A Just Lawsuit

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm beginning to see this less as an issue of law, and more of an issue of decency and morality.

What is wrong with America anymore that some people WANT to make money by putting dead soldiers names on a political propaganda t-shirt. I voted for Bush, I don't love him but I don't hate him, but sheesh - do we need this kind of behavior? Why must we take those soldiers names in vain? Why must we take ANYONE's name in vain? Can't we all just get along? Can't you mark your protest of a governing body by just saying "I don't agree with what they are doing" and leave it at that?

Must we make money off of it? I hate capitalism. While I support free speech, I think that right comes with the responsibility of using it wisely or we'll all lose it someday. We give people SO many rights, that they conflict with either other on a regular basis, and sadly - it's all for money. Executives want big bonuses, politicians want a pay raise so they raise taxes.

I'm disgusted by humanity, and it's that kind of person - legal or otherwise - that makes me so bitter towards other people. We, as humans, have gone off course so bad over petty crap. Save the whales. Save the environment. Give everyone money to stay at home and not work and have 20 kids.

I know this isn't the MJ thread - but a buddy of mine at work said something that really put the whole legalization of MJ (and this whole thing with laws and lawsuits) in perspective for me. He said:

"You'll never see MJ legalized. Why? Because we're moving to CRIMINALIZE the use of Trans Fat. If Trans Fat becomes illegal, what on EARTH would move people to suddenly legalize something like pot? There are a lot more stupid laws that need to be undone before MJ."
 
I guess im just gonna have to agree to disagree, I think with a good lawyer these people will win their case. Freedom of speech has limits, not really sure if this is the right way to put it, but I see this falling almost under defamation. Personally I think its pretty sicking, that this type of thing even happens in the country. How someone would want to make a shirt like that, just amazes me. :mad:

On another note, everyone is quick to jump to these guys rights... Do the fallen soldiers not have the right to RIP?
 
I wish you luck in that legal battle. Here are a few more:

U2 Superbowl
SB1.jpg


Dale
DaleMemo2_smallNA.jpg


President's Day
blevinsrushmore.jpg


Che
Che-Guevara--C11752769.jpeg
 
In sum I understand what you are saying but using the courts is a misuse of their role and a tremendous waste of resources that might be better used attacking the problem with other means as TxLaw pointed out.
 
While they are using other people's names and likenesses - none of them are cast in negative light. Most of them are obvious memorial tributes.

I fail to see those as equal to a man who's using anyone's name to to cast a negative light on their service and ultimate sacrifice for their country.

What if it were a list of AIDS victims on a T-shirt that says "GOD KILLS HOMOS" on it? What if it was a list of child cancer victims on a shirt that says "KIDS WHO DON'T EAT BROCOLLI GO TO HELL?" Or one that shows pictures of Special Olympics kids that says "FUTURE BURGER FLIPPERS OF AMERICA" on it?


Legal - maybe. Morally low - hells yeah.
 
jezter6 said:
While they are using other people's names and likenesses - none of them are cast in negative light. Most of them are obvious memorial tributes.

I fail to see those as equal to a man who's using anyone's name to to cast a negative light on their service and ultimate sacrifice for their country.

What if it were a list of AIDS victims on a T-shirt that says "GOD KILLS HOMOS" on it? What if it was a list of child cancer victims on a shirt that says "KIDS WHO DON'T EAT BROCOLLI GO TO HELL?" Or one that shows pictures of Special Olympics kids that says "FUTURE BURGER FLIPPERS OF AMERICA" on it?


Legal - maybe. Morally low - hells yeah.

Yeah, kind of apples to oranges argument, IMO..
 
jezter6 said:
I fail to see those as equal to a man who's using anyone's name to to cast a negative light on their service and ultimate sacrifice for their country.
I fail to see why you consider it "casting a negative light on their service." Many, including the shirt vendor, see it as casting a negative light on George Bush. Big difference.

You can't legislate morality, it comes in too many flavors.
 
Well that's just it.
The law doesn't prohibit bad taste.

I say if someone want to make a shirt as jester8 suggests, I'd say let 'em.
I can't think of an easier way to identify a callous idiot. (The T-shirt wearer)

My examples address the aguments I've seen here outline by those who feel the need to support a lawsuit:

No one asked if the familiesof victims of 911 cared to be identified with Bono or one of the most lucrative commercial events on earth.

