Revolting

[Blue Velvet]

This is not free speech. This is indefensible hate-mongering and incitement to murder.
.
.
.

[Gray-Wolf]

people are always going to push the envelope. There is no getting around it in this world.

[és:]

I dare say that I'd be able to hold my temper if I saw someone wearing a top like that. I'd have two options:

1) Walk away and say nothing.
2) Smash they guy wearing it square in the face.

It would take everything I had to control myself and choose option one.

[arkitect]

Early days yet, it is probably going to get much worse.

What a world we live in…

[SMM]

This is not free speech. This is indefensible hate-mongering and incitement to murder.

This is a disappointing portrait of America, BV. I am ashamed to admit, we still have these fringe hate groups, sharin oxegon with the rest of us.

[skunk]

Some fringes are bigger than others.

[MrSmith]

They're T-shirts. You should direct your anger towards those who would wear them, if you really think it's worth it.

[leekohler]

They're T-shirts. You should direct your anger towards those who would wear them, if you really think it's worth it.

What about those who made them?

[MrSmith]

What about those who made them?
You have a point...

[Thomas Veil]

Those are disgusting. Unfortunately, I'm sure we're gonna see a lot more of that before November. And beyond. ;)

As someone who produces political t-shirt designs myself, I have to be careful. There's a big difference between a sentiment that's "in your face" and one that's outright offensive to the general population (and one racial group in particular). So I can't even imagine who these racists think their market would be. Who'd wear those t-shirts in public??

Blue Velvet, it looks to my eye like those came from one of those custom t-shirt services like Cafepress. May I suggest that you complain to the site? Those could very well violate the terms of service.

[MrSmith]

Some kind of link to the original pictures perhaps?

[costabunny]

It's a sad world we live in indeed. It makes me cry to see people acting this way towards others. If only these bigots could direct their energy to something more productive like helping those in need, the world would be a better place.

Anyone who wears one should be ashamed of themselves, but thats not likely to happen :(

sad sad sad

[gkarris]

It is free speech.

You could be wearing a t-shirt right now that someone out there considers "revolting"...

Down with censorship...

[Thomas Veil]

Some kind of link to the original pictures perhaps?I have a feeling BV deliberately left out such a link in order not to give these bozos any publicity.

But if you look at the shirts, they all look identical, even each crease and wrinkle, except for the designs. That's how Cafepress depicts shirts on their site: with a boilerplate picture of a shirt, overlaid with the image of the viewer's choice.

Doesn't look like a Cafepress shirt, though. I checked BV's images against some of CP's stuff, and the shirts themselves (not the designs) look similar but not identical. So it's probably one of the other custom-T services. Same deal, though; they all have TOS, and this likely violates them.

[MrSmith]

Since there was no link we have no idea where they're from. Could be they're not intended to be worn at all. Some kind of Ricky Gervais style humour, perhaps. Best keep the mob indignation on hold till we know the facts.

[leekohler]

It is free speech.

You could be wearing a t-shirt right now that someone out there considers "revolting"...

Down with censorship...

You're right. But something tells me this kind of speech comes with a price- and I don't mean money.

[gkarris]

You're right. But something tells me this kind of speech comes with a price- and I don't mean money.

There's a price with everything.

Also, remember it's that time of year again - lots and lots of political stuff and satire - enough to make both sides angry....

[Virgil-TB2]

It is free speech.

You could be wearing a t-shirt right now that someone out there considers "revolting"...

Down with censorship...I am 100% anti-censorship also, but legally this actually is *not* free speech, at least in the USA and in Canada anyway. In the USA, "free speech" does not include speech that incites hatred AFAIK, so these are not protected.

In Canada, "hate speech" is specifically against the law. If you saw someone wearing one of these in public, you could call over a nearby police officer and have the person arrested for inciting race hatred. :D

I am sooo hoping I run into some dumbass stupid enough to wear one of these things on a public street. :)

[Don't panic]

Since there was no link we have no idea where they're from. Could be they're not intended to be worn at all. Some kind of Ricky Gervais style humour, perhaps. Best keep the mob indignation on hold till we know the facts.

it's easy enough to find out.
and they are real.
and they are for sale.
and they are revolting.
and it's still free speech.

and of course we are free to boycott the site and write them our opinion of the crap they sell.

