T-Shirt Controversy

I don't understand the context of this conversation but I have sometimes found T shirts with very sexual connotations offensive to look at. I have on occasions told men just that when they have been standing in front of me expecting me to converse with them. To me, it is the same thing as them saying these things in my presence or to my face. There is a lack of respect for my age and my gender IMO. I tell them that I am not impressed and walk away.

Political statements invite challenge. I'm always up for that sort of challenge. I'm not sure about issues of justice. I think I would ignore those because I believe in leaving these matters to the courts but realise that sometimes justice needs a bit of a prod to wake it up.
 

Normally, Butterfly, that is my way too, but some T shirts are so in-your-face provocative that I think a response is justified.
 

Just curious, but is this the guy that shot at some kids in a car in Florida for having their music too loud?
 
MaggieJewel said:
I disagree... if a person says something in public (including saying things by what is on a T-shirt) they should be prepare for comments agreeing or disagreeing. Free speech works both ways.
Click to expand...

Suppose you have a sign in your yard.. maybe a political sign... maybe a social issue sign. Is it OK for someone to come up to your door and pick a fight with you? Is it ok for them to ring your bell to discuss it? It's not much different with a tee shirt. It's on YOUR body.. so that makes it your personal space.. why does someone have the right to intrude on you? Personal space is personal space.. Freedom of speech, and the right to express your feelings in a nonviolent non- confrontational manner is a RIGHT... I suppose you could argue that it gives the right to someone to confront you but the act itself can be viewed as intrusionary and confrontational, therefore not protected.
 
QuickSilver said:
Suppose you have a sign in your yard.. maybe a political sign... maybe a social issue sign. Is it OK for someone to come up to your door and pick a fight with you? Is it ok for them to ring your bell to discuss it? It's not much different with a tee shirt. It's on YOUR body.. so that makes it your personal space.. why does someone have the right to intrude on you? Personal space is personal space.. Freedom of speech, and the right to express your feelings in a nonviolent non- confrontational manner is a RIGHT... I suppose you could argue that it gives the right to someone to confront you but the act itself can be viewed as intrusionary and confrontational, therefore not protected.
Click to expand...

Agreed....or what about baseball caps with your favorite baseball/football team on it....how many men here wear them.... image someone coming up to you and telling you that 'you had better be ready for opposing views if you're going to wear it'.
 
QuickSilver said:
Suppose you have a sign in your yard.. maybe a political sign... maybe a social issue sign. Is it OK for someone to come up to your door and pick a fight with you? Is it ok for them to ring your bell to discuss it? It's not much different with a tee shirt. It's on YOUR body.. so that makes it your personal space.. why does someone have the right to intrude on you? Personal space is personal space.. Freedom of speech, and the right to express your feelings in a nonviolent non- confrontational manner is a RIGHT... I suppose you could argue that it gives the right to someone to confront you but the act itself can be viewed as intrusionary and confrontational, therefore not protected.
Click to expand...


Well if you reread Davey's opening comment, and if it is an accurate representation of what transpired, then he wasn't confrontational or rude or violent. My read was that he was simply saying, 'some people might not agree with you - are you prepared to be approached?'.

I would think freedom of speech only guarantees that you have the right to say something. It doesn't guarantee that someone won't say something back.

In fact, here is what the US Courts have to say about that particular freedom.http://www.uscourts.gov/educational...n-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx

Freedom of speech includes the right:

.not to speak (you don't have to salute the flag)
.right to protest the war(s)
.to use offensive language to convey political messages
.to contribute money to political campaigns
.to advertise commercial products and services
.to engage in symbolic speech (i.e. burning the flag)

It does not include:
.the right to incite actions that would harm others
.to make or distribute obscene materials
.to burn draft cards as war protest
.the right to print articles in student newspapers over the objections of the school admin.
.the right of students to make and obscene speech at a school sponsored event
.the right of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school event


