Friday, January 26, 2007

Can't Possibly Be True

I was forwarded this SPIRIT e-mail by a reputable source... But I still have a hard time believing it.

The Town has sent a letter to all shop owners from the Police Chief advising them of the need to partition off and separate areas where items are displayed that could be construed to be obscene under Texas law, and to post signage prohibiting minors in those areas. They have offered assistance to all those who have questions on these laws and the details associated with them, to further ensure compliance. They will begin actively enforcing these laws on January 30, on a complaint-driven basis.


Collective madness is indeed the only possible explanation.

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you believe children should be subjected to such things when roaming around a store? This is not about adults who can make their own decisions as to what to view and not view. Parents don't expect to find such things in stores and cannot protect their children from them unless there is a notice. Do you have children?

8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh please. Children watch TV. They surf the internet. They see naughty stuff wherever they turn.
Parents who "don't expect to see such things" on SPI during springbreak must be presumed to be so utterly clueless as to be possibly unfit for parenthood.

8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You did not answer my question.

6:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I have children and over the years I have spent a lot of down time on SPI wandering through cheesy
tee shirt shops and my opinion is that some of the "powers that be" on SPI must have way too much time on their hands! I've always been more concerned about exposing my children to gratuitous violence on TV than to the kind of silly "naughtiness" one is likely to encounter in an SPI store.

8:20 AM  
Blogger Sam said...

So the message IS for real. I detect the presence of the Auxiliary Morals Squadron, armed with sneakers, pen, paper, and cell phone, getting ready to stir up some more trouble on the Island.

9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandy Feet, you are a piece of work. This is a State LAW not just a local yokel ordinance. In San Antonio, they post signs on the door so parents see it as they come in. That causes parents to turn away from the store altogether. I think your city has taken a real business friendly approach to this. I have a 7 year old daughter that I don't want to see this crap.

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the letter give an ankling as to what items are deemed "obscene" under state law? I'd bet that they did. Not having done so would be the only folly.

It does sound as though the new law came about because of complaints. As a town largely dependant on tourism, you'd be wise to listen ... family vacations and all that you know.

Find out what it is that generated the complaints before all your collective knee-jerking.

11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey anon 11:05. Be nice. Sandy Feet has her opinion and you have yours. No need for personal attacks.

11:25 AM  
Blogger Sam said...

Yeah let's lighten up ... I certainly didn't mean any harm and thought it was rather funny, myself. Why was this sent out by ... was it really SPIRIT?

As pointed out, we always have the ability to dial the police to make a complaint and they will react to it as they see fit.

I don't know why, but these issues seem to come up every winter about this time ... last year some 8-liners were raided, too.

Must be election season upon us!
/sammie

11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is about pornography. Nasty films are included in the displays. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to see the harm. Obviously it takes more common sense than is reflected in this blog

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe if someone could please point out some examples of obsenity in retail stores on SPI I can stop laughing about the foolishness of this all...or not. That is what happens when citizens spend too much time in a cultural backwater. It looks like Barney, Goober, Floyd, Howard, Otis and Aunt Bea are sure nuff full of righteuos indignation!

1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm new - please enlighten those of us (surely I am not the only one) ...

Who/what is SPIRIT?
At first glance (based on the email example you post) it appears they are people passing along information about their community? To agree or disagree is your right, but just posting the email, poking fun at it and giving no reason for the condemnation makes you look small - not them. I have never lived anywhere that people didn’t disagree, but the level of destructive vs constructive banter on this little island is astonishing.

3:38 PM  
Blogger just wandering said...

yes, that is the purpose of Spirit. They give summaries of what goes on at the Alderman meetings; notes to remind about committee meetings and special functions (like the shows put on by the art "league"); they bring in speakers to explain what is going on locally (Judge Cascos; Turtle people; the Mayor on the Island's finances; new computer systems for access to the town manager staff -- and on and on. Also they are sponsoring a debate/question evening when the aldermen's election comes up. Anyway, it's a state law, the police are notifying the business owners what it requires and that's it. Whether or not I personally think it is necessary or useful, it is Texas law. And the whole thing would be better discussed in a larger civil/individual rights discussion which is not so personal.