[MrSmith]

http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/obama.jpg?w=230&h=337

Offensive, right? But see where it's from (http://bajan.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/barack-obamas-run-for-potus/). All of a sudden not so offensive. In the same circumstances, I reckon the T-shirts above would be pretty funny. Good word play. Show me someone actually wearing one. Doubt you'll find anyone.

[Thomas Veil]

it's easy enough to find out.
and they are real.
and they are for sale.
and they are revolting.
and it's still free speech.

While I disagree with your last statement, thanks for the inducement to go looking for where they came from. I found it. And someone did complain. And here's the response they got from the site's management:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The items have been removed. We recently hired a freelancer to create designs and post them on our site. We have teams of them and, unfortunately, these were put up in the last couple of days without approval.

While the site can be edgy...I can guarantee you this is not the type of stuff we approve of.

ThanksScore one for the good guys. :)

[MrSmith]

OK, I was wrong...

[Iscariot]

It is free speech.

You could be wearing a t-shirt right now that someone out there considers "revolting"...

Down with censorship...

One can be revolted without calling for censorship. Free speech permits as much.

[aquajet]

In the USA, "free speech" does not include speech that incites hatred AFAIK, so these are not protected.

Can you provide a link to back this up? The folks at the WBC have been preaching hatred for years and it hasn't been a problem for the most part.

[Gelfin]

It is free speech.

You could be wearing a t-shirt right now that someone out there considers "revolting"...

Down with censorship...

Declaring such a shirt revolting is free speech. Telling anyone making or wearing them how disgusting you find them is free speech. Encouraging others to disassociate themselves from disgusting people is free speech. Complaining to the manufacturer is free speech. For the manufacturer to declare they want no link between themselves and such expression and to discontinue the shirt on that basis is free speech.

Free speech only means the government cannot stop your expression by law. It does not guarantee you an audience, cooperation or support, and it does not protect you from the extralegal consequences of such speech.

I am 100% anti-censorship also, but legally this actually is *not* free speech, at least in the USA and in Canada anyway. In the USA, "free speech" does not include speech that incites hatred AFAIK, so these are not protected.

In the U.S., probably the shirt would be legally protected. A law directly criminalizing even so vile a shirt as that would be unconstitutional. U.S. courts interpret "incitement" very rigidly. The expression would have to be of such a nature that someone receiving the message would be reasonably expected to immediately commit a crime in response to it.

Instead of hate speech laws, the U.S. more often treats racial hatred as an aggravating factor in other crimes. You cannot be arrested for simply wearing that shirt, but woe betide you should you actually end up in some sort of confrontation as a result of it. The law will take your otherwise constitutionally protected hate mongering into account when deciding the disposition of your case.

[LethalWolfe]

So I can't even imagine who these racists think their market would be. Who'd wear those t-shirts in public??
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say other racists.;)


Lethal

[Thomas Veil]

'Course, there are other ways to slander Obama too.

[KingYaba]

I found the "Hitler gave great speeches too..." quite funny.

[rhsgolfer33]

I wonder if the ACLU would defend someone if they wore one of these to school. It is free speech after all.

That said, I'm not really an Obama fan, but I find those t-shirts to be horrible and would have no qualms telling some one wearing one of those how I felt. Those are absolutely terrible.

[glocke12]

Im offfended by them, but it is free speech. You cant beat someone or arrest someone for expressing their opinion.

Ive also seen/heard eqaully offensive comments made by the left/Obama supporters towards members of the right....

[Blue Velvet]

Ive also seen/heard eqaully offensive comments made by the left/Obama supporters towards members of the right....


For instance? Something as extreme as invoking the Klan and nooses? Have you no idea of the recent history of your country?

[iJohnHenry]

Start throwing stones, but I happen to like the KKK one.

To me, is says more about them, and the red-necks behind them, then it is negative about Barack.

The others have no redeeming social value that I can see.

[Cromulent]

This is not free speech. This is indefensible hate-mongering and incitement to murder.

Of course it is free speech. The hardest part of standing for free speech is allowing people to say things that you find abhorrent yourself. The moment you try and stop it you no longer have free speech.

That is primarily the reason why I am all for letting groups like the BNP talk in public. The moment you stop them from talking you are giving their arguments an air of validity because it appears that you cannot counter their claims (no matter how ridiculous) through open debate.

