Request to Review “86 47” Product Listings for Potentially Harmful Content

[Susang6]

I am concerned about a series of product listings on the platform that feature the phrase “86 47.” While some may view this as political satire, the broader public interpretation often reads as an incitement to harm the 47th President of the United States.

As you may know, “86” is slang for “eliminate” or “get rid of,” and “47” is widely associated with President Trump. Together, this phrase is frequently understood as a coded message advocating violence—something that goes beyond humor and into territory that can incite hate.

I understand that Zazzle values creative expression. However, allowing slogans that can be construed as violent undermines the spirit of respectful dialogue and inclusive marketplace ethics. This goes against Zazzle’s stated content guidelines prohibiting hate speech or threats of violence.

I request that your team review these listings with this context in mind and consider their removal. Doing so would send a strong message that Zazzle prioritizes ethical standards and public safety over politicized messaging that can provoke real-world harm.  (I searched 8647 and there are 6000+ products) 

Thank you for your attention and commitment to maintaining a respectful and responsible platform.

[RMorganSnapshot]

After the whole "lives matter" rigamarole, only allowing things with BLM, I would think 86 47 items wouldn't be allowed. But then again..........it's who it is and let's be honest, Zazzles management seems to lean about 75+ degrees to the left so....... 

[Van]

To be fair there are still some 86 46 designs. (I was curious so I looked to see, )

[Susang6]

Thank you for checking — I appreciate the curiosity and honesty. What stands out to me is that these designs have been around for a while, yet only now, through this conversation, are we acknowledging how problematic they are.  I’m not sure why they weren’t flagged earlier, but I do believe that anything suggesting harm — like “eliminate” or “get rid of” a sitting president — crosses a line. It’s not normal, and it shouldn’t be treated as acceptable, no matter who’s in office.  Zazzle’s guidelines clearly prohibit hate speech and content that incites violence. If we see something that violates that, I think it’s worth flagging — not to silence opinion, but to help uphold the standards that make this platform safe and respectful for everyone.

[Van]

I understand your post isn't political, but a general statement about an overall issue. You used a very good example though. I write this while (I feel) remaining politically neutral.

"86" has been around for a very long time. From Merriam-Webster, "Eighty-six is slang meaning "to throw out," "to get rid of," or "to refuse service to." It comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that an item was sold out. There is varying anecdotal evidence about why the term eighty-six was used, but the most common theory is that it is rhyming slang for nix." Another description/example was when someone was asked to leave or banned from a bar or pub.

Speaking for myself, even using the definition "get rid of" never once suggested harm or physical violence. I took it to mean vote someone out or impeach.

I have to wonder if this particular issue has been fed/fueled by media - think of the shells on sand not so long ago and the hoopla that ended up causing. Had that photo been posted by someone with zero political affiliations would there have been such a stir?

"86" was used the same way about the previous President but never seemed to be a problem. There are still a few designs up with "86 46." ******There are also some still up for 44 and 45......****** as well. 

TBH, this seems like one of those gray areas to me and that has to be rough for Z and other pods to wrangle with. A lot of things are about perception - anything can be twisted and turned into something not intended. At what point does cancelling something that only 'might' be seen by some in a disturbing way become a free speech/expression or censorship issue.

Just something to think about.

[Susang6]

As a former business owner, I always believed in staying neutral. I welcomed everyone into my restaurants, regardless of background or belief, and avoided anything political, religious, or divisive. That approach built trust — and I still hold that neutrality is the best path for any business that wants to serve a broad and respectful community.

This isn’t about censorship or cancel culture. It’s about setting a standard that says: we don’t condone messaging that even suggests harm, no matter who it targets. That’s not political — it’s ethical. And it’s good business.

[Susang6]

I understand that “86” has a long history as slang — from cancel culture to political protest — but it actually began in restaurant lingo, where I come from. In food service, “86” means an item is out of stock or being removed from the menu. It also came to mean refusing service or asking someone to leave the premises.

That’s part of why I see things differently when “86” gets paired with “47” — a number referring directly to the sitting president. Even if someone intends it to mean “impeach” or “vote out,” the perception — especially in today’s volatile environment — can shift toward something more hostile.

