- Harry Styles is selling $26 dollar T-shirts that encourage social distancing, with 100% of the profits going to the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund.
- Many argue that encouraging people to donate directly or doing so himself would be a better move, rather than losing some of that money to cover production expenses.
- Others took issue with him asking people to buy unnecessary items when so many are financially struggling and worried about those who now have to manufacture and deliver the shirts.
- But fans say this strategy gets people to donate who otherwise wouldn’t have since they’ll receive something in return.
Harry Announces “Stay Home. Stay Safe,” Merch
Singer Harry Styles revealed Tuesday that he was selling t-shirts to help raise funds for those fighting the coronavirus, but his plan was quickly met with some pushback online.
For $26, fans can get a white tee with a black slogan printed on the front and back. The front reads,“’Stay home. Stay safe. Protect each other,’ while the back reads,“’This T-shirt fights COVID-19 treat people with kindness.’
According to the official website where you can pre-order the item, 100% of profits will be donated to the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund for the World Health Organization, powered by the UN Foundation.
“In times like these, it is more important than ever to remember the power of people,” Styles said in a statement to fans. “If you are able to help, please donate where you can. Stay home, self-isolate, and protect each other.”
People Raise Concerns
While many were excited about the news and rushing to order their shirts, others raised several concerns.
Some argued that encouraging people to donate directly or doing so himself would be a better move, rather than losing some of that money to cover production expenses. Many were also concerned about those who would now have to make and deliver the shirts.
“Quick reminder that 100% of the profits does not = 100% of the cost,” a Twitter user wrote. “ It is more effective for you to donate directly to the charity. You do not need this merch. You do not need to be encouraging factory workers being comissioned to make this.”
Quick reminder that 100% of the profits does not = 100% of the cost. It is more effective for you to donate directly to the charity. You do not need this merch. You do not need to be encouraging factory workers being comissioned to make this.— Emily Linka ♿️🏳️🌈 (@emilylinka) April 7, 2020
“How is making these t shirts safe? what about all the people making these and dispatching them? they’re clearly not ‘staying home’ and ‘staying safe,”’ one user asked, while another wrote, “Don’t people have to go out to work to manufacture these shirts? Isn’t that really contradictory?”
how is making these t shirts safe? what about all the people making these and dispatching them? they’re clearly not ‘staying home’ and ‘staying safe’— A | (@finelineoverhs1) April 7, 2020
I love Harry, and this message, and I know a lot of money is going to be donated which is amazing… but I have to raise the question…don’t people have to go out to work to manufacture these shirts? Isn’t that really contradictory?— aiden ✯ misses Louis (@ToBeSoLounly) April 7, 2020
Others took issue with Styles asking people to buy unnecessary products when so many have lost their jobs and are struggling to pay their bills.
Also, it’s incredibly tone deaf to ask fans to spend even more money now, when most of normal people are struggling to make rent right now. The US has had the biggest surge in unemployment in years, for example. A lot of my friends from the UK are losing their jobs as well.— Leonie (@pinkisloudest) April 7, 2020
or you know as y’all are millionaires you could give the money yourself and not ask to people who might have lost their job to give even more money away.— chloé. W△LLS (@chloe_ledx) April 7, 2020
Fans Defend Harry
But others hit back at the concerns and pointed out that the shirts are not expected to ship until 4-6 weeks after receiving a purchase confirmation, which might signal that manufacturers are holding off on production or slowing it down to ensure safety. However, no information about those details have actually been confirmed or explained.
The shirts are on preorder for 4-6 weeks, and even then it could be extended depending how things develop, so it’s highly likely that those workers ARE staying home right now and that’s why the shirts aren’t being manufacturered and shipped out as we speak— g (@kangawhoo) April 8, 2020
Others supported the strategy, arguing that some people who would not have donated before might do so now because they’ll get something in return.
It’s cause it could encourage people to indirectly donate who wouldn’t otherwise. The UN foundation still gets the money and the person purchasing the shirt feels like they’re getting something in return since people don’t like spending money and not getting something in return— m🍉✨ (@hsmoons) April 8, 2020
The backlash is not completely unexpected since Rita Ora faced similar criticism last month after releasing her own merchandise to raise funds for the same organization.
But this move is also not surprising coming from Styles. Earlier this year, he launched the Treat People With Kindness (TPWK) movement and created a range of merchandise with profits distributed to local charities around the world.
Despite some criticism, most people online generally believe that the intentions behind these merch releases are good and are ultimately benefiting an important cause.
