I was reading about this new Adidas "shackle shoe" that was pulled from production because the attached ankle cuffs reminded many people of slavery. Included in the list of fashion no-no's were some other examples of products which were pulled, some of them being more of a stretch to put 2 and orange together.

Umbro made a shoe called Zyklon (German for cyclone) and that was also the name of the gas used by Nazis in concentration camps.

Nike created a flame logo which was pulled because it looked like Allah in arabic.

But meanwhile belts pass for skirts, and men wear clothes that come directly from prison fashion.

At what point do we draw the line for what offends people? Should we allow these things on the market, and their sales (or lackthereof) will determine their popularity? Who decides what is offensive? Do things need to be blatent with their meaning, or can they simply be "implied"? Is someone entitled to wear whatever they like, as long as it only offends the demographic they belong to, thus allowing a fashion permission slip?

In the case of these shoes, what would the meaning be if other races wore them?