[leekohler]

Of course it is free speech. The hardest part of standing for free speech is allowing people to say things that you find abhorrent yourself. The moment you try and stop it you no longer have free speech.

That is primarily the reason why I am all for letting groups like the BNP talk in public. The moment you stop them from talking you are giving their arguments an air of validity because it appears that you cannot counter their claims (no matter how ridiculous) through open debate.

I agree. There are things I want to say that most people find revolting, and I'm fine with that. It still shocks me that a few films I was in couldn't find distribution in Europe due to censorship laws and one was even banned from being shown in the UK at all. We're really screwed up in the US right now, but it still puzzles me how a lot of speech is stifled in Europe and the UK. To me, free speech is too important to ever give up. Ideas don't hurt people.

[LethalWolfe]

How's this for a silver lining. If racists actually wore these t-shirts at least they'd be easier to identify.:D


Lethal

[Queso]

How's this for a silver lining. If racists actually wore these t-shirts at least they'd be easier to identify.:D
Unfortunately I suspect they'd only do so at race hate rallies and the like, where they are protected by strength of numbers.

[themadchemist]

I am 100% anti-censorship also, but legally this actually is *not* free speech, at least in the USA and in Canada anyway. In the USA, "free speech" does not include speech that incites hatred AFAIK, so these are not protected.


In the United States, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld protections for hate speech. However, "fighting words" are not protected.

There's some more information about this distinction, expressed much better than I could, here: UMKC Law (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm)

[zap2]

Horrible, on the lowest level.

Still free speech though...as much as I disagree with what they are saying......the way we beat these ideas are through open talks. Let people see how stupid,hateful, and counter productive these types of ideas are in the face of acceptance of people. This idea will fall, believes will be mocked, and in time no one will join their cause.

[Iscariot]

I wonder if the ACLU would defend someone if they wore one of these to school. It is free speech after all.

They would and they do.


Why does the ACLU defend free speech for unpopular groups such as Nazis, Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members, and others who advocate racist or totalitarian doctrines?

Because we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply. The ACLU’s responsibility — since its founding in 1920 — has been to make sure that all are free to speak, no matter what their ideas.

link (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:HGDNJq562eUJ:www.acluohio.org/publications/SpeechBrochure.pdf+ACLU+defends+racist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca)

[mactastic]

I wonder if the ACLU would defend someone if they wore one of these to school. It is free speech after all.
They most assuredly would.

I assume you think the ACLU simply toes the liberal line from your remark. Educate yourself, and you will find that the ACLU's goal is not to take partisan sides, but rather to uphold the Constitution.

[Much Ado]

The T-Shirts are designed to be provocative. Without a reaction, they're nothing.

However revolting, it's no use revolting.

[solvs]

I assume you think the ACLU simply toes the liberal line from your remark.
Of course they do. Everyone knows the ACLU only cares about liberals like Rush Limbaugh, the KKK, and the Westborough Church. Silly.

[wonga1127]

I honestly thought the last one was a bit funny. Sorry if you don't agree, but I honestly thought it was funny. First two, not so much, but whatever, making big huge deals about crap like this isn't changing anything, and I personally consider anyone who says "If i saw someone wearing that I'd kick their face in" just as bad as someone who likes hanging black people for being black. Violence is a waste of time, even if it feels righteous.

[és:]

Of course it is free speech.

Well, that depends on the country you live in. In most countries it's far from free speech.

I personally consider anyone who says "If i saw someone wearing that I'd kick their face in" just as bad as someone who likes hanging black people for being black.

Then you have a serious problem, then again nobody has said the words you've quoted as far as I can see.

Finding the 'white' house t-shirt funny is repugnant.

[Don't panic]

While I disagree with your last statement, thanks for the inducement to go looking for where they came from. I found it. And someone did complain. And here's the response they got from the site's management:

Score one for the good guys. :)

it's good news that they removed them.
someone with common sense.
but if i saw someone wearing something like that i would still think s/he has the right to do so, as i would have the right to tell him/her what i think about it

[iJohnHenry]

as i would have the right to tell him/her what i think about it

True.

But tread carefully there, lest you are guilty of committing common assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault).