Shields of Strength is a private company based out of Texas
that specializes in creating faith-based jewelry and accessories. They are most known for their dog tag necklaces that have emblems of military branches
along with Christian messages and bible verses. Shields of Strength has sold
over 4 million dog tags with these emblems and has been very popular among
members of the military. In 2011, the Department of Defense informed Shields of
Strength that they would now need to obtain trademark licenses before continuing
to sell the jewelry with military emblems. Shields of Strength complied and
received trademark licenses from the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force. In July
2019, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation submitted complaints to the DoD
Trademark Licensing Offices demanding that the DoD prohibit Shields of Strength
from using military emblems on the religious jewelry. The DoD complied and sent
Shields of Strength cease-and-desist notices regarding the jewelry. Shields of Strength is choosing to fight back with the help of First Liberty Institute, a legal organization that specializes in defending religious liberty.
The
question that is raised is whether the military is violating the first
amendment’s right to free speech and the free exercise and establishment of
religion clauses. On one hand, it may seem like this is an establishment of
religion because of the inclusion of the military branch trademark, but on the
other hand this may impede on free exercise because the private company and
private individuals are unable to sell and wear the jewelry they may want
to. The first amendment intends to safeguard individuals’ free exercise of
religion. This is also unconstitutional because individuals will no longer be able to purchase jewelry expressing their opinion of religion, while also having the military aspect. This issue concerns freedom of religion and free speech because
Shields of Strength is unable to make or sell the jewelry they have been making.
This case becomes tricky because the jewelry is being sold by a private
company, which isn’t part of the government, but is using government emblems.
However, no individual in the military is being forced to wear these pieces of
jewelry. It
becomes a slippery slope because it is not the government nor military’s intention
to endorse a particular religion, which could be potentially interpreted
through the jewelry. It goes further down the slippery slope if a harmful organization would want to
use government logos. However, Shields of Strength is a private company that generally
isn’t interpreted as being hurtful.
Shields
of Strength has been making these dog tags for many years without any impediments
from the government or military. This demonstrates that there was no compelling
interest previously until the Military Religious Freedom Foundation stepped in.
This was not government speech that was being spread, but rather independent speech
by a private company and then individuals. Additionally, this may be a personal sentiment that provides comfort to
military members. This case could impact future cases that deal with the first amendment and military member’s religious ideologies or lack thereof.
It may be
argued that this would be an establishment of religion because Shields of Strength
is using the real logos from the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Army, but none of
those entities are forcing the members to purchase or wear the jewelry. Additionally,
if there are other companies that represent different religions, besides
Christianity, individuals should also be allowed to purchase and wear items of
that nature because it is their personal choice to do so. This would also
represent neutrality of the government and freedom of religion through allowing
all religions to be represented. Another important area to analyze is the
distinction between government and public speech. The government must be
neutral in regulating private expression, which further shows that the private company,
Shields of Strength, has freedom to use the bible verses with the military
trademarks. Shields of Strength is not a government company nor a public
institution like a public school, for example. They are a private company using
their own freedom to express opinion through their products. From the
perspective of the public, it can be argued that this may seem more like a
representation of the company than the government. For instance, if you see an
individual wearing the dog tag necklace it would most likely be associated with
the company,
not the military. This act is not causing harm to any
individuals. Therefore, showing that there is minimal compelling state interest
to be involved. Looking to history, in the “Bill for Establishing Religious
Freedom”, by Thomas Jefferson, he writes about the importance of men having the
ability to express their own opinion without repression. Taking away the
ability for Shields of Strength to create and sell their products affects
individuals, and especially individuals in the military who wish to own and
wear that piece of jewelry.
5 comments:
I believe that Shields of Strength should be allowed to continue their business. It is a privately owned company selling a product to individuals. This is not the government endorsing an establishment of religion it is rather a company trying to make tokens for men and women serving in the army that can be used an object of pride. They want to represent their military branch and their religion. Those could be things that are important to them and the want to commemorate that on their dog tag that they can wear in battle. It would be a different case if the dog tags with religious omens on them were distributed by the government, but because it is from a private company I believe that they should have the right to express their religion while their are serving their country. I do agree that it becomes a tough topic because they are using the government logo's for the dog tags. I feel like the government could argue against them using their logos in claims to copyright or something along those line, but they couldn't argue that they are trying to endorse a specific religion because it is coming from a private company and being purchased by the individual. No one is being forced to wear the dog tags. I wonder if Shields of Strength were selling the dog tags with only the military branches logo on it if the government would have an issue with that as well.
From the information provided, I believe that Shields of Strength should be able to sell their dog tags and other religious product. As Hanna stated, Shields of Strength is a private company, unlike a public school. At first, I was comparing this case to the case of the high school football coach praying after a game, and being penalized for it due to the fact that he was part of an "establishment". In my eyes, the military can be viewed as an establishment, but the free choice to wear products from Shields of Strength, as well as the fact that not just one religion is being supported by the military, allows the right for Shields of Strength to continually produce their products and the right for members of the military to wear the product as well.
This is certainly an interesting case as it takes on the role of religion in our military. I would first like to say that I believe that since Shields of Strength is a private organization that they are allowed to sell their own dog tags with religious sayings. I say this for many reasons. The first being, by them creating these dog tags, no one is harmed. People are allowed to wear their tags at will, and a re not forced into wearing a religious tag if they do not want to. Secondly, and my main reason, is that in this industry faith plays a big role in many of our service members. It takes a lot of strength and faith to enter this field and I believe that we should support them in any way they need. If we were to ban these religious tags it may deter people from enlisting as they feel they cannot lean on their faith to help them through an important and difficult job.
I believe that Shields of Strength should be allowed to produce their dog tags. As others mentioned before, I think that since they are a private company, there is no legitimate reason to restrict them from producing and selling these. I understand that they have the official emblem/seal of military branches on them, however, the question then becomes "Is putting a military seal on an item a form of endorsement". If the military was producing them then I would argue yes. However, since these are being produced by a private company and there is no endorsement on part of the military aside from allowing use of their seal/emblem, I believe Shields of Strength should be allowed to continue selling these items.
This case certainly has a lot of nuanced issues regarding whether trademarks of government organizations can be used alongside private products. Even the idea that a trademark can exist for a federal institution that is comprised of our tax dollars lends more difficulty to the moral choice in this disagreement. I like how you pointed these issues out and noted that using logos of the US government can lead to other problems. I personally believe the same as you, with the fact that its a private company selling to citizens who wish to support the branches of the military and that clearly the government isn't establishing a religion by only giving consent for their insignia to be used.
Post a Comment