# Zombies at the shooting range: shouldn't they be Constitution protected? \[Real topic, with SCOTUS!\]
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [July 12, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345 "2013-07-12T18:57:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/1 "2013-07-12T18:57:27Z")
Can you do anything to a mannequin? (Besides sexually abuse it in front of minors, or whatever. Enjoy supplying your own thoughts.)
So, today [I read](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/sen-murphy-wants-company-to-stop-selling-gun?) that
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.
SCOTUS [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf) ruled that video games are First Amendment protected, including–and specific to the reasoning–political speech.
(Among all the many apps and quickie political video games I can recall one where the stated goal was to virtually assassinate GW Bush.)
Cf. blog comments in [WSJ](http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324425204578599753051997078?mg=reno64-wsj).
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/2 "2013-07-12T19:03:58Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/3 "2013-07-12T19:06:02Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#):
>
> Even though the safety of the Republic is not in danger, it raises First Amendment issues. Zombie Industries stopped selling it.
What First Amendment issue?
[BTW, you can still buy one](http://zombieindustries.com/shop/gun-control-lobbyist-zombie/).
---
### Author:  [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/4 "2013-07-12T19:06:08Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#):
>
> Can you do anything to a mannequin? (Besides sexually abuse it in front of minors, or whatever. Enjoy supplying your own thoughts.)
>
> So, today [I read](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/sen-murphy-wants-company-to-stop-selling-gun?) that
>
> 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.
>
> SCOTUS [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf) ruled that video games are First Amendment protected, including–and specific to the reasoning–political speech.
>
> (Among all the many apps and quickie political video games I can recall one where the stated goal was to virtually assassinate GW Bush.)
>
> Cf. blog comments in [WSJ](http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324425204578599753051997078?mg=reno64-wsj).
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.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/5 "2013-07-12T19:19:46Z")
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…)
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/6 "2013-07-12T19:27:24Z")
> [@gnoitall](#):
>
> The sensible answer is to blow off blowhards trying to score sound-bite points.
Words for both sides to live by in this instance. Bravo on your Solomonic wisdom.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/7 "2013-07-12T19:29:46Z")
> [@Procrustus](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/8 "2013-07-12T19:43:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/9 "2013-07-12T19:52:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/10 "2013-07-12T20:01:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> 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.
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?
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/11 "2013-07-12T20:02:36Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/12 "2013-07-12T20:13:23Z")
> [@gnoitall](#):
>
> …The Pirate Bay’s extensive list of responses to Cease and Desist letters is a fine source of inspriation.
Thanks for reminding me of those. [They are funny indeed](http://thepiratebay.sx/legal), and inspirational.
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.
Yes, he’s like [the guy who staked his all in selling Bin Laden urinal cakes](http://www.theonion.com/articles/entrepreneur-stuck-with-40000-unsold-bin-laden-uri,161/).
---
### Author:  [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/13 "2013-07-12T20:20:55Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/14 "2013-07-12T20:25:47Z")
ETA: As can Senatorial power.
---
### Author:  [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/15 "2013-07-12T21:57:39Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#):
>
> Can you do anything to a mannequin? (Besides sexually abuse it in front of minors, or whatever. Enjoy supplying your own thoughts.)
>
> \< . . . snip . . . \>
>
> Even though the safety of the Republic is not in danger, it raises First Amendment issues. Zombie Industries stopped selling it.
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.
---
### Author:  [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/16 "2013-07-13T02:25:40Z")
> [@gnoitall](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/17 "2013-07-13T04:27:31Z")
One of our local gun ranges bans paper cartoon targets, even [this](http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/criminal-shooting-target.jpg), so I doubt “Gun Control Lobbyist” mannequins would fly either.
---
### Author:  [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/18 "2013-07-13T04:58:15Z")
> [@dzeiger](#):
>
> 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.
Thanks, but I’ll stick to my team.
---
### Author:  [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/19 "2013-07-13T07:08:28Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#):
>
> One of our local gun ranges bans paper cartoon targets, even [this](http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/criminal-shooting-target.jpg), so I doubt “Gun Control Lobbyist” mannequins would fly either.
H-COPS complained.[sup]_[/sup]
[sup]_[/sup]Hairy Caucasian Ornery Pugfaces Society.
---
### Author:  [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345/20 "2013-07-13T08:02:28Z")
> [@dzeiger](#):
>
> 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
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.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zombies-at-the-shooting-range-shouldnt-they-be-constitution-protected-real-topic-with-scotus/663345.md?page=2)