A Just Lawsuit

[MikeFlynn74]

Technically, any info that they publish as news is their product... a commercial venture.

This is true- Profiting from someone elses death by using their name may not be illegal but it sure is souless

 

[kornkob]

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.

Regardless of what you would WANT, that doesn't mean that you can force people to not print your name.

We can make a list of names and print them on a shirt. I could, for instance, print a list of celebrities who died or have a birthday on a specific day and sell that product. So long as I make no statement that the person is endorsing whatever else I have on my product he celebrity would have no recourse because I am merely printing facts.


The guy is beng an ass, yeah, but peopel are allowed to be whether we like it or not.

 

[Ryanh1801]

Regardless of what you would WANT, that doesn't mean that you can force people to not print your name.

We can make a list of names and print them on a shirt. I could, for instance, print a list of celebrities who died or have a birthday on a specific day and sell that product. So long as I make no statement that the person is endorsing whatever else I have on my product he celebrity would have no recourse because I am merely printing facts.


The guy is beng an ass, yeah, but peopel are allowed to be whether we like it or not.

Well it is iligal in a few states Texas and Arizona included.

The Arizona law was enacted last year. It both generally made it a misdemeanor crime to use dead soldiers' names for commercial purposes without permission and authorized lawsuits.

This company plainly says they will still ship to those states. So IMO, even though its only a misdemeanor they should be prosecuted.

 

[olllllo]

Isn't torte reform a plank on the GOP platform?
Not to mention market forces determining the viability of a product and less government intrusion?

Where are the so-called libertarians? Small 'l' because most of them are single issue libertarians.

To me this falls soley on people's need to sue when they don't like something and has very little to do with legality.

 

[BlindLemonLars]

Well it is iligal in a few states Texas and Arizona included.

State laws do not trump the constitution. It is entirely possible to pass an "illegal" law, it happens all the time.

Just watch, the lawsuit will go nowhere, and accomplish nothing. I can see it possibly winning in some local courthouse, but eventually it would be kicked up to a higher court that WILL enforce the right to free speech.

The only winners in such a battle are the lawyers. Please don't feed the lawyers.

 

[TexLaw]

For all you that are talking about the right to control one's name, you are talking about a "right of publicity" where the law grants an individual a property right in that individuals identity (typically, that's your name, likeness, and, maybe to some extent, your life history). There is no federal right of publicity. The idea is to give an individual some protection for the commercial value of that individual's identity.

The last time I looked into it, not all the states have right of publicity laws, either. In those states where such laws exist, they vary all over the place. Most require the subject to be a "celebrity" or "public figure," whatever that means, but it usually means that the individual's identity has some marketable value. In other states, the right of publicity only lasts as long as the individual is alive.

In any case, those laws DO NOT provide an individual with absolute control over that individual's name, likeness, or whatever. From what I understand, they only come into play when someone else starts to appropriate an individual's identity for profit or in some manner that reduces the market value of that identity. However, there are exceptions, including reporting facts (such as reporting an arrest, death, illness, touchdown made in the high school football game, or anything else).


TL

 

[TexLaw]

Well it is iligal in a few states Texas and Arizona included.

Those laws, at least the criminal portion of them, are already under a challenge on First Amendment grounds.

As Blind Lemon said, the Constitution wins a battle against any state law (or federal law, for that matter, other than the Constitution, itself).


TL

 

[TexLaw]

Just something else on this:

I do not like what this guy is doing, either. I think it's a play on emotions, bad form, disrespectful, and many of the other things everyone else has mentioned. I also do not like that this soldier or any of the other soldiers listed on that shirt (including one very good friend of mine) have died in military service. However, both are part of the price for our freedom.

If you, that soldier's parents, or anyone else wants to rise in peaceful protest of that shirt, then go ahead. Get your message out there. You have the right to do so, and we have laws that protect you from anyone else coming out and trying to shut you down. Hell, I might even join you. However, those same laws protect the shirt guy, so do not expect to sue in court to shut the guy down. If you want to take some violent action against the shirt guy, expect to go to jail.

As much as would like to see this shirt go away, and as much as I want my friend back, I would rather have my freedom and everyone else's.

That soldier, my friend, everyone else listed on that shirt, and so many others fought and died for that freedom. It sickens me to see some dishonor their sacrifices by trying take away that very same freedom.


TL

 

[MikeFlynn74]

That soldier, my friend, everyone else listed on that shirt, and so many others fought and died for that freedom. It sickens me to see some dishonor their sacrifices by trying take away that very same freedom

wow- you magnificant bastard

Very well put..

 

[kornkob]

wow- you magnificant bastard

Very well put..

I came here to say this. ^

 

[jezter6]

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."

 

[Ryanh1801]

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.

On another note, everyone is quick to jump to these guys rights... Do the fallen soldiers not have the right to RIP?

 

[olllllo]

I wish you luck in that legal battle. Here are a few more:

U2 Superbowl

Dale

President's Day

Che

 

[olllllo]

 

[olllllo]

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.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

The presidents day sale is best.... "Our integrety is set in stone!"

 

[jezter6]

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.

 

[Ryanh1801]

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..

 

[BlindLemonLars]

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.

 

[olllllo]

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.

 

[McKBrew]

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.

 

[Ryanh1801]

Just wondering ollllo, did you read what they were suing for?

 

[olllllo]

Yes. I bit my lip and clicked a Fox link.
10 Mil and the name to be off.

 

[Ryanh1801]

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.

 

[MNBugeater]

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.

 

[budbo]

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.

 

[BlindLemonLars]

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.

 

[olllllo]

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.

 

[Bobby_M]

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.

 

[Bobby_M]

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?