For platforms like Zazzle, I think the question shouldn’t just be about slang history or user intent, but about how these slogans land publicly. When ambiguity tips into language that could be interpreted as inciting harm — especially toward public figures — it becomes more than clever wordplay. It becomes an ethical concern. And for businesses, perception matters.

[MOM]

@Van @Susang6  I’m so thankful how you phrased this because it is exactly how I feel (although I’m not politically neutral). I was working in bars in my past and I have 86ed some folks - never would I have associated my action with anything violent. To me “86 47” is not equal to “Alligator Alcatraz” merchandise and I’m sorry that it implies more drastic measures than just someone “showing the door” or that it encourages more drastic actions for some people which is of course totally wrong. To me “86 47” is more like “Dump Trump” signage and no normal person would go out and shoot the president after seeing such a message. But the world is going literally insane nowadays (or does history just repeat it self?). So I can see both sides, kinda.

[Susang6]

I appreciate your perspective and the way you’ve shared it. I also come from a restaurant background, so I’m familiar with the original meaning of “86” — removing an item from the menu or asking someone to leave. But when it’s paired with “47,” referring to a sitting president, the meaning shifts.

Even if the intent isn’t violent, the perception — especially in today’s climate — can be. We’ve seen four confirmed assassination attempts on President Trump, and that reality makes slogans like “86/47” far from lighthearted. It’s not about assuming what a “normal person” would do — it’s about acknowledging that not everyone is balanced, and public messaging matters.

I also want to gently say that comparisons to things like “Alligator Alcatraz” feels like a separate issue. That kind of rhetoric has sparked its own controversy, and I don’t believe it belongs in this conversation. My concern is focused on Zazzle’s role in allowing products that could be interpreted as inciting harm — and how that reflects on the platform’s ethics and inclusivity.

I’m not here to censor anyone’s views. I’m here to ask whether we, as a creative community, are comfortable normalizing language that could be misread in dangerous ways. That’s not political — it’s about responsibility.

[PenguinPower]

I will suggest not so gently that demonizing a whole class of people with nasty racist memes like Alligator Alcatraz is FAR WORSE and far more damaging to the fabric of our society...  

I am in full agreement with MOM that the phrase has not to this point been anything like violent rhetoric. Trump supporters gleefully used it quite often as 8646 for 4 years, but suddenly it became so sensitive... hypocrisy. As far as the current climate - I'll also remind you the president that received the most death threats recorded was Obama... 

[Susang6]

I’d just like to clarify something mentioned earlier: while past presidents including President Obama absolutely received serious threats, President Trump has been the target of four confirmed assassination attempts, which changes the context entirely.

That’s part of why slogans like “86/47” aren’t just edgy they’re potentially dangerous. Even if not everyone reads them as violent, they land differently in a world where public figures face real threats.  I’m not looking to politicize the conversation. I’m asking whether we, as a creative community and platform, are comfortable selling products that could be misread by the wrong person especially when they reference individuals who’ve already faced targeted violence. That’s not a stretch. It’s a matter of ethical responsibility.

[ColsCreations]

I’m asking whether we, as a creative community and platform, are comfortable selling products that could be misread by the wrong person especially when they reference individuals who’ve already faced targeted violence. That’s not a stretch. It’s a matter of ethical responsibility.

As a member of said creative community and platform, I am uncomfortable with censorship running amok just because someone somewhere might misread something. Where does it stop? Do we also take out all the various "Resist!" designs featuring a raised fist? That suggests violence. How about "Joyful Warrior"? Warrior by definition suggests violence. How about "Never Forget Jan 6"? That could be taken two very different ways, and could also be considered in bad taste and insensitive of 9/11. I saw a lot of designs tonight that aren't even political that could be construed as supporting violence. "heavily armed & very pi_ed" and "keep calm and, nevermind, burn it down!" as example.  Do you feel that Zazzle has an ethical responsibility to remove all these such type designs too, or is it just ones you may perhaps just take personal issue with?

A truly great library has something to offend everyone

[Susang6]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I respect the importance of creative freedom and share your concern about the dangers of over-censorship. However, my issue with the phrase "86 47" isn’t rooted in symbolic metaphor or political expression it’s about safety.

This particular phrase is widely understood as a call to "eliminate" a living individual, who has now survived multiple assassination attempts. That’s no longer abstract satire it’s language tangled with real harm.

