You all are making the assumption that the Obama Administration is going to use any manner of prudence or justice in enforcing the law. Like so many other cases in the past 5 years, they use the law where it fits their agenda, twist the law into serving their agenda, and ignore the law when it is inconvenient.
The only other time I've seen this law used to suppress commerce is when the actual agency seal appeared on a commercial product without permission of the agency concerned (the rationale being that the agency did not endorse the product or want it to appear that the product is "official"). The Obama Administration twists the law into meaning that a caricature of an agency seal cannot be used in political or editorial speech.
You are right if you are outraged at this. You are right when you say that there are so many holes in the law that a truck could drive through it. But look at the target of the cease and desist order. It wasn't a major news organization. It wasn't a large corporation. It was an individual who sells product through Cafe Press.
There's a reason.
ABCCBSNBCCNNNYTWAPO have lots of corporate attorneys who would love nothing better than to litigate the DOJ into the ground. This person would likely have enough resources to pay for a ham and eggs lawyer for two or three hours. The DOJ knows that...that's why they went against him. They'll bury him and his lawyer under a mountain of paper.
They will want to create some sort of judicial history.
Bottom line: I stand by my original comment: Again, this is a matter of selective enforcement...but it is allowed by the law. A really sharp "free speech" civil libertarian attorney could probably get this overturned, but, somehow, I doubt that one would take this case up pro bono.
Don't get me wrong...I don't agree with what they're doing...but they've got a basis in statute...until (if) some court tells them otherwise.
You are absolutely right in your position.
I stand corrected.
Of course this administration has and will subvert and twist every law to achieve its twisted agenda.
What was I thinking? I apologize for thinking in the past.
Seriously.
It really was silly of me to contradict you. It's a bad habit of mine to pose constitutional objections such as I did.
Posted without any sarcasm whatsoever. Literally, and I mean literally.