Jay Jays has pulled the offending tee-shirts due to public outrage over labelling children with adult foibles. Which has brought up an interesting point - were these tee-shirts considered free-speech?
Normally I wouldn't have thought so, but Whaleoil, who considers himself a conservative blogger, does seem to think so. (Note we had him down under liberal right on our blogroll.)
I think the problem here is that if a person holds to moral relativism as a standard (ie there are no standards, because everyone's standards are different), then it is very easy to get confused in this area.
I believe in free-speech. Not in an of itself, but to protect those who would speak the truth. Free-speech is just a means to an end, not an end itself. The end is truth. We don't want to protect those who would speak lies.
Unfortunately, in a morally and intellectually confused society such as ours, what is truth? Many people can't even recognise it any more. Truths have been replaced by lies and the lies have been hoisted onto petards and adored.
Which comes back to the tee-shirts. Labelling a child with "Miss Wasted" or "Mr Well-Hung" - what truth do they speak of? Children should not be "wasted" and cannot be "well-hung" - there is no truth here not even in the farther-most mind of the most idiotic parent.
All the tee-shirts are, are marketing techniques aimed at parents who would think it funny to mock their children. Even Whaleoil admits he would not let his kids wear them.
Related Link: Ok I'm boycotting JayJay's because they caved ~ Whaleoil
Normally I wouldn't have thought so, but Whaleoil, who considers himself a conservative blogger, does seem to think so. (Note we had him down under liberal right on our blogroll.)
I think the problem here is that if a person holds to moral relativism as a standard (ie there are no standards, because everyone's standards are different), then it is very easy to get confused in this area.
I believe in free-speech. Not in an of itself, but to protect those who would speak the truth. Free-speech is just a means to an end, not an end itself. The end is truth. We don't want to protect those who would speak lies.
Unfortunately, in a morally and intellectually confused society such as ours, what is truth? Many people can't even recognise it any more. Truths have been replaced by lies and the lies have been hoisted onto petards and adored.
Which comes back to the tee-shirts. Labelling a child with "Miss Wasted" or "Mr Well-Hung" - what truth do they speak of? Children should not be "wasted" and cannot be "well-hung" - there is no truth here not even in the farther-most mind of the most idiotic parent.
All the tee-shirts are, are marketing techniques aimed at parents who would think it funny to mock their children. Even Whaleoil admits he would not let his kids wear them.
Related Link: Ok I'm boycotting JayJay's because they caved ~ Whaleoil
I don't have strong feelings either way, so I'll just respond with some pertinent pedantry...
ReplyDeleteThank you, Josh. I always enjoy knowing the original meaning of words. In my case, the imagery is therefore apt (in a roundabout way), as lies ought to be blown up. Unfortunately those lies are flung about causing damage, even while they are held to be true.
ReplyDeleteYou do realise that
ReplyDeletea) these were not in childrens sizes
b) were not marketed towards children
c) that teenagers do actually have sex
right?
I remember a cartoon in Playboy some thirty years ago.
ReplyDeleteIt depicted a couple of girls walking down the street in see through blouses with a couple of guys ogling at the side.
One girl is saying to the other "I hate it when they undress you with their eyes!"
Well.. duh?
And outfitting kids in gear with with words inappropriate for their ages creates the potential for an inappropriate response from a less innocent crowd.
JC
MikeE,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying teenagers are not children?
Yes, I know teenagers are having sex. NZ's teenagers are apparently the most promiscuous in the Western world. Having adults encourage them to do so would seem to be wrong, no?
great call, great call...
ReplyDeletemikee:
ReplyDelete1. Yes they were ..."children as young as ten"
2. Debatable.
3. Yes, and some 12 year old's get pregnant from it. Think it might have anything to do with the messages they receive (or are bombarded with)? So what's your point exactly? We should encourage young people to think "slut" and "wasted" is cool?
That's the problem for the moral relativists--when everything's relative, then nothing may be unequivocally condemned.
ReplyDeleteIf nothing may be condemned, then everything becomes acceptable.
Zentiger - have you seen said tshirts? or are you simply going by the article?
ReplyDeleteI was in JayJays on the weekend with a friend. These were in adult sizes only - believe it or not JayJays core customers aren't 10 year olds.
