I guess I hadn’t noticed “Fcuk” — though how many thirteen-year-old girls are running around with “Juicy” emblazoned across their asses? How many mothers are buying this crap for their little darlings?

As to the community having some say, that was basically my argument, though as Joshua pointed out, that particular community already has some provocative businesses in the same area, such as the erotic bakery.

I personally have a real problem with the, eh hm, edgy brand of clothing with the logo “Fcuk.” Not real subtle. Just what I want to be wearing around town.

Kind of dovetails into your recent post about market determinism. If it really does bother enough people, the brand or the establishment doesn’t get the business, and dies out.

However (comma), that said, I personally think that a “community” should have some say in the face it presents to the public. If the city council or business leaders want to present a more “family friendly” face — perhaps there’s a lot of senior citizens or young kids in the town — then posting provocative monikers with “Bitch” or “Fcuk” on a mainstreet window can and should be censored. IMHO.

That’s definitely a case of deciding where to draw the line — you’ll never find an “objective” standard for what constitutes offense — it’s like “obscenity: you know it when you see it. So does the other guy.

Okay, here again– I addressed this.

Most people are not terribly cogent about what their community standards actually are. This is why lawyers, arguing criminal or civil indecency cases, use current behavior rather than current perceptions of behavior to establish what the community standard is.

That’s why I mentioned both Dick’s Drive-In and the Erotic Bakery, both of which are on the same main thoroughfare as HMB, both within ten blocks of HMB. The fact is that the neighborhood in question has an existing standard of both public display of “dirty” words in “clean” context and businesses that profit from the perception of indecency or impropriety. Both the businesses I mention are landmarks in the neighborhood. Dick’s has been operating in that location since 1954. The Erotic Bakery has been operating since 1986.

The existing practices standard is as close to “objective” as the law can get when it comes to “community standards”, and the tool is designed to address norms rather than empowering taboos. By that standard, the “offended” parties in the HMB case are simply– say it with me people –wrong about what their community’s standards are.

Here it is: the original Apple Computer logo

Never seen that before — thanks for the tip.

There are lots of brand names (and definitely band names) and such that are risqué; I think the complaint centers around having a prominent sign displaying such — the Kit Shickers probably don’t have a big permanent can’t-miss-it retail sign on the main drag. Community standards are just that… the accepted standards of a majority of the people in a community. Some town doesn’t want cheesy looking fast food signs on main street. Fair enough. Somewhere else, people don’t want the word “bitch” prominently displayed. Residents can certainly make the argument — time will tell if the town agrees with them or not.

You clearly know the neighborhood better than I, (which is to say, I don’t know it at all beyond your description), so if the bitch sign is actually an _improvement_ over what was there before (compared to brothels and such in the 1990s), then I’d say that “bitch” is a relatively silly thing to gripe about. That’s definitely a case of deciding where to draw the line — you’ll never find an “objective” standard for what constitutes offense — it’s like “obscenity: you know it when you see it. So does the other guy.

(You’ve put my mind in a weird place today…. When I read the phrase “pack of assholes” this image of a retail box marked “Assholes” popped into my head….)

That’s kind of a disingenuous spin. I did say in that same post, “High Maintenance Bitch isn’t violating that standard. They’re flirting with it. They’re profiting from it. But, by any equitable metric, they’re not violating it.” Clearly I can imagine why a reasonable person would be offended. I can imagine why reasonable people are offended by all kinds of harmless stupid shit. I can imagine why Muslims are offended by womens’ hair. I just also think they’re a pack of assholes.

What I’m saying is that A) the offended parties, while possibly reasonable, are still a bunch of dicks and B) there’s no objective grounds for complaint. It’s kind of like if you have a band called the Kit Shickers. I can see why someone would be offended by that. But there’s still nothing actionable in the name and people who choose to make a stink in spite of that– especially if the Kit Shickers are somehow benefiting their community, which HMB is –are basically uptight busybodies who are placing their (totally ridiculous) personal aesthetics ahead of the well being of their community.