See what others are saying: (PopBuzz) (Forbes) (Independent)
M&M Announces “Progressive” Rebrand. Internet Asks: “Why?”
The company hopes its characters will “reflect the more dynamic, progressive world that we live in.”
M&M Revamps Candy Characters
The green M&M — the femme fatale of the candy world — is swapping her tall white gogo boots for a pair of classic sneakers as part of Mars’ new effort to make the brand more “inclusive, welcoming, and unifying.” The change sparked a swell of backlash online from those who think the plain Jane facelift is unnecessary.
“M&M’S has been around for more than 80 years and this year the brand continues to evolve to reflect the more dynamic, progressive world that we live in,” the company said in a statement on Thursday.
“The refreshed M&M’S brand will include a more modern take on the looks of our beloved characters, as well as more nuanced personalities to underscore the importance of self-expression and power of community through storytelling,” the statement continued.
The company said it hopes for fans to notice an “added emphasis on the ampersand to more prominently demonstrate how the brand aims to bring people together.”
What fans noticed, however, was the fact that the green M&M is no longer, well, sexy. Formerly known as Ms. Green, her prefix was dropped and her poses are less flirty. The same happened with Brown, also a female, who had her footwear changed to lower her heel. The company wants the two to represent a “force supporting women.”
In character bios on M&M’s website, Green described herself as a “hypewoman” who wants to “see more women in leading roles.” Brown says she is “Not bossy. Just the boss.”
The other characters are getting new styles as well. Red, the macho leader, is going to become more friendly and collaborative. Orange is getting to lean into his high anxiety, admitting in his profile that he can’t leave the house without “panicking.”
Twitter Mocks Rebrand
But it turns out, many people were seemingly happy with the gender-normed M&M characters just as they were. Rolling Stone put out a piece asking that Mars “let the green M&M be a nasty little slut.” The Guardian accused the company of “slut-shaming” the iconic candy cartoon.
On Twitter, the redesign was met with even more criticism.
“I will REFUSE to buy m&m’s until they make the green one SEXY again,” one person tweeted.
“They told green m&m she couldn’t go to euphoria high school anymore,” another person wrote.
“Finally an M&M with mental health struggles,” someone joked about Orange.
Others mocked it as an overall small and meaningless gesture of equality from a large corporation.
“Who needs equitable pay, healthcare, voting rights?” One person tweeted. “That stuff is for chumps. What we need is Woke M&Ms to carry us through these tough times.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (CBS News) (The Independent)
Jay-Z, Other Artists, Sign Letter Supporting N.Y. Bill to Block Use of Rap Lyrics in Court
The legislation aims to “protect all artists and content creators, including rappers from having their lyrics wielded against them by prosecutors.”
New York Senators Introduce “Rap Music On Trial” Bill
Jay-Z and a slew of other rappers and artists signed a letter this week in support of a New York law that would prevent rap lyrics from being used as evidence in court.
The bill, titled Rap Music on Trial, was introduced in November by state Sens. Brad Hoylman (D-Manhattan) and Jamaal Bailey (D-Queens). Rap Music on Trial aims to “enhance the free speech protections of New Yorkers by banning the use of art created by a defendant as evidence against them in a courtroom.”
“The legislation will protect all artists and content creators, including rappers from having their lyrics wielded against them by prosecutors,” a statement released by the senators said.
If the law were passed, in order to submit lyrics and other creative works as evidence, prosecutors would need to present “clear and convincing proof that there is a literal, factual nexus between creative expression and the facts of the case.”
Hoylman, Bailey, rappers, and many other advocates believe that rap lyrics are often used unfairly in court.
“The use of rap and hip-hop lyrics in particular is emblematic of the systemic racism that permeates our criminal justice system,” Bailey explained in a statement.
Major Artists Sign Letter Backing Legislation
The letter signed by Jay-Z echoed those concerns. It was written by his lawyer, Alex Spiro, and University of Richmond Professor Erik Nielson. Meek Mill, Big Sean, Fat Joe, Kelly Rowland, and Robin Thicke were among the other artists who put their names behind the cause.
“Rather than acknowledge rap music as a form of artistic expression, police and prosecutors argue that the lyrics should be interpreted literally — in the words of one prosecutor, as ‘autobiographical journals’ — even though the genre is rooted in a long tradition of storytelling that privileges figurative language, is steeped in hyperbole, and employs all of the same poetic devices we find in more traditional works of poetry,” the letter said.