I’m not suggesting we police every bold slogan or passionate message. "Resist!" and "Joyful Warrior" are empowering for many. But when language overlaps with specific threats and documented violence, we as a community have to ask: is this protecting creative freedom, or neglecting ethical responsibility?  It’s not about politics it’s about principle. If Zazzle was willing to remove satirical alligator merch out of concern for dehumanization, I believe that consistency means reviewing phrases like this too. I’m simply advocating for neutrality, safety, and compassion in how we express ourselves.

[Barbara]

Anything a person says can be interpreted by listeners to mean whatever way of thinking they personally have. Such is the case when James Comey thoughtlessly posted his photo of shells in the sand with the result being some rather extreme interpretations. Given those extreme interpretations and their current prevalence, it's unseemly for Zazzle to permit the usage of 8647 on products. Period.

Colorwash's Home    Colorwash on Benable   Benable invite link

[PenguinPower]

The difference here, than in the case of other things - like Pepe the Frog or the OK hand gesture, that have come to have nefarious alternate meanings, is that it's not the people who have been using the phrase who have been shifting the meaning.... but rather the group it's been directed at intentionally hyping the most extreme interpretations to create a problem that didn't previously exist... Is Matt Gaetz now admitting when he tweeted that he'd 86'd House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that his intent was to murder him? Of course not. Are all of those who posted/wrote 8646 saying they were actually calling for the assassination of Biden? I doubt it. 

This is manufactured outrage and it's unfortunately a pretty effective way to censor things as it really is quite difficult to argue on the one hand that some things truly are offensive and should be offensive to everyone, while other things should remain alright, even as some express outrage. 

[Susang6]

I agree with you  it’s a reminder that our words and visuals exist within a larger cultural lens, whether we intend them to or not. James Comey’s post is a powerful example of how something symbolic can suddenly take on unintended meaning, simply because of the climate it’s released into.  That’s exactly why I believe Zazzle should take a closer look at products featuring “8647.” In another era, the phrase might have been interpreted as political satire or slang. But in this moment  when four confirmed assassination attempts have already targeted the individual it references  the implications are harder to ignore.  These are delicate conversations, and I’m grateful for voices like yours helping shift the focus toward thoughtful responsibility rather than political friction. There’s room for expression and creativity, absolutely  but also room for reflection when public messaging walks the line between clever and dangerous.

[Barbara]

When I was growing up (Medieval times), there was a rule that we not speak of politics or religion with anyone other than family because these were bound to lead to conflict. It worked well, but somehow it withered away and has been replaced by the notion that free speech means we've the right to insult, shut down, and even harm others. Zazzle shouldn't ever step away from its old-fashioned guidelines.

Colorwash's Home    Colorwash on Benable   Benable invite link

[Susang6]

Thank you for sharing that, Barbara. I grew up in a strict military household, where manners, humility, and the unspoken rule to “never discuss politics or religion outside the family” were part of daily life. That kind of upbringing stays with you it taught me to think before speaking,  to choose quiet when it felt wiser, and to lead with respect even in disagreement. I share your concern that free speech has sometimes shifted toward hostility rather than understanding. My goal here wasn’t to ignite conflict or make anything political it was to raise a quiet concern about language that carries a very real weight in today's world.  If we lose the ability to talk about hard things with care, we risk giving up the kind of thoughtful dialogue that communities like Zazzle were built to protect. I still believe we’re capable of navigating those spaces with grace  and voices like yours make that feel possible.

[ColsCreations]

Now that certain specifics have been openly mentioned, there is no way to voice further or countering opinions without things turning ugly. We're all adults, I think we all have seen how internet discussions like this spin out of control. I think this whole thread needs to be 86'ed before it causes needless friction in our happy little design community here. There's a reason political discussions don't belong here.

[Susang6]

I understand your desire to protect the peace here, but I believe shutting down conversations simply because they involve uncomfortable truths is more harmful than helpful.  My comments weren’t political they were grounded in ethics and safety. When a phrase overlaps with real-world violence, especially following multiple assassination attempts on a living public figure, ignoring that context isn’t neutrality. It’s avoidance.

If we’re not willing to have difficult conversations  the kind that ask platforms to act responsibly and consistently  then I think we’re letting fear silence integrity. I spoke up with care. I stand by that.

