4 ms·

Personally I disagree with the ruling but also agree with Jack Daniels parent corp for trying to protect their image. If someone in my social group decided it w

by toolz 3y ago

Personally I disagree with the ruling but also agree with Jack Daniels parent corp for trying to protect their image. If someone in my social group decided it would be funny to sell t-shirts with my face on it, with the phrase "shithead steve" or something on it, then I too would want to "control" the way people think of me by taking legal avenues to prevent the person from selling those t-shirts. After all, is it really pro-social to make profit at the expense of my reputation? Seems like a behavior society would be better off without.

Waterluvian 3y ago
At the core of the First Amendment is, I think, the idea that there is no speech objectivity and if someone in particular is allowed to police speech, it will be policed in a very biased way (ie. by those with the power). That's why "a behaviour society would be better off without" is fundamentally problematic. It is likely obvious to any individual how to enumerate those behaviours, but good luck getting everyone to agree. And super good luck avoiding the endless growth of that list. I think that's partly why parody is so well-established as 1A protected and why why there's nothing legally problematic with a "Shithead Steve" shirt, as ugly as you and I would both find that to be. If people find the First Amendment to be a nuisance when they're trying to silence speech that they feel society would be better off without, then the amendment is doing its intended job.
bbor 3y ago
I don’t think that’s fair. Presumably this wouldn’t apply to public figures - making “the president is a shithead” shirts illegal is the quintessential speech we need to protect. From there, I really don’t see how one could draw a line with any meaningful efficacy. if I make a “coastal elites are shitheads” can any individual one of them sue me? If I make a “Steve is a shithead because he eats meat/scams people/[insert immoral-but-legal behavior]” shirt could he sue me? If a comedian makes a joke about somebody being a shithead, should they be liable? All of this is besides the point though. I honestly was super shocked by your comment, because I didn’t know there were people out there who thought “being mean” should be _illegal_. Like, why isn’t it pro-social? Is it the governments place to enforce social etiquette?? Would be curious to hear an elaboration. Maybe your concern is specifically the profit part?
- toolz 3y ago
  You misunderstand me. I'm saying it should be legal, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good for society and thus society _should_ pursue legal means to stop people from doing things that are socially bad. There are other, legal, means of discouraging a behavior than just putting a law on the books and letting the judicial system handle it.

by toolz 3y ago

Waterluvian 3y ago

At the core of the First Amendment is, I think, the idea that there is no speech objectivity and if someone in particular is allowed to police speech, it will be policed in a very biased way (ie. by those with the power). That's why "a behaviour society would be better off without" is fundamentally problematic. It is likely obvious to any individual how to enumerate those behaviours, but good luck getting everyone to agree. And super good luck avoiding the endless growth of that list. I think that's partly why parody is so well-established as 1A protected and why why there's nothing legally problematic with a "Shithead Steve" shirt, as ugly as you and I would both find that to be. If people find the First Amendment to be a nuisance when they're trying to silence speech that they feel society would be better off without, then the amendment is doing its intended job.

bbor 3y ago

I don’t think that’s fair. Presumably this wouldn’t apply to public figures - making “the president is a shithead” shirts illegal is the quintessential speech we need to protect. From there, I really don’t see how one could draw a line with any meaningful efficacy. if I make a “coastal elites are shitheads” can any individual one of them sue me? If I make a “Steve is a shithead because he eats meat/scams people/[insert immoral-but-legal behavior]” shirt could he sue me? If a comedian makes a joke about somebody being a shithead, should they be liable? All of this is besides the point though. I honestly was super shocked by your comment, because I didn’t know there were people out there who thought “being mean” should be _illegal_. Like, why isn’t it pro-social? Is it the governments place to enforce social etiquette?? Would be curious to hear an elaboration. Maybe your concern is specifically the profit part?

toolz 3y ago
You misunderstand me. I'm saying it should be legal, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good for society and thus society _should_ pursue legal means to stop people from doing things that are socially bad. There are other, legal, means of discouraging a behavior than just putting a law on the books and letting the judicial system handle it.