see, i first read that shirt and said "ok, shirt says 'shit' on it, shirt gets turned inside out, shit prevented from hitting fan over shirt." then i cringed when you said you were assigned the aclu side (i agree with them on a lot of first amendment issues, but not this one, because i dont think it's a FOS issue, it's a vulgarity issue. which i suppose could be argued as FOS, "who are you to say what's vulgar" and everything. but vulgarity laws stand up legally, so i stand by my "it's not FOS" argument
( ... )
that is the defense's argument, yes. vulgarity. however. political speech is significantly more protected than other forms. there are lots of cases where kids couldn't wear and say things at school that are vulgar and apolitical. but v. few cases where you can't say something vulgar that is political (see cohen v. u.s., or california, or something. cohen wore a jacket that said "fuck the draft." and he could. because he was making a political point.) and the other thing is, it doesn't say "shit." it says "bushit." it's a pun. and not, in fact, a swear word in and of itself, which a u.s. district court thought was important...
i've done too much thinking about this, is what happened. although i don't envy you the "fun with thiols!" either.
Comments 3
Reply
Reply
i've done too much thinking about this, is what happened. although i don't envy you the "fun with thiols!" either.
Reply
Leave a comment