The Dale sticker is just someone out to make a raw buck a the deceased.

Desecration of a National monument for commmercial gain and heroes of this country

Another raw grab for money on the deceased

And finally someone's family that objected to the use of their son to promote an agenda. And I'm sure SI sales went up too!

Negative light is in the eye of the beholder.
 
OK, legally it looks like these axxclowns can get away with it because they didn't actually use the name of the soldier in a negative manner,but instead called the President a liar (and the boss can't legally sue for libel or slander, because of the definition of those terms).

So it's absolutely distasteful, totally legal, and we can bitxh about it all day, but the only thing we can do it complain. Do you really think that company cares about those troops or about Bush's "alleged lying"? Not at all, they just someone to buy the shirt so they can make money.
 
olllllo said:
Yes. I bit my lip and clicked a Fox link.
10 Mil and the name to be off.

Just saying its over intentional emotional harm.. I still got my money on them winning in court for this.
 
olllllo said:
Well that's just it.
The law doesn't prohibit bad taste.

...

Negative light is in the eye of the beholder.

As much as I disagree that a case couldn't be successfully brought against this guy, I do have to agree with olllllo on this argument and others that have stated the same thing.

You can't legislate morality. If the argument is one of taste...you'll lose. That's also why the freedom of speech argument doesn't hold any water. Trying to go after this idiot with a "it's callous and distasteful" argument won't win; much like defending him with freedom of speech arguments wont help his cause.

I still think he is profiting off of someone else's name and that is the families best chance to get their son's name off the shirt. But it wouldn't be an easy argument because politics and opinions about war would be focused on as the principal of the matter. And it isn't. The legality of using the soldier's name has nothing to do with the freedom of speech or defamation of Bush or criticism of the war. Unfortunately they are brought into the discussion because it's "vogue" to sensationalize opinions to the point of hatred.
 
Seems to me if they used the name just for political reasons they are scum but violated nothing.

But they sold the shirts for profit, that (if I were on the Jury) is using the name of the dead soldier without permission for financial gain. I believe that the courts have consistantly ruled you can't do that.
 
McKBrew said:
Do you really think that company cares about those troops or about Bush's "alleged lying"? Not at all, they just someone to buy the shirt so they can make money.

Well, the shirt guy is a well known anti-war activist, and certainly professes to care about the troops. Still, I can't speak for what is in his heart, or what his true motives are.

Clearly Fox just stepped in it...how many shirts do you suppose he sold as a result of this story? I bet he's flooded with orders today, he should write them a nice thank you note.
 
BTW Judge Wake was confirmed by the Republican led State Senate here and was nominated by George Bush.


In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Neil Wake acknowledged that Frazier's use of casualties names may increase the hurt of loved ones but said the shirts are political speech.
Though the law permits Frazier to use casualties' names if he obtains permission from designated family members, that amounts to a flat prohibition "given the difficulty and cost of finding, contacting and obtaining consent from the soldiers' numerous representatives," Wake said.
 
jezter6 said:
Must we make money off of it? I hate capitalism. While I support free speech, I think that right comes with the responsibility of using it wisely or we'll all lose it someday. We give people SO many rights, that they conflict with either other on a regular basis, and sadly - it's all for money. Executives want big bonuses, politicians want a pay raise so they raise taxes.
I know this isn't the MJ thread - but a buddy of mine at work said something that really put the whole legalization of MJ...

Aren't your arguments a little incongruent? You like the idea of a liberal legalization of pot but you don't like capitalism? IOW, you want to tell a guy what he can't put on a shirt but you don't want someone telling you what not to smoke.
 
What about all the companies producing thousands of those "I support (insert cause) car ribbon magnets? Do you actually think any of the proceeds actually get to helping any victims of anything? It's pure profit so people can drive around touting how giving they are. How the F does a sticker on your car, or a goofy clip on window flag "support" anyone but the guy selling them?
 
jezter6 said:
I'm beginning to see this less as an issue of law, and more of an issue of decency and morality.

What is wrong with America anymore that some people WANT to make money by putting dead soldiers names on a political propaganda t-shirt. I voted for Bush, I don't love him but I don't hate him, but sheesh - do we need this kind of behavior? Why must we take those soldiers names in vain? Why must we take ANYONE's name in vain? Can't we all just get along? Can't you mark your protest of a governing body by just saying "I don't agree with what they are doing" and leave it at that?