Nowhere does it say that I can't discuss the printing on someone else's shirt. That probably wouldn't even be covered under privacy laws I would think if you are wearing it in a public place. I might be wrong on that because I wasn't in the mood to wade through some Harvard grads dissertation, but if you can find where it is covered under privacy laws, I'd be happy to read it.
F
 
Nowhere does it say that I can't discuss the printing on someone else's shirt. That probably wouldn't even be covered under privacy laws I would think if you are wearing it in a public place. I might be wrong on that because I wasn't in the mood to wade through some Harvard grads dissertation, but if you can find where it is covered under privacy laws, I'd be happy to read it.
Click to expand...


It also doesn't say that if you aproach a stranger they cannot tell you to get the heck away from them or call store security for being accosted.. It also doesn't prevent a jealous husband for bopping a guy in the nose for aproaching his wife and upsetting her. Lot's of consquences could be involved. Isn't it just better to shut your mouth and ignore a tee shirt? Is anything THAT important that one feels the need to make a scene over disagreeing with a sentiment on a tee shirt? AND yes... it IS accosting.

[h=2]Definition of accost (vt)[/h]Bing Dictionary

  • ac·cost
  • [ É™ káwst ]

approach and stop somebody: to approach and stop somebody in order to speak to that person, especially in an aggressive, insistent, or suggestive way
synonyms: approach · stop · confront · detain · buttonhole · hound



 
Jackie22 said:
.....imagine someone coming up to you and telling you that 'you had better be ready for opposing views if you're going to wear it'.
Click to expand...




Is there something wrong with somebody saying what you suggested? Depending on the tone of delivery, at face value, I really don't think it's rude or confrontational or violent or....more like a statement of what might happen.
 
Last edited:
QuickSilver said:
It also doesn't say that if you aproach a stranger they cannot tell you to get the heck away from them or call store security for being accosted.. It also doesn't prevent a jealous husband for bopping a guy in the nose for aproaching his wife and upsetting her. Lot's of consquences could be involved. Isn't it just better to shut your mouth and ignore a tee shirt? Is anything THAT important that one feels the need to make a scene over disagreeing with a sentiment on a tee shirt? AND yes... it IS accosting.

Definition of accost (vt)

Bing Dictionary

  • ac·cost
  • [ É™ káwst ]

approach and stop somebody: to approach and stop somebody in order to speak to that person, especially in an aggressive, insistent, or suggestive way
synonyms: approach · stop · confront · detain · buttonhole · hound
Click to expand...


Why add in all sorts of scenarios that have nothing to do with Davey's remarking on a T-shirt that was being worn in a public place? And certainly the First Amendment doesn't protect anyone from violent offenders (note the use of the word 'offender' as in that person is willing to break the law) but it also protected Davey's right to make a comment on that publicly worn T-shirt. And as he didn't 'accost anyone in a violent or aggressive way I'm not sure why everyone wants to assume that he did or is at the very least making the implication that rudeness/aggression/violence was involved.
 
Debby said:
Is there something wrong with somebody say what you suggested? Depending on the tone of delivery, at face value, I really don't think it's rude or confrontational or violent or....more like a statement of what might happen.
Click to expand...

do you REALLY believe the middle of a WalMart is the place for political debate? Particularly uninvited unwelcome political debate? Seriously.. there are other venues more suitable. And as for being confrontational or not... is coming up to someone and advising them that they BETTER be prepared to defend their view expressed on their shirt anything but confrontational? In my book it's confrontational.. or at the very minimum a challenge.. no matter how nicely it's said.
 
Oh, I've done that before as well........in a kidding way towards the person. I'd see someone at Wal Mart wearing a Pittsburgh Steelers baseball cap or "t" and I'd say......"what the heck is a Ben fan doing living in Florida?" Said that with a smile and got a smile back. I was joking with them, not doing an "offensive" thing at all and they took what I said as a joke.

