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.
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.
For some people, it is.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
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, 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).Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
No.
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.
I'm sure you're aware of this case, but for the edification of others I'll also cite Cohen v. California.
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.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.
Good, I'm going to Alabama shirtless with "Eat Me" written on my belly.
Allow me to be the first to request pictures.
We occupy the same body, at the moment. I missed you, too!Who are you and what did you do with the foa that has a decent grasp of constitutional law?No.
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.
Duh.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.
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.That's clearly unconstitutional based on Brown v. EMA, 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).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.
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'm sure you're aware of this case, but for the edification of others I'll also cite Cohen v. California.
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.
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.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.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.
Signature by rubah. I think.
I think most of our disagreement is overly technical at this point, but I do take issue with a couple of things you said:
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.
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-bulltrout "obscenity as to minors" sub-category of the Miller line of cases.
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).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.
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.
ok now kiss
That would be obscene
there was a picture here
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.
Is that your final answer?
Presumably these are adult sized shirts and not really meant for children. The VS thing was aimed at teenagers or preteens (I forget).
Who goes to Alabama for spring break?
Fixed that for you.
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.
Is that your final answer?
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