Must we make money off of it? I hate capitalism. While I support free speech, I think that right comes with the responsibility of using it wisely or we'll all lose it someday. We give people SO many rights, that they conflict with either other on a regular basis, and sadly - it's all for money. Executives want big bonuses, politicians want a pay raise so they raise taxes.

I'm disgusted by humanity, and it's that kind of person - legal or otherwise - that makes me so bitter towards other people. We, as humans, have gone off course so bad over petty crap. Save the whales. Save the environment. Give everyone money to stay at home and not work and have 20 kids.

I know this isn't the MJ thread - but a buddy of mine at work said something that really put the whole legalization of MJ (and this whole thing with laws and lawsuits) in perspective for me. He said:

"You'll never see MJ legalized. Why? Because we're moving to CRIMINALIZE the use of Trans Fat. If Trans Fat becomes illegal, what on EARTH would move people to suddenly legalize something like pot? There are a lot more stupid laws that need to be undone before MJ."

Very well put in a much more civil way than I am capable of putting it. Most here are discussing the "point of law", on this point I'll quote a founding father, "An unjust law is no law at all!"

I think we have something to learn from the mafia here... start breaking the legs of people like this and they'll change thier tune... QUICKLY! Hey it works for the mafia.... and even my local bookie! Then dance like this :ban: over them as they wiggle around on the floor crying... hey it's just an idea, if we're truely open minded we'll atleast consider it.... I'm just sayin....;)

Schlante,
Phillip
 
Bobby_M said:
Aren't your arguments a little incongruent? You like the idea of a liberal legalization of pot but you don't like capitalism? IOW, you want to tell a guy what he can't put on a shirt but you don't want someone telling you what not to smoke.

I support certain theories of legalization of pot. I do not support 'Nike Pot' nor do I need to have a monopoly of 'Microsoft Pot.' I do not support any legalization effort where the government spends (IMHO) excessive amounts of time or money trying to moderate it.

Either you can pick it up in the grocery store next to the (unbranded) celery - or you get it from the corner dealer. I don't accept a middle ground where the government taxes it at 236% of it's production value to make a $60 1/8th.

Again, I don't like what this guy did, but I have stated many times that I dont think THIS is an issue of law. This is an issue about human decency and morality. I think that there should be a better way of putting this guy out of business than wasting court time.

With both instances here - I'm with LESS government interaction. The less they put their ****beaters on, the less they can screw up. The government (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) is a runaway train. It doen't matter left side or right side, they've screwed it up and will continue to screw it up. Read above re: criminalization of Trans Fat. Really?!? Do we NEED the government to step in and say it's against the law to use trans fat? Can't we as consumers decide for ourselves if we want tans fat or not? ANd if you do want trans fat, and you die from it, you have no recourse to sue?

The government, by way of big business, is just trying to dictate how we run our lives. I don't need the Christian Conservative Right to tell me I should go to church on Sunday. That's my right to choose. I also don't need the Liberal Media Left telling me that I can't have trans fat. I'm going to the gym and eating healthy, but hey - if you want to shove McD's grease burgers up your butt until you hit 400 lbs and die - that should be your choice.
 
jezter6 said:
Or one that shows pictures of Special Olympics kids that says "FUTURE BURGER FLIPPERS OF AMERICA" on it?


Legal - maybe. Morally low - hells yeah.

Well, I guess that means I'm on the express train to hell, cause I'd buy that t-shirt.
 
Wow. Folks who see this as dishonoring this particular soldier, or any of the soldiers who are listed, really baffle me. This young man died in a war based on faulty, fraudulent "intelligence," as admitted by those at the top of the command chain. Calling for an end to the war so as to prevent the deaths of other soldiers like him isn't dishonoring his memory. It's doing quite the opposite: acknowledging and honoring his sacrifice, and calling for an end to the misguided military action that precipitated his loss of life.

What a lot (but not all, by any means) of pro-Iraq war, deeply "conservative" people seem to miss (or choose to miss,) is that it's possible to be opposed to a particular military action, but support the men and women who are a part of it.

Honor the warrior, not the war.
 
e lo said:
Wow. Folks who see this as dishonoring this particular soldier, or any of the soldiers who are listed, really baffle me. This young man died in a war based on faulty, fraudulent "intelligence," as admitted by those at the top of the command chain. Calling for an end to the war so as to prevent the deaths of other soldiers like him isn't dishonoring his memory. It's doing quite the opposite: acknowledging and honoring his sacrifice, and calling for an end to the misguided military action that precipitated his loss of life.

