Last month, the police in Virginia Beach, Va., removed two large murals (5'x9') — part of the chain’s national campaign — from the windows of an Abercrombie store in a mall and charged the manager with an obscenity misdemeanor. One mural showed a woman with a breast mostly exposed and the other displayed three shirtless young men, one of whom was also revealing part of his backside. But WHEN the Columbus Children’s Hospital agreed to name a new lobby after two retail chains to thank their corporate parent for a $5 million donation, everyone was all smiles. The same was true when the Ohio hospital renamed itself Nationwide Children’s Hospital, to acknowledge a $50 million gift from Nationwide insurance, a large local company. But a coalition of children’s advocates contends that the hospital went too far by agreeing to name a new emergency department and trauma center after another locally based retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch, in exchange for a $10 million donation. The coalition, which includes the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, several pediatricians and Parents for Ethical Marketing, is asking the hospital to reconsider the decision made in June 2006 to accept the donation. The plea is being made now because ground is to be broken this year for the building to house the emergency and trauma facilities. The 15 organizations and 80 individuals that compose the coalition contend that naming the new center after Abercrombie & Fitch — known for provocative advertising and revealing clothing — sends a grievously wrong message. “It is troubling that a children’s hospital would name its emergency room after a company that routinely relies on highly sexualized marketing to target teens and preteens,” the members of the coalition wrote in a letter that was sent on Tuesday to the hospital’s office in

Columbus, Ohio. “The Abercrombie & Fitch Emergency Department and Trauma Center marries the Abercrombie brand to your reputation,” said the letter, addressed to five senior officers of the hospital. “A company with a long history  of undermining children’s well-being is now linked with healing.” The complaint is an example of negative reaction to the increasingly prevalent practice of naming public facilities after corporate sponsors, donors and supporters. Opponents who complain about the growing commercialization of the American culture are upset that private companies are able to brand stadiums, parks, schools, school buses and hospitals. Abercrombie & Fitch donation controversy

US Supreme Court WASHINGTON, March 17 - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would take up the issue of foul language on the airwaves for the first time in 30 years, agreeing to review a ruling that undercut the way regulators define indecency on television. The high court agreed to hear an appeal by the FCC, which is seeking to reaffirm its authority to declare a single "fleeting" utterance in violation of its indecency rules. The FCC appealed to the high court in an effort to overturn a June 4 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, which found that the agency had failed to justify its standard for "fleeting" indecency. The case stemmed from an FCC ruling in March of 2006, in which the agency found News Corp's (NWSa.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Fox television network violated decency rules when singer Cher blurted "fuck" during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and actress Nicole Richie used a variation of that word and "shit" during the 2003 awards. No fines were imposed. But Fox challenged the decision in court, arguing that the government's decency standard was unclear, violated free-speech protections and that the rulings had contradicted earlier findings. The appeals court sided with Fox, saying the FCC had "failed to articulate a reasoned basis" for its "fleeting" indecency standard and expressed skepticism about whether the courts would find it constitutional. It sent the matter back to the agency for further consideration. The FCC said in its appeal to the high court that the appellate ruling should be reversed as it conflicted with a past Supreme Court ruling and is "inconsistent with settled principles governing judicial review of agency action."  Continued...