hedwards: It's my job to know these things I am an English teacher. None of your examples involves a double negative. "Can't you" is perfectly fine, but "can't you not" is something that's unlikely to be accepted as grammatical.
Wishbone: The problem is that the language is commonly used outside the boundaries of "official grammar". As Craig234 pointed out, in the context of a question, "can you" and "can't you" actually mean the same thing, only with different inflections. Whether that is gramatically correct or not, you cannot deny that that is in fact how the language is used. That is the only the first part of the question though. The second part is the action which the first part refers to. In this case, the requested action is "not offering duplicates". As such, there is no double negative, because the two negatives involved appear in semantically separate sections of the sentence (alliteration FTW).
For the record, I am not an English teacher, nor is English my first language, and I just pulled the above explanation out of my ass. Still, it makes sense to me.
Being a descriptivist normally I would agree with you.
But, can't and can in this context don't quite mean the same thing. They approach it from opposite ends and while they're often used to communicate a similar idea, the former isn't normally used with a negative. It's already asking about the negative possibility, so adding a negative later on just confuses the issue.
"can't we get along" is something people would normally say, but "can't we not get along" isn't. "can't we not fight" is likewise rather strange and would require a certain amount of contextual build up to make sense. It's rather unusual to assume that we have to fight, so asking if it's possible to not fight would be rather silly.
In spoken language or language where there's more context, it probably would work, but as a title, it does represent a global error that renders the sentence itself ambiguous. Sarcasm and snark rarely work in titles unless the writer is well known for it or is writing in a publication where such snarkiness is to be expected.
I don't expect, nor do I desire, perfection but rationalizing what is clearly an error is kind of silly.
Anyways, I'm out of here, I have far better things to do with my time than to argue over such trivials.