What a lot (but not all, by any means) of pro-Iraq war, deeply "conservative" people seem to miss (or choose to miss,) is that it's possible to be opposed to a particular military action, but support the men and women who are a part of it.

Honor the warrior, not the war.


It would be one thing if the shirt said, In memory of those who stood and fought.. or something else, it does not however. Im not going to get into it about the war, because your not going to change my mind and I don't expect to change yours. But, I think your last part is a bunch of bull****.
 
Right now IIRC the shirt reads, "Bush Lied They Died"
but you'd be Ok with a shirt that reads "In memory of those who stood and fought".

What if the shirt read any number of things:

They Died
or
Died
or
Bush
or
Haliburton
or
Mattel
or
Nuri Al-MALIKI
or
In memory of those who stood and fought for Bush
or
Peace
or any number of clear or unclear things.

How many laws/lawsuites would you propose.

I really admire some of the passionate feelings about this but I just think it's a bit misdirected.
 
Ryanh1801 said:
It would be one thing if the shirt said, In memory of those who stood and fought.. or something else, it does not however. Im not going to get into it about the war, because your not going to change my mind and I don't expect to change yours. But, I think your last part is a bunch of bull****.

What, exactly, do you mean by my "last part," that you think is bull****? The idea that it's possible to oppose a particular war but still support the troops fighting it? I hope not, because if so, that's amazingly narrow-minded of you. Just like I think the war is misguided at best, I also think that Fred Phelps and his ilk are horrible human beings. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Too bad you seem to think it does.
 
olllllo said:
Right now IIRC the shirt reads, "Bush Lied They Died"
but you'd be Ok with a shirt that reads "In memory of those who stood and fought".

What if the shirt read any number of things:

They Died
or
Died
or
Bush
or
Haliburton
or
Mattel
or
Nuri Al-MALIKI
or
In memory of those who stood and fought for Bush
or
Peace
or any number of clear or unclear things.

How many laws/lawsuites would you propose.

I really admire some of the passionate feelings about this but I just think it's a bit misdirected.


The difference is, one is not making a statement for someone that cannot defend it.

If the company wanted to be respectfully they would have the name removed when the parents asked them to. They are the ones making this a problem. All they had to do was respect the parents wishes. Why would anyone want to put someone that lost their son in anymore pain? And why would anyone defend the persons putting them in more pain when something as simple as removing the name was all that needed to be done? Pretty amazing to me. :confused:
 
e lo said:
What, exactly, do you mean by my "last part," that you think is bull****? The idea that it's possible to oppose a particular war but still support the troops fighting it? I hope not, because if so, that's amazingly narrow-minded of you. Just like I think the war is misguided at best, I also think that Fred Phelps and his ilk are horrible human beings. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Too bad you seem to think it does.

Maybe narrow minded, but in my eyes the truth.. Not supporting the war, gets funding cut= unnecessary loss of life, in some cases. Do you think some guy getting back from Iraq away from friends and family, maybe lost someone close. Do you really think they want to see a anti-war protest when they get home, to see people saying the war is a lie and that they are fighting for nothing?
I think this says it best.
1398010532_l.jpg
 
I have to go back to the ruling:
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Neil Wake acknowledged that Frazier's use of casualties names may increase the hurt of loved ones but said the shirts are political speech.
Though the law permits Frazier to use casualties' names if he obtains permission from designated family members, that amounts to a flat prohibition "given the difficulty and cost of finding, contacting and obtaining consent from the soldiers' numerous representatives," Wake said.

My emphasis.

1) It's deemed 1st amemndment protected speech.
2) Such speech outweighs any personal damages.
3) Requiring permission is a defacto prohibition on free speech.


In the long run, who is buying these shirts?
At best, these would be people that you'ld probably rather spend said money on this than say put it toward the DNC or Moveon, what have you.
 
Ryanh1801 said:
If the company wanted to be respectfully they would have the name removed when the parents asked them to. They are the ones making this a problem. All they had to do was respect the parents wishes. Why would anyone want to put someone that lost their son in anymore pain? And why would anyone defend the persons putting them in more pain when something as simple as removing the name was all that needed to be done? Pretty amazing to me. :confused:

Now that all depends on what the parents asked for. They might have rung him up and not only demanded the removal but wanted all the proceeds and a public apology and a promise to destroy any unsold shirts and a huge donation to 'my son's favorite charity'.

but we don't know how the parents 'asked' for their son's removal so assuming the business owner is beign completely unreasonable about not honoring their 'request' isn't right or fair.

