Ryanh1801

Recipes 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352405,00.html

I hope this family sues this business for all they are worth.

McKBrew

Recipes 

Yeah, that pixxed me off as well. With all of the laws in place to protect a person's name, the fact that this company can still get away with this is a crock. They have no right at all to use this soldier's name to fill their pockets.

MikeFlynn74

Recipes 

Jesus- What kid of souless douche do you have to be to justify that to yourself?

**** thats bull****.

I hope the Tshirt maker has 10mil so he can lose it all

__________________

kornkob

Recipes 

I'm going to have an unpopular opinion here but....

I disagree.

Free speech trumps family's 'emotional harm' every time.

__________________
Jason 'Kornkob' Robinson

I wanna move to Theory. Everything works in Theory.

Beerrific

Recipes 

No it does not.

One's freedom of speech stops when it invades another's privacy.

EvilTOJ

Recipes 

I see the Tshirt more as insulting this current administration and the war, rather than trying to make a cheap buck off of a needless death. It's not like his was the only name on the shirts, you know.

However, the family did ask the company to remove his name, and they didn't. If it were my kid's name though, I wouldn't mind as long as it gets the message out.



<-------- is off to storage to find the flame retardant suit

__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

EvilTOJ

Recipes 

How is it invading their privacy? it's just a name on a shirt that was available from news sources and Freedom of Information Act rolls. It's not the guy's life story, address, phone numbers, relatives addresses, etc.

__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

TexLaw

Recipes 

Oh, no, it does not. And, even if it did, the list of war casualties is not private.

The big limits on freedom of speech are lying (or deception of some sort), obscenity, threats of violence, and national security. Even the dreaded "intentional infliction of emotional distress" typically must be tied to some sort of deception or threat of violence (maybe obscenity).

Then, there are a few situations that do not apply here. In limited cases, a court may limit speech of parties, attorneys, and jurors in a lawsuit (or grand jury proceeding) to protect the integrity of a system. In the civil context, one also can agree to limit one's freedom of speech (e.g., confidentiality agreements). There also a handful of other limits out there that do not apply (e.g., debt collection oprotections and the "no-call list"). That's pretty much it.

However, other than in matters of national security or agreement to the contrary, publishing facts is A-OK, no matter what motive you may have. Such publication may anger or upset some people, but we often have to take the bad with the good.


TL

__________________
Beer is good for anything from hot dogs to heartache.

Drinking Frog Brewery, est. 1993

jezter6

Recipes 

Using the names of dead soldiers to promote your political gain is just bad form. If you had permission and the families of the victim agreed enough with your political motive that they allowed it, I would not have a problem with it, but I know that I would not want my name, or the name of anyone in my family who proudly served their country to be associated with pathetic political propaganda.

Tribute is one thing, this is another. This guy is not memorializing any of these soldiers, and is associating them negatively with views of the current political administration.

I, as well, hope this family makes millions off this douche. I bet he's one of the guys that protests at soldier funerals too..

__________________
I am a member of the Maryland Brewday Group - http://www.homebrewtalk.com/groups/md-brew-day/

MD Dec Brewday 12/11/10 - http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f20/md-pa-de-dc-winter-brew-day-195534/

srm775

Recipes 

Freedom of speech has it's limits. Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, slander or liable someone, or use an individual's name or likeness for commercial reasons without permission.

Besides, this isn't necessarily a "freedom of speech" issue since that's mainly concerned with the government taking action to prevent speech by individuals or private entities (tv, newspaper, etc), rather than those individuals suffering the consequences of legal (civil) action by other individuals.

But, I agree, freedom of speech trumps most everything, however, not really in this case.