Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) on Wednesday called on Zombie Industries, the California-based maker of “life-sized tactical mannequin” targets that are painted to look like “zombies," to stop selling a new model mannequin called the “Gun Control Lobbyist.”
[snip]
(Full letter at cite)
Even though the safety of the Republic is not in danger, it raises First Amendment issues. Zombie Industries stopped selling it.
What’s the question? Company has a right to make said mannequin. Congressman has right to object to it. Company has a right to stop making in response to objections.
Anyone can ask anyone to do or not do anything. And if you’re sufficiently spineless to cave on your own, the Constitution won’t protect you from your own cowardice.
“But”, I can hear someone say, “a LEGISLATOR called on him to stop exercising his free speech!”
A) A Legislator. Big whoop. In case you hadn’t noticed, they don’t have an army, a police force, or a judicial system. They can try to make laws. that’s precisely it.
B) “Called on”. Not, “drafted a law and got it passed.” I could call on any of you to forward me $20 each. Such a “call” would have exactly zero coercive power. Same for this dude.
The sensible answer is to blow off blowhards trying to score sound-bite points. Know your rights and don’t surrender them meekly. And, if you’ve got some style and panache, mock them relentlessly. The Pirate Bay’s extensive list of responses to Cease and Desist letters is a fine source of inspriation.
Factual Question: hasn’t this already come up, in the form of burning effigies? Didn’t the SC already rule, at least once, that burning effigies (say, of Abraham Lincoln, or Richard Nixon) was legal?
(Obviously, subject to regulations on open flames. Don’t do it in San Bernardino in the peak of fire season…)
I assume he is suggesting that a Congressman’s request carries slightly more weight than a regular Joe’s. Whether that matters would depend on whether the letter was sent on Senate letterhead using government funds, I suppose.
I have no problem with a Congressman using official letterhead and government funds to complain about a tacky business idea. If he threatened legislation outlawing the product, I would oppose such legislation. The President is not the only elected official with a Bully Pulpit.
I would expect some critical letters from Congress if the company was selling John Boehner targets. The company might reconsider its product line. That’s how it works.
Even if it were sent by the legislator in their official capacity, all it would mean is that the legislators constituents, as a group, object to the practice. Legislators have no legal authority on their own. The legislative body, otoh, has a great deal of authority.
So, unless a majority of legislators also sent letters, or signed the same letter, it’s exactly the same as “a regular Joe’s”, albeit with better spelling and grammar.
You think it would be a First Amendment violation for a member of Congress, on official letterhead and in his or her capacity as a member of Congress (postage paid by the United States Treasury), to write a letter asking a company to stop marketing a certain product?
No, I’m saying the OP appears to think that. I am merely pointing out that the use of Senate letterhead and free postage gives the letter more of an official imprimatur.
But, like similar inspirational comments here, brave words are easy when you have a business and a case that can withstand such things.
As Really touched on, we all know Senators have tremendous pull, to put it mildly, and can make life very bad/difficult for a citizen if he feels like it.
Imagine a company starting out by one guy, maxx-out credit, borrow from in-laws, etc., because he thinks he can make a go at selling an object with obvious political content.
A Senator’s letter–and more coming perhaps from other sources after they havie been contacted by interested parties–might seriously threaten his livlihood.
If this is deemed dismissible out of hand by mods, and already played out because there is no law pertinent, away it goes, and I’m sure I won’t follow it if it winds up in other forums where piranhas gather.
I often post ones on the law to hear GQ answers, including ones–which is where GQ shines–from pros whose eyes might have perked up, as it were, at the topic.
The First Amendment can provoke many factual questions (and responses) from the Teeming M.
Didn’t that same WSJ article mention that several states have laws against shooting mannequins or effigies, e.g., at shooting ranges? Except for law enforcement officials’ practice.
So why is this OK, but the Maryland legislator who wrote to the Baltimore Ravens asking them to muzzle their player speaking out in favor of gay marraige got widely panned, both on this forum and elsewhere, as an attempt of a legislator trying to suppress free speech? Sounds like one of those “It’s OK, when our guys do it” that plague too much of politics these days.
I’ll go with that. Of course that means “our guys” are ones calling for allowing people who love each other to marry, and “your guys” want to pretend to shoot people who disagree with them.
Because people are allowed to have opinions. Them saying it was contrary to the First Amendment was factually incorrect, as we’ve shown, but there’s nothing saying people have to be utterly neutral to the point of not having likes and dislikes.
