Defending the Truth

I wondered about sharing this simply in the military forum or here. But I decided to share it here. What do y'all think about this article from the Arizona Daily Sun?

OD

Bill targeting anti-war T-shirt goes to governor

By HOWARD FISCHER
Capitol Media Services
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:50 AM MST


PHOENIX -- State lawmakers voted Monday to enact new laws designed to stop the sale of anti-war T-shirts with the names of dead soldiers -- a measure a veteran media lawyer says is "unconstitutional about three or four different ways."

On a 28-0 margin, the Senate agreed to make it punishable by up to a year in jail to use the names of deceased soldiers to help sell goods. The measure, SB 1014, also would let families go to court to stop the sales and collect damages.

Dan Frazier, a Flagstaff businessman who is selling the T-shirts that have caused all the fuss, told Capitol Media Services he doesn't intend to halt the sale of the $20 shirts even if Gov. Janet Napolitano signs the measure. He said it's an illegal infringement on his First Amendment rights.

Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, a backer of the measure, doesn't see it that way. He said because Frazier is selling his shirts for a profit means it is not constitutionally protected political speech.

But attorney Dan Barr said the question of whether someone makes money is legally irrelevant.

"The fact that these people died in Iraq is nothing more than a fact," Barr said. And he said listing their names on a T-shirt -- whether sold or given away -- doesn't change that.

The shirts at issue feature the words "Bush Lied/They Died" superimposed over the names of more than 3,000 soldiers who have died since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Frazier has since come up with some variants, including one that says on one side "Support our Remaining Troops," with "Bring the Rest Home Alive" on the other.

Paton said anyone is free to put all those names on a placard and hold it up in the town square.

"It's about you selling or profiting off those soldiers' names the way somebody would off of (pop singer) Britney Spears," he said.

"I really don't see it as trading on the names (of the soldiers) the same way somebody selling a Celine Dion T-shirt is trading on her name," said Frazier.
And Barr said the T-shirts at issue do not show a single identifiable soldier, like Pat Tillman, where someone might buy the shirt solely because it features the photo of the former Arizona Cardinals safety.

"The names of all these people are public record," Barr said. "It's not like they're taking something that isn't in the public domain already."

Paton said the law is legally defensible, noting there are exceptions for news reports and even in books, plays, music as well as film or videos as long as these items, by themselves, are not selling anything else.

But Barr said that just proves how flawed the language is.

"Books and plays are done to make money," he said. And Barr said that the measure puts the government in the position of deciding things like what is "an original work of fine art," something the courts have said is impermissible.

Frazier said it will take a court order to stop him from selling the shirts. But he said he hopes it doesn't come to that.

"It's just a hassle for me if I've got to fight this sort of stuff in court," he said.

And Frazier said he is hoping Napolitano vetoes the measure.

Gubernatorial press aide Jeanine L'Ecuyer said the governor will not comment on the bill until she sees it. But a veto would be the only negative vote against it: It cleared both the House and Senate without dissent.

Frazier said all the publicity about the legislation has had one positive effect. "It always boosts my sales of my shirts," he said.

1. All speech is protected, not just political speech.

2. If selling T-shirts for profit is not protected speech, what about books, magazines, newspaper, subscription websites, etc.? Where is the logic in that?

All speech is protected, but is it right to use the names of the fallen for political purposes?

I don't know how I feel about this.

One of my favorite sayings is that having the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

The guy is a bit of a jerk, no doubt. But jerks get free speech too.

I think that the families should have the right to legally restrain him from profiting on their loved ones' deaths. But there are some families of the fallen out there who would probably support what he is doing.

Excellent point!

Well I too had to and will continue to have to cogitate on this for awhile. But I immediately wondered if the names of the deceased soldiers are used to promote the war efforts, that has never been questioned.

My brother is a right-wing, pro-Bush, rah-rah boy. And he does some kinda kareoke show with a presentation he made of all the fallen from this state, and it is like a DVD or whatever that he plays with emotional and patriotic music and it is to say that we must get behind the President to insure that these soldiers did not die in vain. Or some such thing.

And I do love my brother. But . . .

I think either side of the political argument is using manipulation tactics and emotional pleas by listing the names of soldiers who have died.

Freedom though is tricky on this one, cos it is like the dead do not get a chance to endorse the message. I know now that no one could use my name to endorse something without me consent. Or if they did and I found out about it, there would be a way for me to put a stop to it.

Then again, these names are public information now.

I just don't know. I must say Crazy, I wish you and I could spend a day over coffee. You have such a reasonable and wise approach to so many of life's issues. I would love to talk with you and get your take on so many things...

OD

If it's about the profit made from the death of these soldiers, then Cheney needs to be fined and hung...and Halliburton, and KBR, and all other contractors over there.

This is about the wealthy not wanting to see the rising of the masses and keeping them from making money, pure and simple....

Also a very valid point

If the families can restrain them from profiting with names in protest of the action, what would stop them from restraining the news media from using their names and stories that prop up ratings to help maintain the cost of commercials?

The names of the fallen are are public record - but not public enough. Too few Americans choose to go there - to make those lives personal - too be touched by the story.

Hmmmm...interesting question. Even distasteful speech is protected by the constitution, and I feel he has the right to sell these shirts. The names of the fallen are public record, so it is not an invasion of anyone's privacy.

On a personal note: a former co-worker of mine died early in the war. The nicest young man too--always had a smile on his face and was kind to everybody. That was a very sad day for us when we found out. A close friend has two sons that have and are serving in Iraq. The older came home from his first rotation shortly after being hit (but thankfully not killed) by an IED. The younger is still there and recently saw a truckload of his buddies get blown to bits and they were unable to help in any way. No matter which side of the fence you are on that place is a horrible mess right now.

The fact of the matter is that our government did lie to us and sadly, many have died. He has the right to sell these shirts. This is America. Just because we don't like what someone says doesn't mean they can't say it. I wouldn't buy one of those shirts myself--not because I disagree with him, but out of sensitivity for my friend with sons in the military and for others. And if I were to buy one (which I won't) I'd probably put it next to my flag with the big yellow ribbon. That would echo my TRUE feelings about the war: That our governmnet lied to us to get us there, but that I support the troops and love my country--even if I do despise the current executive leadership.

But again that isn't going to happen. I have no plans of buying one of those shirts.