In all likelihood the initial point of contact between shirtmaker and family was poorly handled by one or both parties and there's probably plenty of blame to go around (as is the case most of the time that it comes to involving lawyers).
 
kornkob said:
Now that all depends on what the parents asked for. They might have rung him up and not only demanded the removal but wanted all the proceeds and a public apology and a promise to destroy any unsold shirts and a huge donation to 'my son's favorite charity'.

but we don't know how the parents 'asked' for their son's removal so assuming the business owner is beign completely unreasonable about not honoring their 'request' isn't right or fair.

In all likelihood the initial point of contact between shirtmaker and family was poorly handled by one or both parties and there's probably plenty of blame to go around (as is the case most of the time that it comes to involving lawyers).

In the interview I saw the parents said their only request was for their sons name to be removed. They where told it would not be done.
 
Ryanh1801 said:
In the interview I saw the parents said their only request was for their sons name to be removed. They where told it would not be done.
Of course they said that they were kind, nice and reasonable. I'm not sure that their statement alone is enough to base a judgement on, though. After all, there are usually 2 sides (at least) to any given conversation.

That same statement could have been 'remove the name from all those shirts before they are sold'. And the answer could easily have been 'that's not going to be done-- those shirts have already shipped'.

Their summary is then accurate (given that your summary of their summary is accurate :p ) but still fails to tell us the whole story.
 
Frazier received a letter in September informing him that he did not have the family's permission to use Brandon's name on the T-shirts sold at http://www.carryabigsticker.com/, according to paperwork filed by the plaintiffs as part of the lawsuit.

The family asked for proof that Brandon Read's name was removed from the T-shirts and set a deadline for Frazier to prove the task had been completed by Oct. 15, 2007. The deadline expired without hearing from Frazier, according to the complaint against Frazier. Frazier could not be reached immediately for comment.

“We ask that any of you who are attempting to flaunt your own agenda: be it the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the Right, or the Olbermanns and Bill Mahers of the Left, respect our wishes and not use our son as a red flag to fan your personal prejudices.

Few things found from searching around.

And yet they say this.
given the difficulty and cost of finding, contacting and obtaining consent from the soldiers' numerous representatives," Wake said.
 
Ryanh1801 said:
Maybe narrow minded, but in my eyes the truth.. Not supporting the war, gets funding cut= unnecessary loss of life, in some cases.

*Sigh...* Fine. Have it your way. I will continue to send my love and support to the soldiers that I know, including those in my family, as well as the soldiers that I don't know. And while I'm at it, I will continue to oppose the war, hoping that funding gets cut, leading to US troop withdrawal, so fewer and fewer American heroes lose their lives. And you can continue thinking that this sentiment is anti-soldier, although I'll never understand how.
 
e lo said:
*Sigh...* Fine. Have it your way. I will continue to send my love and support to the soldiers that I know, including those in my family, as well as the soldiers that I don't know. And while I'm at it, I will continue to oppose the war, hoping that funding gets cut, leading to US troop withdrawal, so fewer and fewer American heroes lose their lives. And you can continue thinking that this sentiment is anti-soldier, although I'll never understand how.


You said it best in my mind and feelings for our men and women plus families going thru the dangers of this police action. I'm 55 went thru the 'Nam police action thing". What a waste of life for our men and women besides the family stress they must endure not alone the wasted money that's needed more here in the USA. Medical coverage in the USA for us baby boomers?
 
e lo said:
*Sigh...* Fine. Have it your way. I will continue to send my love and support to the soldiers that I know, including those in my family, as well as the soldiers that I don't know. And while I'm at it, I will continue to oppose the war, hoping that funding gets cut, leading to US troop withdrawal, so fewer and fewer American heroes lose their lives. And you can continue thinking that this sentiment is anti-soldier, although I'll never understand how.


You said it best in my mind and feelings for our men and women plus families going thru the dangers of this police action. I'm 55 went thru the 'Nam police action thing". What a waste of life for our men and women besides the family stress they must endure not alone the wasted money that's needed more here in the USA. Medical coverage in the USA for us baby boomers?
 
Back
Top