According to Spiro and Nielson, using rap lyrics allows prosecutors to “obtain convictions even when other evidence is lacking.” They also argued the strategy specifically harms young Black and Latino men, who are “the overwhelming majority of artists in these cases.”
Several high-profile artists have experienced this practice themselves. In their joint statement, Hoylman and Bailey pointed to a 2019 case where Tekashi69’s lyrics were introduced in court to compel him to become a government witness to avoid harsher sentencing.
Per a report from Rolling Stone, the late Drakeo the Ruler was subjected to something similar while on trial for a 2016 murder case. Before he was acquitted of the crime, prosecutors attempted to use lyrics from his song “Flex Freestyle” in an effort to make jurors think he brought a group of armed people to a party to target the victim.
In the letter, Spiro and Nielson pointed to research that “identified hundreds of cases” where rap lyrics were exploited in court, noting that the genre has the “potential to be highly prejudicial.”
In one study they cited, two groups were given identical violent lyrics, but one group was told those lyrics came from a country song, and the other was told it was rap. Members of the group who believed the lyrics were rap “were significantly more likely to view them as threatening and in need of regulation” than members of those who thought the words came from a country song.
“Nobody thinks Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, or that David Byrne is a psycho killer, but routinely rappers have their lyrics used against them in criminal trials,” Hoylman said in a November tweet.
“As these and other studies suggest, weaponizing rap music against its creators is racially and culturally discriminatory,” the letter concluded. “It is also an affront to the First Amendment protections that everyone in this country should be entitled to.”
See what others are saying: (Rolling Stone) (Billboard) (The Gaurdian)
Britney Spears Sends Cease and Desist to Jamie Lynn Over Book Tour
Britney’s lawyer claimed that Jamie Lynn’s “ill-timed book” contains “misleading or outrageous claims” about the singer.
Britney Spears Slaps Sister With Cease and Desist
Britney Spears sent a cease and desist letter this week demanding her sister, Jamie Lynn, stop “referencing Britney derogatorily during” her book tour.
The two sisters have been embroiled in a heated war of words over the last week, largely prompted by Jamie Lynn’s new memoir, “Things I Should Have Said.” In the book and during its accompanying press tour, Jamie Lynn has discussed a variety of issues, including Britney’s controversial conservatorship, their father’s struggles with alcoholism, and what it was like to be raised in her older sister’s shadow.
“We write with some hesitation because the last thing Britney wants is to bring more attention to your ill-timed book and its misleading or outrageous claims about her,” Britney’s lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, wrote in the letter, which was obtained by Variety. “Although Britney has not read and does not intend to read your book, she and millions of her fans were shocked to see how you have exploited her for monetary gain. She will not tolerate it, nor should she.”
The Spears family has been the subject of international headlines over the last year as the legal battle to free the “Toxic” singer from her 13-year conservatorship took off. Britney has been vocal about the fact that she felt largely abandoned by her family while she was in the conservatorship, claiming they did nothing to help her. A Los Angeles judge officially terminated the arrangement in November, giving the pop star newfound control over her life.
“Having endured a 13-year conservatorship that stripped her of civil rights and fundamental liberties, Britney will no longer be bullied by her father or anyone else,” the letter continued. “Britney was the family’s breadwinner and she also otherwise supported you. Publicly airing false or fantastical grievances is wrong, especially when designed to sell books. It is also potentially unlawful and defamatory.”
Spears Sisters Duke it Out on Social Media
During the press tour, Jamie Lynn has conducted interviews aired on “Good Morning America,” “Nightline,” and the “Call Her Daddy” podcast with Alex Cooper. Britney has taken issue with several stories Jamie Lynn told, including one where she claims Britney locked them inside a room together with a knife because she was “scared.”
“I’ve never been around you ever with a knife or would I ever even think to do such,” Britney wrote in one Twitter post denying the story.
“Hope your book does well, Jamie Lynn !!!!” the singer wrote in another post. “My family ruined my dreams 100 billion percent and try to make me look like the crazy one.”
Jamie Lynn has defended her choice to write the memoir, arguing that she is “speaking my truth to heal my traumas.”
“I hate to burst my sister’s bubble, but my book is not about her,” she wrote. “I can’t help that I was born a Spears too, and that some of my experiences involve my sister.“
Rosengart mentioned this statement in the cease and desist letter.
“You recently reportedly stated that the book was ‘not about her.’ [Britney] takes you at your word and we, therefore, demand that you cease and desist from referencing Britney derogatorily during your promotional campaign,” he wrote. “If you fail to do so or defame her, Britney will be forced to consider and take all appropriate legal action.”