Inappropriate?

[sanstitre_has_left_the_building]

we’re better than that

Well, I’m not. But I’ve said all I wanted to say. I shall withdraw and leave the thread in peace.

[tjkjbarton]

You cannot on the one hand object to Mickey Mouse wielding a sword and on the other hand not object to political slogans being worn. The latter, incidentally, are explicitly banned by WDW.

I agree. If people are saying that the Deadpool MM shirt would be banned because of the pictures of weapons, I don’t see how the expression of it in words would be any different.

[Pod]

Because it’s Mickey Mouse.

[AltaD]

The Five F’s t-shirt is political and is it designed to intimidate. It is wholly out of place at WDW and I’m astonished this view is even remotely controversial.

Completely agree.

[Yax]

Symbols can be appropriated to mean something different from what was originally intended. When the new meaning becomes generalized, the intent is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the symbol is decoded. There are serious issues with the symbolism in that Five F’s t-shirt.

[rebeecky]

You Americans are so obsessed with your rights that you never stop to think whether it is always necessary or appropriate or desirable to express them in any given situation at any given time.

As an American, all I can say is please don’t lump us all into this.

[Jasonboyeskie_586483]

Roe v. Wade is a different situation entirely. It is ENTIRELY political. It isn’t the “law of the land”, but a decision on a case that influences future litigation.

This is wholly incorrect. If the Supreme Court announces that a law or policy is unconstitutional or applied in an unconstitutional manner, it provides direction both to the executive and legislative branches, as well as the judiciary below the Court, that laws in violation of that pronouncement are unconstitutional.

The fact that you have to go to court to enforce it is no different than having to go to court for trying someone for murder: both are against the law and courts are used to apply laws to individuals. They are both just as much “the law of the land.”

As someone else wisely said, that shirt is the wearer begging the general public to please give a darn what they think. I wish my life had that little to do in it or was simple enough that spending money on that shirt to try and trigger someone would seem to be a good investment.

[ryan1]

This is wholly incorrect. If the Supreme Court announces that a law or policy is unconstitutional or applied in an unconstitutional manner, it provides direction both to the executive and legislative branches, as well as the judiciary below the Court, that laws in violation of that pronouncement are unconstitutional.

Not sure what you mean. You call it wholly incorrect, then reiterate exactly what I was suggesting. The Supreme Court cannot make laws. It can, however, invalidate laws. Roe V. Wade was a decision that did not create law, but “allowed” (in a sense) a legal precedent.

[Jasonboyeskie_586483]

You said it’s not “the law of the land.” It is precisely that.

[ryan1]

Wrong. Absolutely. Roe V Wade isn’t a law. It is a court decision. It informs the law of the land, but it isn’t the law itself.

[missoverexcited]

Guys, this whole discussion is inappropriate. Opinions on the original T shirt only please or the thread will be locked.

[ryan1]

Opinions on the original T shirt only

I’m not a fan of Deadpool. I think the idea of a Deadpool Mickey is odd. But I don’t think the T-shirt warrants being banned in any way. I’m not just sure I would choose to wear such a shirt at WDW. I can’t speak to what Disney might think, but struggling to see the shirt offensive in and of itself.

[PrincipalTinker]

I am sorry but I am going to lock this thread.