A Just Lawsuit

[Ryanh1801]

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

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

 

[McKBrew]

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]

Jesus- What kid of souless ****** 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]

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

I disagree.

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

 

[Beerrific]

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

I disagree.

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

No it does not.

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

 

[EvilTOJ]

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

 

[EvilTOJ]

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.

 

[TexLaw]

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

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

 

[jezter6]

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 ******. I bet he's one of the guys that protests at soldier funerals too..

 

[srm775]

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

I disagree.

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

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.

 

[Arneba28]

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

I disagree.

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

x2...Yeah this is stuff that is openly scrolled across the bottom of the screen on CNN FOX and half the other channels that are "news stations"

And I am for anything can bash this current administration as much as possible.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

Freedon of speech ended when the company decided to make a profit off an item after the family asked to have thier son's name removed. Had he removed the name, he could keep selling and making the profit with just one less name, even if it is bad form.

And I am for anything can bash this current administration as much as possible.

Not to go off topic or start any rampages, I just don't get this, "gotta bash the current admin" mindset. I mean, they are on the way out, so nothing you say or do is going to change ANYONES mind or speed anything up, and rather than be THAT guy yelling his opinions from the rooftops and belittling anyone who sees differently, why not just look to the future and focus on the next nightmarish regime that is in store....

 

[MNBugeater]

I'm not so sure this is a Freedom of Speech argument.

At least that's not the approach I would take to get this ********* to stop the sale of the t-shirts, or remove the soldier's name.

One's name can be copyrighted and with the anti-squatter laws, I could not go out and market something using say, Marilyn Monroe's, John Wayne's, etc name. Much like this idiot cannot go and market a product with the soldiers' names that he doesn't have permission to use.

The family would "own" the marketing rights on the soldier's name and can claim infringement. This wouldn't stop the sale of the tasteless shirts, but would be the best course of action to get their son's name off any future printed shirts and could certainly get compensation for already marketed and sold shirts.

 

[kornkob]

I submit this:

Just because you make money off of political speech does not mean that it is not political.

This man is making money of the sale of a political tshirt. That tshirt's political point, whether you agree with it or not, is that because someone lied we are involved in a war that has real and tangible humna costs. Listing the names of those lost is part of the point.

Listing the name of a dead man is publication of a fact. There is no implication that those listed have anything to do with the political statement except that they are dead as a result of combat.

 

[Ryanh1801]

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.

I don't see it as invasion of privacy. Just more along the lines as disrespectful as ****.

 

[EdWort]

I don't like it either and I think they are ****** bags. That young man died for their right to do this. There are other ways to seek justice.

Anyway, let's talk about Global Warming....

 

[MNBugeater]

All the political issues aren't the point in determining whether or not the person selling the shirts has the right to sell them or not.

Yes, I understand that it has opened a debate over politics, government administration, war, etc. But that is all irrelevant as to if this guy has the right to sell what he is selling.

No one will ever be "right" in trying to decide an argument over the justification of a war, or effectiveness of an administration. A court isn't going to use a political stance as a way of justifying the action. Law prevails. Take away the fact that the names are those of soldiers in a controversial war and all you have is that he can't use a copyrighted name for financial benefit without permission of the owner.

This could just as well be someone selling t-shirts that puts a picture of Elvis, or Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, etc. The guy can't market that product without the owner (family estate) granting permission.

This is a copyright issue not a political one, at least as far as the right to sell the shirts is concerned.

Ok...you may now return to debating the war, politics, government, etc.... Discuss at your own risk.

Edit: Oh, and evidently global warming is now fair game too... Enjoy

 

[zoebisch01]

Anyway, let's talk about Global Warming....

Sheesh you wanna get the thread locked eh?

 

[Klainmeister]

Illegal? No.
Unethical? Yes.
Civil court? Probably will be found guilty.

 

[RICLARK]

Well I guess there free speech would have to be there defense after they pressed charges on me for kicking there ****ing ass.

 

[BlindLemonLars]

I don't like it either and I think they are ****** bags. That young man died for their right to do this.

Correct. So let's not dishonor his sacrifice by throwing that right out the window whenever somebody says something that you or I don't like. Free speech is an all or nothing proposition, you can't cherry pick.

Smile, we're Americans. It's a good thing.