Wow folks, LIGHTEN UP!! Wearing an opposing teams baseball cap or t-shirt is a BIG difference than wearing a t-shirt that would be seen at a Justice Demonstration and could very well be controversial.

When talking about what people wear, I remember some years back when some Mexican teens, in So California, were wearing t-shirts that said "Proud To Be Illegal" and how much people who were against illegal immigration hated those t-shirts and voiced their opinion about them!

Jackie22 said:
Agreed....or what about baseball caps with your favorite baseball/football team on it....how many men here wear them.... image someone coming up to you and telling you that 'you had better be ready for opposing views if you're going to wear it'.
Click to expand...
 
Not withstanding the fact that most Wal-mart shoppers should be issued fashion tickets, you are committing assault in the technical sense, especially if you stopped her or blocked her egress and ingress in any, which includes your demanding an answer. She could actually file charges against you, and if she had a speech or hearing or anyother disability, you would have been booked without any jabber. If she had of slapped you, it would of been difficult for you to prove assault and battery. It is difficult for most folks to understand "defensive perimeter" (Davey has a really hard time with it). If you approach someone in a public place, from a legal point of view, it is best to stay at arms length at the very least, and always use the first person singular. Using the word "you" changes the scenario drastically. Just the fact that a person is in "striking" distance (legally about 12 ft.) puts you at liability risk, civilly and criminally. The situation is past accosting, just hope it doesn't go further.
Personally I love all those "civil unrest" tee-shirts-- some of the best humor the human species has to offer. But the best times at Wal-mart are when looking for the people who carry guns openly. I point at the weapon and give them a big thumbs up. And most of the time they reply with a "Why thank you".
 
Absolutely NOTHING was done like you wrote below! The lady was standing to my right/facing me, in the isle, and looking at her cell phone. My wife was standing to my left, looking at toothpaste on the shelf. I only made a comment about the "t"......nothing else! I did not "demand", as you call it, an answer or anything else from this lady!
What I'd like to know is where in the heck you are coming up with this stuff that I didn't do????

As far as openly carrying a firearm here, have never seen it on anybody except law enforcement. Actually, I think it's illegal to do in Florida. Carrying a firearm, whether is "openly" or "concealed" is fine with me as long as the firearm is used for protection.........not b/c someone gets pissed off at someone else and decides to pull the firearm and shoot the person.

rt3 said:
Not withstanding the fact that most Wal-mart shoppers should be issued fashion tickets, you are committing assault in the technical sense, especially if you stopped her or blocked her egress and ingress in any, which includes your demanding an answer. She could actually file charges against you, and if she had a speech or hearing or anyother disability, you would have been booked without any jabber. If she had of slapped you, it would of been difficult for you to prove assault and battery. It is difficult for most folks to understand "defensive perimeter" (Davey has a really hard time with it). If you approach someone in a public place, from a legal point of view, it is best to stay at arms length at the very least, and always use the first person singular. Using the word "you" changes the scenario drastically. Just the fact that a person is in "striking" distance (legally about 12 ft.) puts you at liability risk, civilly and criminally. The situation is past accosting, just hope it doesn't go further.
Personally I love all those "civil unrest" tee-shirts-- some of the best humor the human species has to offer. But the best times at Wal-mart are when looking for the people who carry guns openly. I point at the weapon and give them a big thumbs up. And most of the time they reply with a "Why thank you".
Click to expand...
 
As far as openly carrying a firearm here, have never seen it on anybody except law enforcement. Actually, I think it's illegal to do in Florida. Carrying a firearm, whether is "openly" or "concealed" is fine with me as long as the firearm is used for protection.........not b/c someone gets pissed off at someone else and decides to pull the firearm and shoot the person.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes... every man, woman, and child locked and loaded at Walmart.. whatever could go wrong?? lol!!!
 
good-now that we have that clear. It is an open and free society (USA). Personally I think Dueling should be re-instated. You could challenge her, and since she was challenged then she gets to choose the weapon. If your lucky she would choose tiddley winks and you would luck out. If she was offended, and challenged you, you could choose toothpaste at 5 yards and neither one of you would have to go anywhere, just settle it there.

