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

[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 trout?

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.

[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.