shirts? Could we sell a shirt with a picture of Mohammad on it? Surely that would constitute "fighting" speech for some people.

If you literally get in a fight over a racist T-shirt, you have some serious self control issues.

[The Man]

There's a pretty clear line between a racist t-shirt and one which flat-out advocates violence (for that matter, in this case, genocide). It's not very difficult to figure out what the difference is.

[Mirage]

For some people, it is.

[Raistlin]

Kinda goes against the first amendment don't you think?
No.

Yeah, because who cares about Freedom of Speech and the rights of the business owner to sell whatever merchandise they want (that aren't illegal)?
They can still sell them.

I don't have a problem with people selling stupid tshirts but I also don't have a problem with a community deciding to make ordinances since that's pretty much what local government is for.

Who are you and what did you do with the foa that has a decent grasp of constitutional law? The First Amendment applies to local ordinances as well, through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. You're right that businesses can still sell the shirts, but it's a legislative act that determines what content can and cannot be displayed and sold to minors. That's clearly unconstitutional based on Brown v. EMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association), which relatively recently struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. That decision also cited older SCOTUS cases that struck down laws that, among others, tried to regulate the display of any nudity in drive-in theaters that could potentially be seen by minors driving by. Unless it fits into an obscenity exception, state and local governments do not have the power to regulate the exchange of speech solely based on the content of the message (which it is doing here).

I'm sure you're aware of this case, but for the edification of others I'll also cite Cohen v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California).



Nothing on any of these T-shirts, or really on any T-shirt period, could ever qualify as "fighting words".I dunno about that. If someone wore a t-shirt that said "Kill all niggers" I'm pretty sure that would qualify as fighting words.

Fighting words generally applies to speech directly targeted at specific people. I suppose it could be argued that wearing such a shirt to a NAACP rally would qualify, but the fighting words doctrine has been applied less and less over the years. It's a stupid and vague exception anyway (albeit not as stupid and vague as obscenity), and deserves to be on the shelf.

[Shiny]

Good, I'm going to Alabama shirtless with "Eat Me" written on my belly.

[The Man]

Good, I'm going to Alabama shirtless with "Eat Me" written on my belly.Allow me to be the first to request pictures. :monster:

[fire_of_avalon]

Kinda goes against the first amendment don't you think?
No.

Yeah, because who cares about Freedom of Speech and the rights of the business owner to sell whatever merchandise they want (that aren't illegal)?
They can still sell them.

I don't have a problem with people selling stupid tshirts but I also don't have a problem with a community deciding to make ordinances since that's pretty much what local government is for.

Who are you and what did you do with the foa that has a decent grasp of constitutional law?
We occupy the same body, at the moment. I missed you, too!


The First Amendment applies to local ordinances as well, through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. You're right that businesses can still sell the shirts, but it's a legislative act that determines what content can and cannot be displayed and sold to minors.
Duh.

That's clearly unconstitutional based on Brown v. EMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association), which relatively recently struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. That decision also cited older SCOTUS cases that struck down laws that, among others, tried to regulate the display of any nudity in drive-in theaters that could potentially be seen by minors driving by.
Yes, but the opinion in Brown v. EMA advises 1) video games are protected speech because they fall under the protections due to media and 2) also encourages as the industry grows the decision be reexamined.

Unless it fits into an obscenity exception, state and local governments do not have the power to regulate the exchange of speech solely based on the content of the message (which it is doing here).


The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test#cite_note-1) It has three parts:



Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_standards)", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prurient) interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patently_offensive) way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature), artistic (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art), political (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) or scientific (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) value.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test#cite_note-2)

Not saying all or any of the tshirts qualify, but they might. Also saying you're wrong - the community DOES have the right to regulate speech based solely on the message if the three prongs of the Miller test are satisfied.

I'm sure you're aware of this case, but for the edification of others I'll also cite Cohen v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California).
Big difference between a political dissent and a tshirt that advocates fellatio or something. Different types of speech aren't protected equivocally. You know that.

I want to make it clear that I don't agree with this stupidity. Because pull your panties out of a wad, no one gives a trout what your tshirt says. What I am saying is that the current reading of First Amendment doesn't necessarily protect this type of speech.




Nothing on any of these T-shirts, or really on any T-shirt period, could ever qualify as "fighting words".I dunno about that. If someone wore a t-shirt that said "Kill all niggers" I'm pretty sure that would qualify as fighting words.