Open carry is allowed in most free states, and usually municipalities put restrictions on it, which only apply to the borders of that town. Some municipalities violate the state statue and arrest the carrier on disturbing the peace. I am not sure about the getting pissed off and shooting someone has to do with the open carry issue. It seems like the popular thing now is cutting off their head, (how do you conceal an axe?) sorry got side tracked.

Some states, Wyoming, as an example, does not require the presence of physical harm, for a defense , ie the lady could have shot you and got away with it. Even in stand your ground states you would have a difficult time.

there are two sides to every story, the events may or may not have happened as you relate them-- her side may be entirely different than yours, whether fact (whatever that is) or in agreement to yours is irrelevant.
 
rt3 said:
good-now that we have that clear. It is an open and free society (USA). Personally I think Dueling should be re-instated. You could challenge her, and since she was challenged then she gets to choose the weapon. If your lucky she would choose tiddley winks and you would luck out. If she was offended, and challenged you, you could choose toothpaste at 5 yards and neither one of you would have to go anywhere, just settle it there.

Open carry is allowed in most free states, and usually municipalities put restrictions on it, which only apply to the borders of that town. Some municipalities violate the state statue and arrest the carrier on disturbing the peace. I am not sure about the getting pissed off and shooting someone has to do with the open carry issue. It seems like the popular thing now is cutting off their head, (how do you conceal an axe?) sorry got side tracked.

Some states, Wyoming, as an example, does not require the presence of physical harm, for a defense , ie the lady could have shot you and got away with it. Even in stand your ground states you would have a difficult time.

there are two sides to every story, the events may or may not have happened as you relate them-- her side may be entirely different than yours, whether fact (whatever that is) or in agreement to yours is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

This of course would be a whole 'nother debate thread... However, I will say this.. If I were in a store and some Yahoo was walking around slinging a loaded gun over his shoulder.. Open carry legal or not.. I would leave the store, but not before telling the manager WHY... and follow it up with a letter to the Corporate headquarters. But.. that's just me........ and a whole bunch of other sensible people. Businesses are allowed to ban guns.. and if enough customers walk out... they will.
 
just sayin that perception of a set of events are different to each person. how they get played back to five oh, or in a courtroom are two different things. If one doesn't like what is on a T shirt and tells the other person etc., and things go south real bad, and that person is willing to endure the fall out, more power to them.

as far as your leaving the store, manager etc. I think that is great also. It makes the lines shorter.
 
rt3 said:
just sayin that perception of a set of events are different to each person. how they get played back to five oh, or in a courtroom are two different things. If one doesn't like what is on a T shirt and tells the other person etc., and things go south real bad, and that person is willing to endure the fall out, more power to them.

as far as your leaving the store, manager etc. I think that is great also. It makes the lines shorter.
Click to expand...

Yeah... well just imagine that happening in an open carry state... and particularly a "Stand your Ground" state.. The lady felt threatened by a person approaching her and mentioning her t-shirt.. particularly a strange man. All she needs to do is feel unsafe, or that she is in danger of a physical attack. right? KaBOOOM.. and she will win in court. Who could prove otherwise?

As for the lines... I would much rather stand in longer lines of unarmed folks... than in short lines with folks who think we are in the wild wild west.. or Rambo wannabees.
 
Have to admit, was LOL when reading what I highlighted in red below.

rt3 said:
just sayin that perception of a set of events are different to each person. how they get played back to five oh, or in a courtroom are two different things. If one doesn't like what is on a T shirt and tells the other person etc., and things go south real bad, and that person is willing to endure the fall out, more power to them.

as far as your leaving the store, manager etc. I think that is great also. It makes the lines shorter.
Click to expand...

 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top