And oh yeah...let's brew some beer!

 

[McKBrew]

How is it free speech to use someone's name without their or thier family's consent to promote your cause? There are several instances in recent history where other people have sucessfully sued because someone used their name without permission.

The company can promote their anti-war, Bush-bashing method without going so far as to dishonor a dead soldier.

 

[RICLARK]

There are several instances in recent history where other people have sucessfully sued because someone used their name without permission.

Celebraties do it all the time.

 

[Brewmando]

Anyway, let's talk about Global Warming....

10,000 years ago: Thag "Big ice wall leaving, why?"
Mauk "It happen since we make fire. Must now stop making fire!":cross:

 

[BuffaloSabresBrewer]

Not to go off topic or start any rampages, I just don't get this, "gotta bash the current admin" mindset. I mean, they are on the way out, so nothing you say or do is going to change ANYONES mind or speed anything up, and rather than be THAT guy yelling his opinions from the rooftops and belittling anyone who sees differently, why not just look to the future and focus on the next nightmarish regime that is in store....

Dont you know this is the IT thing to do? Even if you know absolutely nothing about politics and current events you have to bash Bush. Its how you show you hip and cool even if you dont really know why your supposed to hate him. You just hate him because everyone else does.

 

[Ryanh1801]

How is it free speech to use someone's name without their or thier family's consent to promote your cause? There are several instances in recent history where other people have sucessfully sued because someone used their name without permission.

The company can promote their anti-war, Bush-bashing method without going so far as to dishonor a dead soldier.

Yep.. My biggest thing is all the company had to do was honor the family's wishes and remove his name. But they chose not to. I know I would not want my name on something I did not have a say in, specially if it was something I did not believe in.

 

[Ryanh1801]

Dont you know this is the IT thing to do? Even if you know absolutely nothing about politics and current events you have to bash Bush. Its how you show you hip and cool even if you dont really know why your supposed to hate him. You just hate him because everyone else does.

That made me laugh.

 

[MVKTR2]

Techniclly it could be argued that the use of the name is of a nature that "endorses" this company's policy. This would provide grounds to sue.

Political speech be damned! The fact is we're only a few years away from having certain "un-nice" words, racist/sexist banned from use (Ruth Ginsberg of the Supreme Court is always citing international and other countries laws when handing down rulings even though she takes a vow to uphold OUR laws and OUR constitution). I'm sure most of the same people saying this is free political speech will be right on board with keeping people from using words that are hurtful to someone. (If you don't believe me, just look at England or Australia. In Australia ministers have been thrown in jail for preaching against the Koran... it's just a matter of time here!) We already have "hate crime" legislation, as if crime isn't hateful already! I mean come on if you beat the heck out of someone, rape em, or kill em isn't that hateful enough! If judges would use common sense we wouldn't be in this pickle.

The thing is, this is an indecent act. PERIOD! I'd feel like killing the SOB if it were my child! There are things worth dying for, you just got to decide what those things are! At the very least I'd want to break both his legs and set his office on fire late at night! Okay so maybe I wouldn't do any of those things... but he and others like him have got it coming! I'm afraid our country is headed to a revolution/civil war because the politicians are too busy lining their pockets (bunch of sorry useless lawyers) and the judicial system uses no common sense. We just like the A-hole in this story are going to get what we deserve eventually! Either a totally socialist/communist state or a revolution to stop it! Just my opinion... Happy thoughts!!!!!

They call me cynical,
Phillip

Ps Sorry to get on a soap box, the above is the reason I hardly ever listen to the news or follow politics, I've given up hope that one I can make a difference, and two that there's anyone in Washington that will make a difference.

 

[Bobby_M]

Just a question. Can you sue CNN for reporting a soldier's death without permission? Do they have to get permission from the family? If not, how is this any different? Technically, any info that they publish as news is their product... a commercial venture.

 

[McKBrew]

Dont you know this is the IT thing to do? Even if you know absolutely nothing about politics and current events you have to bash Bush. Its how you show you hip and cool even if you dont really know why your supposed to hate him. You just hate him because everyone else does.

Yeah, in a couple of years we can all bash the new administration, and then talk about how great the last president was, even though he did stuff that we didn't like at the time. Not that we've ever done that before.