Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
by Chris Mottram • May 29, 2008 10:30 AM EDT
You may recall a story from last month about some guys in Chicago who decided to sell Kosuke Fukudome t-shirts outside of Wrigley. You may also recall that those shirts -- pictured on the right -- were, to put it mildly, racially insensitive, and were thus banned by the Cubs from being sold around the stadium.
Well, now the creators of the “Horry Kow” shirts are defending their right to be racist in the most American way possible: file a lawsuit:
The manufacturers originally agreed not to sell the shirt, which the Cubs called "racially offensive." But WFLD-Ch. 32 reported Wednesday the owners now plan to sue the Cubs to allow them to continue selling the shirts on the streets outside the park.Yeah, man, First Amendment, and stuff! That’s what our forefathers fought off the redcoats for: The right to turn a profit off of being blatantly offensive and ignorant.
"Their contention is basically, 'First Amendment. We can say anything we want on the T-shirts,'" [Cubs Chariman Crane] Kenney said.
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
9 comments
Next Post: Introduction
Read More: firstcuts, mlb, sportingblog, Chicago Cubs
The 5 biggest sports stories, hand-picked for your inbox. Show more info?
We’ve developed a unique newsletter that delivers the five most interesting sports stories fans are talking about, direct to your email three times a week. Each email is curated by an SB Nation editor who follows sports the way you do: as a fan. One email three times a week, with stories worth your time.
You can unsubscribe at anytime, and we'll never use your address for evil. Not interested? Make this bar go away forever. You can always sign up later.






Comments
“Yeah, man, First Amendment, and stuff! That’s what our forefathers fought off the redcoats for: The right to turn a profit off of being blatantly offensive and ignorant.”
This may just be the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted. The 1st amendment is what allows you to do what you do. I have no vested interest as I’m a Red Sox fan, but if you are that offended by the shirt, don’t buy one. If someone wants to buy one, good for them. If it is that offensive the market will prevail and they wont sell any. I’m sure if Kosuke comes out and says he is offended that would kill their business plan and sales also.
People in the media should be willing to fight to their last breath to preserve the first amendment.
by The Great Snook on May 29, 2008 11:51 AM EDT reply actions
I have no idea, why I can’t see any of my previous post. Maybe it was too long. I basically said this article is stupid. If the shirt is that offensive they won’t sell that many, they don’t need to be banned. As a member of the “media” you shouldn’t be belittling the first amendment as it is what enables you to do what you do. If anything you should be supoorting any and all efforts to preserve it.
by The Great Snook on May 29, 2008 12:02 PM EDT reply actions
As usual, I guess I just cannot lay the sarcasm on thick enough for some people to pick up on it.
by cmottram on May 29, 2008 12:17 PM EDT reply actions
If that is the case, I highly recommend you give up on sarcasm. Maybe you should try irony instead :)
by The Great Snook on May 29, 2008 1:08 PM EDT reply actions
Wow. I would tell you to read the article better Mr. Snook, but with your expert grasp of the english language, maybe you should start your own blog. :-)
by ethanator1088 on May 29, 2008 1:33 PM EDT reply actions
Please explain. I’m willing to listen. Here is how I read the article. Some guys made a T-Shirt. The Cubs banned the sale of the T-Shirt around the stadium as they deemed it offensive. The people who make the T-Shirt are considering sueing as the T-Shirt is a form of freedom of expression and therefore protected by the 1st amendment. Then the writer makes a snarky comment that the first amendment is being abused to allow people to make money on tasteless things. All I said was that 1st amendment shouldn’t be treated so lightly just because you may think it was offensive (and for the record it is offensive).
by The Great Snook on May 29, 2008 2:03 PM EDT reply actions
Snook: For the sake of my OCD, can we please refer to this as a “post” not an “article”? Now, to your latest comment: The point I was trying to make via my sarcastic little remark was that everyone uses the 1st Amendment to defend anything, no matter how ridiculously wrong or offensive it may be. I think in this case, ensuring kids (and anyone else, really) won’t see racist tees around the stadium does more than “protecting” the 1st Amendment by allowing these guys to sell the shirts.
by cmottram on May 29, 2008 2:21 PM EDT reply actions
Post it is then. I do agree with you, the first amendment is used as an excuse for all sorts of ridiculous things. We have to remember that for all of the little stupid things it protects, it also protects some very important things (like Yankees suck t-shirts)
by The Great Snook on May 29, 2008 2:36 PM EDT reply actions
What’s the big deal? It’s just a joke. They are making fun of an accent. As a southerner should I be pissed if someone makes a shirt saying ’Get’er Dun’? Ever used the term ‘chop chop’, or how about ‘crack the whip’? Shirts with ‘be-och’. Should they be banned as well?
People should just relax. Lets all make fun of everyone. Lighten up and the world will seem brighter.
by mightyhokie on Jun 4, 2008 4:03 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed