Pretty tame by today’s standards, but my understanding is that they would have been shocking and unacceptable 50 or 100 years ago, at least in most places. For the majority of the First Amendment’s existence, it hasn’t been seen as incompatible with community restrictions on public displays of offensive images. Does that mean that the First Amendment isn’t really relevant to a question like the OP’s, or does it mean that we used to be incomplete and inconsistent in applying the First Amendment?
Getting lost in the negatives there. Are you saying that, historically, restrictions on offensive imagery have been seen as allowed under the first amendment jurisprudence? If so, I agree.
The OP may find this Wikipedia summary of Cohen v. California, aka the “Fuck the Draft” case, enlightening.
I think it’s a lot simpler than that. Why should we ban something because a parent doesn’t want to explain something to their child? That’s about the worst reason ever to ban something. That a lot of parents don’t want to explain the birds and the bees to their kids, so let’s just ban sex ed in schools has gone over SO well.
Seriously, maybe you prevent a sexually explicit shirt, but there’s a thousand other unpleasant conversations that parents have to have with their kids. A grandparent, an uncle, or the family dog dies, that’s very unpleasant. You see people at the mall fondling eachother or wearing very revealing clothes. Or look at biggotted parents who don’t want to explain two men or an inter-racial couple holding hands. Either way, I don’t even think an image of two stick figures having sex is really all that big of a deal. Hell, I doubt a lot of younger kids will think much of it, coming up with a mundane explanation, and older kids will already know and don’t even need an explanation.
There may be some good reasons why certain things should be banned in certain public contexts, but I really don’t think “I don’t want to explain it to my kids” is one of them.
If I’m understanding you correctly, sure. IMO, the onus should be on those seeking to ban something to explain why it should be banned. It shouldn’t just be “I’m offended” it should also require that any reasonable statements that that person might be expressing aren’t reasonably speech.
A good example I remember seeing on a topic like this was regarding topless women and public decency laws. There’s laws in most places that make it illegal for a woman to walk around without her breasts covered. There was an advocacy group that was fighting those laws, organized a protest wherein they would expose their breasts publically, they were warned not to do it under threat of arrest and did it anyway. IIRC, the court found that those women exposing their breasts was covered as freedom of speech.
I don’t see why that logic couldn’t be extended to other forms of protest. Of course, there’s probably some reasonable line wherein the different between “Fuck the World!” as a shirt by itself and “‘Fuck the World!’ Should be protected as free speech” probably just becomes a way of circumventing the rules if enough people are doing it and the context doesn’t support it.
Thanks, man. I (vaguely) remember that case from law school. (Heck, vaguely pretty much describes how I remember just about ALL of law school! ;))
I guess I was stricken by the public rudeness of the decal, but as a pretty brightline free speech advocate, I had a pretty good idea of where I would end up regarding this. As a parent of adult kids, I hope I would have taken advantage of any questions as a teaching opportunity. Yes kiddies, there are ignorant and unpleasant people in the world. Your life will be better to the extent you are able to identify and avoid such people. I strongly advise you to do your best not to be such a person or, failing that, to not publicly announce it.
(Aside - my very strong support for speech and privacy rights, went a long way towards convincing me to rethink my previous position WRT gun control.)
Re the op-
Dinsdale, ain’t tryin to be a smartass.
But as another advocate for free speech, like yourself, I wanted to say there are reasons for free speech, and there are reasons to suppress it.
Suppression efforts can be really sneaky, too, work like a charm without being noticed.
To me, ‘limits on free speech’ is a huge disconnect, meaning you’re screwed already, someone got u accepting and thinking in disconnects.
Most often ‘propriety’ is used as the reason to curtail speech, nothing more than ‘I don’t like it, I’m uncomfortable.’
I’m even seeing it in this thread, this propriety over free speech choice.
I think its a death knell.
This board desparately needs a LIKE button 
That’s a piece of art where the nudity is incidental. Yes, it is subjective at which point you draw the line, but so are many things that the courts need to decide.
What are you saying, that I should be able to set up a screen right outside a school showing porn because…freedom of speech?
Heck, why is it such a problem for me to flop Mijin Jnr out, if I can display photos of it under freedom of speech?
No, but in every country on earth it is not just any sound or image you may make. There are numerous things (rightfully) not considered to be covered: incitement to commit a specific crime, “fire in a theatre”, libel/slander, sharing state secrets, obscenity etc.
The US has all these exceptions. The only exception it doesn’t have, that most developed countries do, is hate speech.
Of course not, and only the sloppiest reading of what I said would lead to that conclusion. It’s frankly offensive that you’d suggest I’d said any such thing. I could rephrase it, but I think quoting myself should suffice:
I didn’t say they were okay, I said they were speech. Your argument is that not all speech should be protected, and that’s a fine thing to say. Saying it’s not speech is just wrong.
Maybe in the US. But I have not restricted my point to US law. A pornographic image is not “speech” to most of the world, and I’m stating my opinion that I agree with this.
However, I don’t see it as a particularly important point whether everything someone produces is “speech” and only some speech is protected, vs all speech is protected, but not everything that someone produces is speech. It is semantics at that point.
To me the latter is simpler, because people talk of freedom of speech, not freedom of protected speech, or freedom of certain kinds of speech.
But I am aware that the standard US terminology is that it essentially means freedom of protected speech.
For those interested their are a few different options for the ‘only on a jeep sticker’
None IMO can make it into the realm of obscenity. If the state could prove to a jury that the image is obscene they’d have a chance to restrict speech through those means. I’d say they are miles away. Maybe if the guy was taping hustler centerfolds to the car the state could make a case.
The reason I think it’s important to distinguish is because if we call it speech, then we weigh the harm we cause by restricting speech against the good we cause by restricting it. We ought to have a default position of not restricting speech and only doing so when we have a good reason to do so, and then looking for the least restrictive option.
If we just say, “that’s not really speech,” then it’s a lot easier for us to restrict it.
I disagree. I think in the abstract, if we want to arbitrarily stop someone saying something, it’s just as easy (perhaps easier) to add it to the set “not protected speech” than “not speech”.
But again, we’re speaking abstractly. We can easily conceive of a totalitarian state that claimed to have freedom of speech using either definition to suppress free discussion.
Am I the only one thinking “Hey, I need to get me a fuckin Jeep!?!”