Fighting words generally applies to speech directly targeted at specific people. I suppose it could be argued that wearing such a shirt to a NAACP rally would qualify, but the fighting words doctrine has been applied less and less over the years. It's a stupid and vague exception anyway (albeit not as stupid and vague as obscenity), and deserves to be on the shelf.
Yeah, I agree all of the doctrines regulating non-political speech are vague and stupid and need to be addressed. Get your ass to work on that, young man.

[Raistlin]

I think most of our disagreement is overly technical at this point, but I do take issue with a couple of things you said:


Yes, but the opinion in Brown v. EMA advises 1) video games are protected speech because they fall under the protections due to media and 2) also encourages as the industry grows the decision be reexamined.

I take issue with point 1 to the extent that it seems you're implying that's a distinguishing feature from t-shirt messages (see: Cohen). Additionally, Brown said the opinion could be reexamined based on future evidence based on California's argument that the interactivity of video games make it distinguishable from all other media -- not foretelling a reexamination of the entire First Amendment doctrine of the past 50 years. See also Erznoznik v. Jacksonville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erznoznik_v._City_of_Jacksonville).


[insert Miller test]


Unless it fits into an obscenity exception...

The obscenity exception is also garnering less and less use in modern times. I can almost guarantee that none of the t-shirts qualify as obscenity today, not even in the extra-bullshit "obscenity as to minors" sub-category of the Miller line of cases.


Big difference between a political dissent and a tshirt that advocates fellatio or something. Different types of speech aren't protected equivocally. You know that.

Not as much as you seem to imply here, especially (as here) where the law at issue focuses exclusively on content. Unless the ban only impacts obscenity, a content-based ordinance would still face strict scrutiny as a rule, which is de facto invalidation (and it should be noted that even if some of the t-shirts are constitutionally obscene, the ordinance is still facially unconstitutional to the extent that it applies to any protected speech). There have been plenty of vulgarity/profanity bans that have been struck down over the years, not just in clear-cut political speech cases like Cohen (and I would argue that almost any advocacy on a t-shirt, no matter how trivial it may seem to others, is political speech under the First Amendment anyway).

And I should note that I'm not saying that all of the t-shirts would be necessarily protected speech under the First Amendment, because I haven't seen all of them (although if any store owner is willing to display them in public, it almost certainly would not qualify as obscenity). I'm only saying that the ordinance is unconstitutional. It would only be constitutional if it was interpreted to only refer to legal obscenity, in which case it likely wouldn't apply to most/all of the t-shirts the mayor hates.

[krissy]

ok now kiss

[Old Manus]

That would be obscene

[SuperMillionaire]

Here's my point of view: I don't think such slogans should be on t-shirts. Remember my thread about Victoria's Secret underwear for young girls, which had messages like "I dare you," "call me," and "wild" on them? Another person mentioned in that thread that such slogans and messages shouldn't be on underwear or t-shirts, and I agree. It's about a common sense of decency. Now, while I will object to you if you are wearing a t-shirt with those kinds of messages that the mayor of Orange Beach, Alabama hates, I would still allow you to buy and wear such shirts. Most places will allow people wearing these shirts to go inside, though there might be certain exceptions, particularly if the place is meant to be family-friendly.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Presumably these are adult sized shirts and not really meant for children. The VS thing was aimed at teenagers or preteens (I forget).

[I Took the Red Pill]

Who goes to Alabama for spring break?

[Quindiana Jones]

Who goes to Alabama?

Fixed that for you.

[SuperMillionaire]

Who goes to Alabama for spring break?

Local people from other parts of Alabama go to the beach towns, including Orange Beach.

And the issue about the whole "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" thing is that their freedoms may violate other people's freedoms. Some people may not want to see those kinds of things on t-shirts; I'm one of them.

[Sephex]

There are some people with foot fetishes.

Guess no one is ever allowed to wear flip flips again because some people get off by the sight of feet the same exact way they would at "normal" body parts.

[Quindiana Jones]

Who goes to Alabama for spring break?

Local people from other parts of Alabama go to the beach towns, including Orange Beach.

And the issue about the whole "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" thing is that their freedoms may violate other people's freedoms. Some people may not want to see those kinds of things on t-shirts; I'm one of them.

That freedom also supercedes any other freedoms. It's why it's the throbbing first amendment, and not some poncy flaccid footnote.

[TrollHunter]

Who goes to Alabama for spring break?

Local people from other parts of Alabama go to the beach towns, including Orange Beach.

And the issue about the whole "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" thing is that their freedoms may violate other people's freedoms. Some people may not want to see those kinds of things on t-shirts; I'm one of them.

Some people may not want to see a shirt that says "praise jesus" or even a shirt with a picture of mario on it but those arent banned at all for the obvious reason of that being absolutely moronic. I'm sorry, what you want doesnt just completely override someones rights.
You can think up a better argument than this, I'm sure of it. There are better arguments out there in favor of this.