My point is I wish that busybodies like Family First would but out of other peoples lives rather than trying to push their conservative views on others.
And that parents should take responsibility for their children, rather than expecting retailers to do it for them.
And that groups like family first are class A hypocrits when they claim to be defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression, yet they get involved with campaigns like this, californication, hell pizza and boobs on bikes.
It appears that Family First (and the poster) only supports freedom of expression when it doesn't offend them.
Also - you might want to read up on moral relativism KG:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
For it appears that the posters and commenters are the ones who are guilty of moral relativism, as per the above comment of mine.
Mikee,
ReplyDeletethere is a difference between freedom of expression and licentiousness. Many people, such are yourself, confuse the two. Mainly because they don't know the difference between freedom and license and underlying all of that, they don't believe in any sort of societal moral standard because of an underlying moral relativity in their thinking.
KG is quite right in his summation where moral relativism leads. Maybe it is you, Mikee, who need to do a bit more reading.
Futhermore, children (especially girls) fit into adult sized clothing very early. From about the age of 10 onwards, girls fit into small adult women's clothes very easily.
Not to mention that the style of clothing is modelled on characters that target far younger children (ever heard of the Mr Men and Little Miss series of books?). Anyone wearing such a teeshirt will get the attention of all the littlies who will want to know what the characters are and why haven't they got that book yet?
It's not as simple as don't like it, don't buy it.
Hi MikeE - I have read the articles and seen the pictures and have formed and expressed my opinion based on those.
ReplyDeleteI note that some organisations are not carrying the full range, because the "freedom of expression" is a bit much even for them, and they are exercising their right to "sell what they want".
I challenge you to point out when and where I called for a ban on this.
I express my opinion, as is my right, and you automatically assume I have suggested a "solution" I have never advocated.
You seem offended that I express my opinion. Where have I infringed this person's right to offend me by saying what I think about it?
I'll answer your points more fully in a post when I get time.
This isn't a free speech issue at all.
ReplyDeleteJay Jays have not been stopped from selling the tee shirts, they have chosen to of their own accord. A commercial decision based upon the idea that they may well loose customers over this - which they would undoubtably. I guess they balanced the potential profit from the tee shirts against the potential loses elsewhere and decided that the risk wasn't worth it.
Nor is it wrong to withhold your custom from firms who engage in activities you don't approve. In fact society is governed best when the sanctions of ordinary folks are allowed free reign instead of the heavy hand of central government.
We don't need a law to tell the baker not to pick his nose in the shop do we, such behaviour will be rewarded by loss of custom without any intervention from central authority.
Of course in recent times it is central authority that has rewritten the acceptable norms of behaviour by deeming that the social sanctions that arose to maintain family adhesion and see the majority of children raised in a safe and nurturing environment are a form of intolerance and bigotry.
Mikee, it's very kind of you to provide a link, but I've done enough study of my own to be considered all growed up, thanks and don't need to go to Wikipedia (a dodgy source, by the way) to know the meaning of the term.
ReplyDeleteAs a libertarian, or pseudo-lib, MikeE should know this is not a free speech issue. As should Whale oil.
ReplyDeleteCertain corporations use their privledged position to pollute our cultural environment, assuming that right has been bought and paid for, so think they are effectively insulated from any repercussions.
Shining the light into the dark places may just cause a few of them to soften their tone or run for cover, as it has done here.
Yes, people have always been jerks in private, and always will be. But time was, being a jerk in public was not rewarded highly.
This is not censorship. This is the free market at work.
More thought control measures from a sleazy market preying on vulnerable children .
ReplyDeleteJust another brick in the wall !!
There are some interesting arguments that run along the lines that free speech is not absolute as the American's seem to think (an aside mildly relevant http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39182 ) but should only be protected in service of the ideals it promotes. That's why pornography, advertising and this kind of thing are probably more suitably community issues than rights ones.
ReplyDeleteI'm off topic a bit today.
Free Speech.
ReplyDeleteIn the past there was Sophie Scholl. Now "free speech" is a mass produced t-shirt slogan.
Grow up.
Well summarised.
ReplyDeleteSophie and Hans Scholl and the White Rose Resistance
To me it's not free speech because it is children who are being given these to wear, not adults.
ReplyDelete