3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Just Wandering ... first level headed, factual explanation devoid of finger pointing - hip hip. Sounds like a reasonable group ... Why does Sandy poke such fun and appear so paranoid? Annon 3:38

4:13 PM  
Blogger Lucinda said...

Well I guess I struck a nerve here.
Note: I have no complaints with SPIRIT - just noted that is where the e-mail originated.

So tell me what is "obscene"...

A T-shirt that says
PHUQUE U
?
Calvin taking a whiz
?

I don't know anything about nasty videos being shown and so assumed that all of this was coming from naughty T-shirts that Springbreakers just love.

I am not picking fights with anyone. Just stating my opinion on my blog. And letting you state your opinions too, even if you don't agree with me and feel the need to cast aspersions and call me names. On MY blog. How nice is that?
:)

8:06 PM  
Blogger chris said...

y

11:39 PM  
Blogger chris said...

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy.....keep the Anonymous block off....Our duaghter has been raised on the island all of her 13 years. We have a hard time going into the surf shops due to the crap hanging on the walls. These shirts are a big seller for the SB crowd, however, they have no appeal to us, the 40+ crowd with kiddos. They could at least sell these items in a back room with a notice stating 18+ only. A good example is Liz and Diane at Ship Shape. No Gaudy mechandise there. My dollars go to places like theirs. Debate is a good thing.....dont take it personal. Keep the Blog going.

11:47 PM  
Blogger Brian Mikiten said...

Interesting posts. In all my travels, the only other towns that allow obscene (as defined by law) T-shirts, photos and other items is New Orleans and Las Vegas. Is that the direction everyone wants for SPI?

I don't take my kids into those shops and don't like the fact that I have to avoid them but they also don't get my dollars. Someone is buying since they are still open.

Brian

9:37 PM  
Blogger Lucinda said...

Nobody is advocating porn here - certainly not I. I don't like that stuff any more than anyone else. My objections are two fold:

1. Who decides what is obscene? I gave a couple of example above that no one commented on. I ask again - are they obscene?

2. Allocation of resources to enforce this. There is only so much law enforcement to go around. How serious is this issue? Would our resources be better spent eslewhere? As spring break slowly fades of its own accord, so will this problem.

7:24 AM  
Blogger Brian Mikiten said...

The matter of who decides vulgarities has always been an issue. I think that most people would agree that a 10 year old shouldn't have to hear/see words that his parent's don't use because they choose to have a decent vocaulary and not curse. Sure, they know what they are but that doesn't mean they should use them because others do so.

Society has rules that say what is decent. They are changing to be less and less stringent over the years. Society also says that we shouldn't walk down the street nude or steal from others. Who decides which rules to follow?

Brian

8:59 PM  
Blogger Sam said...

Answer: it's the courts.

Over the years the courts have debated these "morals laws" and have developed clear guidelines for what can be admitted as evidence that some thing or action is a clear violation of the law as written.

That is why common folks should stay out of the way in prosecuting certain alleged offenses, since we're not the legal experts.

For example, one may desire to implement a town ordinance that rules against a more subjective kind of smut. However, this could be ruled as being unconstitutional as long as no law has been broken. The First Amendment does allow for free speech, last I checked.

I am not a lawyer but can say there are certain standards of proof and tests of the US Constitution.

1:14 PM  
Blogger mleahy said...

Sandy, to answer your question, I feel that the "Phuque U" & "Calvin taking a Whiz" are both offensive. I know that I am not the oldest here at 40 but at least my parents raised me to find such things morally weak. The latest study shows that 1/3 of students will drop out of high school. Another study shows that 16% of students who speak English very well drop out, and 59% of those who don't speak English well, do. It is no wonder that we see spelling as you have illustrated. When we default to incorrectly spelled, or non existant words, we truly show our intellectual deficiencies. When did this become the norm?

Regards, MLeahy

11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home