[Mirage]

There's no freedom called "freedom to not be offended", SuperMill.

[SuperMillionaire]

There is nothing offensive about seeing religious t-shirts (at least in most cases), or bare feet (also at least in most cases, which vary from culture to culture), but there IS something offensive about drugs (unless it says "no drugs allowed," but some would rather do away with drug references altogether). In terms of bare feet, in this culture, we're not offended by it in itself, but there are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" ordinances put up everywhere; the "no shoes" part is presumably for sanitary reasons.

[Quindiana Jones]

Ah-hmmnn-buh-nuhh-muhh-nurrrrr.

[Sephex]

There is nothing offensive about seeing religious t-shirts (at least in most cases), or bare feet (also at least in most cases, which vary from culture to culture), but there IS something offensive about drugs (unless it says "no drugs allowed," but some would rather do away with drug references altogether). In terms of bare feet, in this culture, we're not offended by it in itself, but there are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" ordinances put up everywhere; the "no shoes" part is presumably for sanitary reasons.

Well, my flip flops example was to illustrate that enforcing an overbearing rule over something that could be perceived differently, in a specific or quirky manner, by others is silly.

Get out of under the bridge. OUT!!!

[TrollHunter]

There is nothing offensive about seeing religious t-shirts (at least in most cases), or bare feet (also at least in most cases, which vary from culture to culture), but there IS something offensive about drugs (unless it says "no drugs allowed," but some would rather do away with drug references altogether). In terms of bare feet, in this culture, we're not offended by it in itself, but there are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" ordinances put up everywhere; the "no shoes" part is presumably for sanitary reasons.

Well, my flip flops example was to illustrate that enforcing an overbearing rule over something that could be perceived differently, in a specific or quirky manner, by others is silly.

Get out of under the bridge. OUT!!!

Precisely this. You may not find religious shirts offensive, I may not find shirts with vulgar language offensive. Some may find these things offensive, but people can be offended by anything. People perceive things differently and as such we cant just ban everything that may offend someone. It's already difficult enough restricting the obvious offensive things, I really dont see tshirts being big priority.
This also isnt to say that I really care about the banning of vulgar tshirts in that area as those shirts are usually stupid and tasteless anyway, but I just find the banning of them silly and unnecessary.

[NorthernChaosGod]

There is nothing offensive about seeing religious t-shirts (at least in most cases), or bare feet (also at least in most cases, which vary from culture to culture), but there IS something offensive about drugs (unless it says "no drugs allowed," but some would rather do away with drug references altogether). In terms of bare feet, in this culture, we're not offended by it in itself, but there are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" ordinances put up everywhere; the "no shoes" part is presumably for sanitary reasons.

There isn't anything offensive about drugs. They're not shirts with drugs addicts on them doing terrible things for drug money.

[SuperMillionaire]

There is nothing offensive about seeing religious t-shirts (at least in most cases), or bare feet (also at least in most cases, which vary from culture to culture), but there IS something offensive about drugs (unless it says "no drugs allowed," but some would rather do away with drug references altogether). In terms of bare feet, in this culture, we're not offended by it in itself, but there are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" ordinances put up everywhere; the "no shoes" part is presumably for sanitary reasons.

Well, my flip flops example was to illustrate that enforcing an overbearing rule over something that could be perceived differently, in a specific or quirky manner, by others is silly.

Get out of under the bridge. OUT!!!

Precisely this. You may not find religious shirts offensive, I may not find shirts with vulgar language offensive. Some may find these things offensive, but people can be offended by anything. People perceive things differently and as such we cant just ban everything that may offend someone. It's already difficult enough restricting the obvious offensive things, I really dont see tshirts being big priority.
This also isnt to say that I really care about the banning of vulgar tshirts in that area as those shirts are usually stupid and tasteless anyway, but I just find the banning of them silly and unnecessary.

True, and that was, in fact, part of the debate that took place in Orange Beach after the mayor brought the topic up to them. The thing is, shirts with vulgar language should be for adults only.

Now, in most cases, stores and businesses will still allow people wearing these shirts to go in. However, in a select few cases, presumably if the place one is going to is meant to be "family friendly," then they would probably turn people away for wearing such shirts.

[comma]

Dude just liket the town do whatever the want. It's a town, the can make laws if they want to. What kind of cournyy would this be if towns couldn't live they wny they want to.

