Esteemed Mr. Stallman, et al.: Yep, perhaps I was one of those who confused this issue with one of copyright/trademark law. Sorry about that. I have, however, now reviewed Sec. 15. (a) of the NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ACT OF 1959, PL 86-36 (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/nsaact1959.htm) and find that it indeed refers only to "NSA" and "National Security Agency" (as well as the agency seal) ... which makes it all the more interesting that Zazzle just this evening has taken it upon itself to delete my modified design, which had used "N.S.A." and not once referred to the "National Security Agency". Stinks of overreach, imho. But whose? I'd still love to join that (hypothetical) class-action lawsuit!

I, too, am a shopkeeper at Zazzle (alas!), and just today one of my t-shirt designs was eradicated on the NSA's behalf by those ever-accomodating guardians of IP "rights" in Redwood City when someone in London tried to buy a copy. My design, dating from several years ago, had no graphics, merely the text: On the Internet, the NSA knows you're a dog. Perhaps if one restricts oneself to praising the agency's tireless, heroic efforts to keep Amerika safe...? Anyhow, a simple expedient -- verified by consulting TESS, the Trademark Electronic Search System (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/) -- occurred to me, and the revised version of my design now reads: On the Internet, the N.S.A. knows you're a dog. (NY Times style, as it were.) This is not to say I wouldn't be delighted to join Mr. McCall in a class-action lawsuit, which unfortunately his suit appears not to be.

A mere, a PALTRY $90 for a t-shirt? "The Conspicuous Consumption $hirt" (note spelling) tops that by $10 or so! AND gets the main message across better, imho.

A mere, a PALTRY $90 for a t-shirt? "The Conspicuous Consumption $hirt" (note spelling) tops that by $10 or so! AND gets the main message across better, imho.