[Susang6]

I agree that “Alligator Alcatraz” is a deeply troubling slogan. it's been criticized for dehumanizing immigrants and raising serious environmental and humanitarian implications.  That said, I believe the conversation changes when we look at “86/47.” This phrase, exists in a climate where real-world threats against public figures have occurred.  I’m not looking to compare or rank one slogan as more harmful than another. both raise ethical concerns. But I think it’s worth asking whether Zazzle, as a platform, is comfortable hosting product designs that any group might reasonably interpret as promoting harm, regardless of intent.

[Susang6]

 You mention that zazzle is 75+ degrees to the left.  They could be BUT This isn’t about political affiliation — it’s about community standards and shared responsibility. There have been four confirmed assassination attempts on the current President of the United States. That fact alone underscores how dangerous it is to normalize 86/47, even when framed as protest.  Regardless of who someone supports or opposes, Zazzle’s policies should apply evenly. Slogans like “86/47” cross a line — not because of who they target, but because of what they imply. Hate speech and calls to violence shouldn’t have a place in our creative space. I believe Zazzle can do better in upholding its guidelines and fostering a respectful environment for all.

[Barbara]

What on earth has happened to morals?

Colorwash's Home    Colorwash on Benable   Benable invite link

[PenguinPower]

Funny , I didn't see you complaining from 2020 to 2024 about all the 86 46 designs... 

[Susang6]

I appreciate your comment — and I understand that not everyone finds these products personally upsetting. What concerns me more is the broader question: why do we think it's okay to overlook content that implies harm or violence, even subtly for any president / anyone?

Zazzle’s own Content Guidelines  state that hate speech, threats, and discriminatory or violent messaging are not permitted. That includes slogans that suggest “getting rid of” someone, regardless of political affiliation.

This isn’t about who the product targets — it’s about the message it sends and the precedent it sets. If we agree that inciting harm has no place here, then it’s worth asking why some designs slip through without being flagged. I believe we all share a responsibility to help uphold the standards that make Zazzle a safe and respectful space for creativity.

[CrazyMermaid]

Then why didn't you post the same outrage about 86 46? If you did and I missed it I apologize for the question. 

[Susang6]

I appreciate the question, but I think it’s important to clarify: this isn’t about selective outrage or political sides. It’s about recognizing that any messaging — whether it’s “86/46,” “86/47,” or anything else that implies harm — doesn’t belong on a platform that claims to prohibit hate speech and incitement.

What concerns me most is that these products have existed for years, and only now — after this conversation — are they being acknowledged as problematic. That raises a deeper question: why weren’t they flagged earlier? Why did we, as a community, accept them as normal?

I don’t believe it’s any one person’s responsibility to catch everything. But when we do see something that crosses a line, I think it’s worth speaking up — not to point fingers, but to help uphold the standards we all benefit from

[Connie]

@PenguinPower perceptions change over time, mostly driven by the media, I think. I never even saw anything about 86/ 46, (or 86/ 45, or any other number) but after a certain gaffe by a politician that blew up in the media, suddenly the phrase has a violent connotation. It's sort of like how the Confederate battle flag was allowed on Zazzle and other sites for many years with no problems, until a murdering psychopath was associated with it and then it was banned, even in an historical context.

[Barbara]

@ColsCreations 

Your concern is not unfounded, but I've the sense that if anyone escalates the discussion, the rest of us will simply walk away, leaving the cheese stand alone. 😁

Colorwash's Home    Colorwash on Benable   Benable invite link

[Susang6]

I’ve always appreciated Zazzle’s commitment to creative freedom, but I need to speak up Again about some products currently being offered specifically ones featuring slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “86/47.”

While I respect the range of viewpoints Zazzle hosts, these phrases carry heavy and divisive meanings:

“From the river to the sea” is interpreted by many in the Jewish community as a call for the elimination of Israel. Regardless of intention, that phrase is deeply threatening to those who view it as a denial of Jewish self-determination.

“86/47” is widely understood as a coded reference to “getting rid of” Donald Trump, the 47th President. “86” has long been slang for elimination, and pairing it with “47” caused real concern including an investigation by Homeland Security. You can read more in this article.