[Jinx]

There is nothing offensive about seeing religious t-shirts (at least in most cases), or bare feet (also at least in most cases, which vary from culture to culture), but there IS something offensive about drugs (unless it says "no drugs allowed," but some would rather do away with drug references altogether). In terms of bare feet, in this culture, we're not offended by it in itself, but there are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" ordinances put up everywhere; the "no shoes" part is presumably for sanitary reasons.

Well, my flip flops example was to illustrate that enforcing an overbearing rule over something that could be perceived differently, in a specific or quirky manner, by others is silly.

Get out of under the bridge. OUT!!!

Precisely this. You may not find religious shirts offensive, I may not find shirts with vulgar language offensive. Some may find these things offensive, but people can be offended by anything. People perceive things differently and as such we cant just ban everything that may offend someone. It's already difficult enough restricting the obvious offensive things, I really dont see tshirts being big priority.
This also isnt to say that I really care about the banning of vulgar tshirts in that area as those shirts are usually stupid and tasteless anyway, but I just find the banning of them silly and unnecessary.

True, and that was, in fact, part of the debate that took place in Orange Beach after the mayor brought the topic up to them. The thing is, shirts with vulgar language should be for adults only.

Now, in most cases, stores and businesses will still allow people wearing these shirts to go in. However, in a select few cases, presumably if the place one is going to is meant to be "family friendly," then they would probably turn people away for wearing such shirts.

Then it's the rights of the business owner to allow or disallow whatever they want in their business, which is fine. But a city/state-wide ordinance that you can't wear or buy a certain type of shit?

The problem with the "I have the freedom to not be offended" argument is a dangerous one. For you, it might just be that you don't want to look at a t-shirt you don't like. But where does it stop? At what point is the rights of freedom of speech more important than the rights of someone to not be offended?

That's why we have the freedom of speech in the first place. I'm sorry you don't like shirts with stupid things on them. I think they're stupid too. But if I don't like looking at them, I won't. Simple as.

[Raistlin]

There is nothing offensive about seeing religious t-shirts (at least in most cases), or bare feet (also at least in most cases, which vary from culture to culture), but there IS something offensive about drugs (unless it says "no drugs allowed," but some would rather do away with drug references altogether). In terms of bare feet, in this culture, we're not offended by it in itself, but there are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" ordinances put up everywhere; the "no shoes" part is presumably for sanitary reasons.


True, and that was, in fact, part of the debate that took place in Orange Beach after the mayor brought the topic up to them. The thing is, shirts with vulgar language should be for adults only.

Now, in most cases, stores and businesses will still allow people wearing these shirts to go in. However, in a select few cases, presumably if the place one is going to is meant to be "family friendly," then they would probably turn people away for wearing such shirts.

There's a distinct difference between a private business prohibiting certain content within their own business and a government body censoring certain speech from public view. The former is itself an exercise of free speech that can be reacted to with more speech (people who agreed or disagree can choose whether to patronize or disparage that business), whereas the latter is a constraint. You seem to be treating the two acts similarly, but they are wildly different, especially under the First Amendment.

You state that some content is "offensive" as if it is some undisputed axiom, but everyone is different. As has been oft-repeated, you do not have the right not to be offended, nor do you (or any majority) have the right to determine what is and is not considered "offensive" for the purpose of forcing that definition on everyone else through government power.

[The Man]

If such thing as the right not to be offended exists, then the concept of the right not to be offended offends me. Clearly the people who believe in this right have no right to believe in it, because it offends me. :doublecolbert:

[SuperMillionaire]

Some people may not find profanity offensive, and that's the crowd who would most likely buy those t-shirts, but they should still be hidden from view in stores, and be kept in the back. The mayor, who was offended, did not COMPLETELY ban those t-shirts and other souvenirs, but restricted them to those 21 and older, and had them hidden from view.

Another solution would be to open a store that only sells these kinds of t-shirts, and not allow anyone under 21 to go inside and see the shirts.

[Raistlin]

This will be the last time I will try to explain this to you.

All of those solutions are perfectly fine and acceptable if done voluntarily by the business owner. You are free to criticize and boycott any store that does not conform to your moral standards, and only patronize those businesses that do so conform. You are free to use any form of voluntary advocacy available to you to try to ensure that all of society believes what you do.

What you are not free to do is to use the government to mandate your preference to every business. This particular ordinance overrides voluntary conduct and mandates that local stores shield certain poorly-defined "offensive" content from public view. That is indisputably a violation of the First Amendment (also likely a due process violation for lack of adequate notice about what content is allowed or prohibited, but that's another issue). There is absolutely no counterargument or dispute on this issue, at least not in the United States. This has been settled law for decades now.

Just because you agree with the end result does not mean you have to agree with the means used to achieve it. I urge you to try to understand the distinction.