PacSun's memorial mistake

This past Memorial Day weekend, clothing retailer PacSun came under fire when a passerby noticed a prominently displayed T-shirt featuring an upside-down American flag. Within hours of the photograph circulating social media and the Internet, a Boycott PacSun Facebook page was created. Pacsun was the recipient of a barrage of angry messages and was called an unpatriotic company. Not long after, PacSun pulled its shirt, which was linked to rapper A$AP Rocky, and issued an apology paradoxically asserting that "...as a retailer grounded in youth culture, [it] values artistic and creative expression..." as well as announcing it would be "removing [the offensive flag] from [its] stores and website immediately." They threw in "We thank the men and women in uniform for their extraordinary service..." for good measure. To me, that's the sound of a company scared s***-less.

Understandably, PacSun has a lot to be worried about. Social media inspired boycotts can be quick and relentless, plunging companies into hot-button controversies. Just a few years ago, Chik-Fil-A polarized the country after interest suddenly sparked into the owner's political donations towards groups seen as promoting anti-LGBTQ+ rights. Same-sex “kiss in protests” and “Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day” counter-protests plagued the restaurant chain at locations throughout the South and threatened to cause serious damage to the company. In Chik-Fil-A's case, the counter-protests were ultimately more successful in financial terms with the company reaping in more than $4.6 billion in 2012, making its owners billionaires. Of course, PacSun realizes that it doesn't have the delicious, Southern-style chicken that Chik-Fil-A has and thus caved far quicker.

To the point, I view this as symptomatic of a general attack on America's unique freedom of expression. I'm not just discussing the legal right of companies because of course people have the right to choose what companies receive and don't receive their money. I'm talking about the moral right for people to respect one another's beliefs without seeking to destroy them and for ideas to be tolerated. Contemporary PC (politically correct) culture has companies walking on eggshells. A company like PacSun that purportedly embodies youth culture is likely to have quite a few logos that are offensive. When you consider the way PacSun brands itself, having anti-establishment and offensive logos is actually pretty intricately connected with the store's trade name.

Moreover, I have had a difficult time accounting for why PacSun came under fire when the Netflix original series House of Cards, which also showcases an upside-down American flag in its logo, did not. One explanation is that the logo displayed by PacSun was featured on Memorial Day whereas House of Cards was released years ago. But this rationale doesn't hold up since the shirt was actually also released years ago. Because the release dates are immaterial, seeing the PacSun T-Shirt on Memorial Day is little different than switching over to re-watch a few episodes of Frank Underwood's schemes to become President. If both situations are similar, where was the outrage at House of Cards?

One could look to the American Flag code. In Title 4, Chapter 1, it states that "The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property." One could attempt to argue that the upside-down flag is appropriate for House of Cards because the show's premise is a system gone wrong with a corrupt man who takes advantage of the American public. But let's be real, this doesn't hold up either, and the response in this case is two-fold.

First, I would respond that, just as showing the stars and stripes upside-down is intrinsic to the House of Cards brand, it is equally symbolic of PacSun's brand. The former consists of a corrupt man bending the rules of governance while the latter strives to represent anti-establishment youth culture rebelling against a government it doesn't see as representing its interests. It's a political symbol, one that expresses political dissatisfaction, and is not a far stretch from its host's ideology.

Second, I would like to qualify that I understand that there is consensus concerning how it is a stretch to argue political purposes constitute the "dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property" mentioned in the Flag Code. Such a situation would mean that there should be calls to boycott both PacSun and House of Cards based on the same principle. It's logically inconsistent to watch House of Cards while simultaneously disavowing PacSun.

I am left to conclude that the public outrage and calls to boycott PacSun, while very little existed for House of Cards, was arbitrary. The new world of social media combined with PC culture and accelerated through a tipping-point/cascade effect have made just about anything potentially controversial. How can you predict what a capricious public will be outraged at next?