3 ms·

Seems unconstitutional to me. You can commercially publish topless photos of actresses vacationing on a private beach, and that's protected by the first amendme

Seems unconstitutional to me. You can commercially publish topless photos of actresses vacationing on a private beach, and that's protected by the first amendment. If the argument is trademark infringement then why a special law?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sp332 13y ago
The point is fraud. You can publish photos, if you're not pretending to be that person. Similarly, you can use trademarks to refer to whoever owns them, but you can't claim that you are the person/company it refers to.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  What idiot could be so confused as to believe that this t-shirt is really being sold by the NSA, or that the seller is claiming to be the NSA, instead of as a parody?
  - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
    In a world where this: http://i.imgur.com/aUOAv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aUOAv.jpg is not parody, it has become increasingly harder to get confuse Hell, if you would take somebody from 1985 and transplant them to now, they would probably think the mainstream news was pure satire.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      I still don't think there is any doubt about the t-shirt in question. I upvoted you for that poster though, wow. It's like something a graphic artist would submit knowing it would be rejected. Its imagery is right out of dystopian sci-fi. Is it real?
    - marvin 13y ago
      Everyone in this thread is missing the point. This T-shirt is obviously a political statement, and the NSA is using the law to suppress it. This is clearly a freedom of speech issue. Whether US law permits this type of dissent suppression is only ancillary. If your law says that this type of protest is forbidden, you have a big problem! Americans always get stuck on "this is actually illegal" when having a discussion about rights. Your constitution is pretty clear about this issue, and a reasonable interpretation of human rights/freedom of expression is crystal clear. This shirt is a political expression, and preventing it from being sold is denial of the right to protest.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sp332 13y ago

The point is fraud. You can publish photos, if you're not pretending to be that person. Similarly, you can use trademarks to refer to whoever owns them, but you can't claim that you are the person/company it refers to.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
What idiot could be so confused as to believe that this t-shirt is really being sold by the NSA, or that the seller is claiming to be the NSA, instead of as a parody?
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  In a world where this: http://i.imgur.com/aUOAv.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aUOAv.jpg is not parody, it has become increasingly harder to get confuse Hell, if you would take somebody from 1985 and transplant them to now, they would probably think the mainstream news was pure satire.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    I still don't think there is any doubt about the t-shirt in question. I upvoted you for that poster though, wow. It's like something a graphic artist would submit knowing it would be rejected. Its imagery is right out of dystopian sci-fi. Is it real?
  - marvin 13y ago
    Everyone in this thread is missing the point. This T-shirt is obviously a political statement, and the NSA is using the law to suppress it. This is clearly a freedom of speech issue. Whether US law permits this type of dissent suppression is only ancillary. If your law says that this type of protest is forbidden, you have a big problem! Americans always get stuck on "this is actually illegal" when having a discussion about rights. Your constitution is pretty clear about this issue, and a reasonable interpretation of human rights/freedom of expression is crystal clear. This shirt is a political expression, and preventing it from being sold is denial of the right to protest.