What’s particularly troubling is how harmless these designs appear at first glance. A pastel flower tee with “86/47” feels gentle just like James Comey’s Instagram post of seashells shaped into “86 47.” Both were treated as carrying the same violent implication. Visual subtlety doesn't erase the meaning behind a message, and customers pick up on that.

Zazzle risks alienating Jewish shoppers, politically moderate shoppers, and anyone uncomfortable with coded messaging. In today’s climate, that can lead to boycotts and serious reputational harm.

[RMorganSnapshot]

As has been mentioned before. Where do you stop this though? Here or after you've literally eliminated everything that is going to "offend" someone at some point or another and have nothing left but daisies and kittens? Especially in today's world where literally ANYTHING can be made to look as if it either offends someone or is interpreted as something it's not. Shall we even get into the idiotic crap hovering around the American Eagle/Sydney Sweeney commercials? 🙄 I understand a platform such as Zazzle can't be the wild west free for all but in my opinion they've overstepped into certain elements of freedoms already. 

[Barbara]

---

@RMorganSnapshotsaid: I understand a platform such as Zazzle can't be the wild west free for all but in my opinion they've overstepped into certain elements of freedoms already. 

---

Yes, they have. It happened during the BLM days when they got rid of anything that was seemingly not in support. A line that achieves proper balance is no more than a myth, and with the current fad of flying into a huff over anything and everything, it's definitely impossible. The American Eagle ad is a fine example. Heck, I occasionally lose my temper over drug commercials. They make me get very loud. We all have something that makes us flip our lid.

Colorwash's Home    Colorwash on Benable   Benable invite link

[Susang6]

? If the question is how to block hate from occurring in the first place, the answer is relatively simple: use AI tools to scan product pages before they’re published. Keyword tracking and natural language processing can flag problematic content early before it reaches the marketplace. That’s how you stop hate speech products from ever going live.

Platforms like Facebook and Instagram already use hybrid systems where AI detects and removes harmful content automatically, or flags it for human review. Zazzle could do the same. You can read more about how AI is being used to combat hate speech in this article from the Lamarr Institute.

And yes if a product has hate undertones, it doesn’t belong here. That includes any political messaging that promotes violence, alienates customers, or undermines community trust. Whether it’s BLM, 86/47, or any other polarizing slogan, the standard should be the same: if it divides or incites, it’s out.

**I used AI for link research…read the article and shared here / moderator stated as long as I edit this procedure is okay ***

[Susang6]

 it’s comments like yours that hit me sideways. The notion that balance is a myth or outrage is just a fad glosses over the real harm caused by hate-tinged products. That kind of perspective feels passive as though we should simply accept alienation as the cost of doing business. But that's not how ethical platforms build trust. It’s not about drug commercials or what makes people flip their lid it’s about responsibility, and ensuring we don’t monetize division.

Bottom line: political hate alienates customers. This is the era of consumer protest, where boycotting stores, brands, and platforms is common not fringe. As noted in The Sustainable Agency’s report, brand boycotts are rising because ethics and inclusivity are now survival issues, not optional values.

Whether it's a mug, t-shirt, or a pillow or other, if a product carries undertones that exclude, provoke, or incite it doesn’t belong here.

Let’s stop pretending this is harmless or too complicated to fix. The tech already exists to scan for problematic keywords and tone before listings go live. Use it. Because when platforms fall short, it’s not just creators who suffer it’s the brand’s integrity that gets boycotted next.

And if you believe products promoting antisemitism or those aimed at “eliminating Trump” don’t risk damaging sales and trust, you’re in denial. We’re well past the era of shrugging off offensive messaging. Consumers act, and brands either evolve or their sales go into a slump.

[Barbara]

No one is pretending anything, but to give in to all the "triggers" is to lose the war. AI is not our friend and can easily become a weapon.

Colorwash's Home    Colorwash on Benable   Benable invite link

[Susang6]

AI isn’t new both the U.S. and UK governments have funded AI research since the 1970s, primarily through DARPA and academic partnerships. Early systems like MYCIN and DENDRAL were developed to assist in medical diagnosis and scientific analysis.

Today, platforms like Facebook and Instagram use AI to detect and flag hate speech and harmful content before it ever reaches the public. Meta reports that these systems have improved moderation efficiency and user engagement.

And yes  AI has advanced to the point where it’s being used in medical procedures. Researchers at Johns Hopkins recently trained robotic systems using transformer-based AI models to assist in surgeries, including gallbladder removal. So to call AI “not our friend” is to overlook its capacity to protect and even save lives.

Like any tool, it can be misused  but its ethical use is already shaping how platforms safeguard communities and how hospitals treat patients. The technology exists. The choice is how we apply it.

We all care about protecting creativity and community. Whether AI serves us or hurts us comes down to intention, and accountability

[Susang6]

Why is political hate permitted on this platform?
Products with undertones like “eliminating the Jewish race” or “86/47”even when disguised in florals or vintage aesthetics alienate customers. And alienated customers don’t just scroll past; they boycott. They shop elsewhere. That’s why this needs to stop.

Zazzle’s own Terms of Service prohibit hate speech. Phrases like “From the river to the sea” are widely interpreted as antisemitic, and they’ve sparked real-world backlash including at a recent Regina Spektor concert where pro-Palestine protesters disrupted the show, prompting her to say, “You’re just yelling at a Jew” source.

We’re all seeing sales slump. Maybe it’s time to ask whether controversial products are part of the problem. With 77.2 million Americans voting for Trump and 7.5 million Jewish people living in the U.S., shouldn’t we want their business not drive them away?

The line should be simple: If it’s hate or likely to alienate customers, it doesn’t belong here. @Barbara 

[jessletterman]

I think it’s important to point out that not all Jewish people view the phrase “From the river to the sea” as antisemitic. I have Jewish friends and extended family who are tired of others assuming what they believe just because they’re Jewish. These assumptions don’t help address the rise in antisemitism happening in our country and around the world. In fact, they can make things worse by silencing the wide range of voices that exist within the Jewish community.

The same applies to conservatives, liberals, or any other group — no one group of people all thinks the same way. If Zazzle starts removing content based only on what some people interpret a phrase to mean, where does it end?

Thankfully, Zazzle already gives us the option to report designs we believe may violate the platform’s guidelines. From there, it’s up to Zazzle to decide what crosses the line and what doesn’t. If you see something that you believe violates their guidelines, report it and let them decide.

[SimplyDesigned]

Zazzle has overstepped before, during the BLM times, people had most of its not ALL of their "thin blue line/support the blue" products removed. Because everyone was screaming to defund the police and the George Floyd thing happened. Not to bring her into this but I remember Shelly specifically. I support my police/fire/ems and Zazzle removing those designs peeved me to no end so I refused to purchase anything for myself since.

So again, where do we stop? 

[Susang6]

Yeah, neutrality sounds good on paper, but there’s a big difference between politics and products that push hostility or exclusion  especially when they’re tucked behind florals or a vintage vibe.

This stuff isn’t just uncomfortable. It's alienating. Customers don’t quietly scroll past it  they bounce. They boycott. They move to shops that feel safe and welcoming. We’re all watching sales dip, and it’s fair to ask if tension in the marketplace is part of the problem.

Real-world backlash proves it’s not just theory. Regina Spektor had to stop her concert mid-song when protesters yelled “Free Palestine.” Her response? “You’re just yelling at a Jew.” That’s not performative outrage  that’s personal harm.

Same goes for David Draiman, lead singer of Disturbed. He faced backlash during Ozzy’s farewell concert just for supporting Israel. Even with most fans behind him, the incident became a flashpoint. This stuff sticks emotionally and reputationally.

And then there’s 86/47  a phrase that’s been interpreted as a coded threat against President Trump. When former FBI Director James Comey posted a photo of seashells spelling it out, it sparked outrage and a federal investigation. Homeland Security and Secret Service got involved because the phrase was seen by many as a call for violence. Even if it’s disguised in florals or vintage aesthetics, the message doesn’t disappear  it just hides in plain sight.

Zazzle’s own Terms say products that offend “a reasonable person” aren’t allowed. So when hate speech shows up  even if aestheticized  it violates that trust. Phrases like “From the river to the sea” may sound poetic, but they’ve been flagged as antisemitic and carry a serious charge.

I get that people want their voice heard. But if a design drives away loyal customers  especially ones who’ve supported creators for years  is it really worth it?

The line doesn’t have to be perfect. But it should be clear: if it divides, isolates, or sparks harm, maybe it doesn’t belong in the marketplace.