Parents of Soldiers Killed in Action Seek $40B

[yrualeg]

Thoughts?


Parents of Soldiers Killed in Action Seek $40B From Anti-War Shirt Seller

[RedFalcon]

The SOB is exploiting their children's deaths to turn a profit. He should get raped hard over this.

[Bell]

Reminders of Cindy Sheehan.

That's why the military makes em wait until they're 18 to sign em up. The parents don't have anything to do with it.

Nothing like advertising to the world how stupid you really are.

RLTW
Bell

[bg]

As a means of turning a profit, I think it's one of the more despicable methods.

As a form of political speech, I think it's legit. I don't agree with it, but it's legit.

This sword cuts both ways, however, and there's nothing to stop me from making and selling shirts that list the exact same names under the phrase "Real American Heroes" or "Your Freedom Sponsored by:".

[Altimeter]

Word.

[Kilted Heathen]

Anyone who buys and wears these shirts are in fact conducting a walking memorial.

I find this a small saving grace in an otherwise dis-tasteful enterprise.

Positive by-product.

[GeorgeMac]

I think fuckers like that should be lynched. And if this is a planned tactic by commies to further undermine your national security, which I think it could very well be, yes, I'd do it.

[sf11b_p]

Anyone who buys and wears these shirts are in fact conducting a walking memorial.

Negative. The background lists 4,058 names of troops who died in Iraq through April 29, 2008.

the t-shirts are superimposed with...

Support our Remaining Troops - Bring the Rest Home Alive

Bush Lied...They Died

Now the individual marketing these shirts claims he's losing money, but...

Each t-shirt costs $22.

Only one dollar of that $22 goes to a charity that assists families of fallen soldiers, he claims. He will not name the charities.

With the same website he maintains for his anti-war items. He requests and accepts $10 dollar donations to his "legal defense fund". Needed due lawsuits.

Free speech allows him to protest anything he wants. I fail to see how the use of the names of the dead, who may have had other idealism, is protected as someone elses free speech. Further without their previous, or their families current permission, I'd think it libel, slander or similar.

[Recon133]

With the liberal Judicial System in the U.S. today, I think they will loose their lawsuit. The guy is a walking talking asshole who should be throat chopped, but as far as doing anything illegal, probably not. The names of Military Personnel killed in Wars is public information. If the Tee shirts instigate violence, then maybe they would have a chance to ban the shirts, but I seriously doubt they will get an money from him. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it.

[ShortBusDriver82]

Fuck him... how bout I kill him and make a funny tshirt outta it??

Its legal... but distasteful... fuck him and those that buy it...

[andyclan]

Since we can't drive the short-bus over him, I hope they get their money.

[sf11b_p]

The names of Military Personnel killed in Wars is public information.

Everyones name is public information. It's the use of a name or specific names that are the question in free speech. A news writer publishes names as information, part of an article. But using a name commercially isn't always protected under free speech.

Most peoples names in use by media have become public figures and are legally fair game, to a point. Military service, for the most part, does not create public figures.

PUBLIC FIGURE - A term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. (1st Cir. 1980) 633 F.2d 583, 589, a standard ensuring that reasonable minds may differ on this subject.

Advertisements themselves are not usually sufficient to transform someone into a public figure. Vegod Corp. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 763, 770 [a person in the business world advertising his wares does not necessarily become part of an existing public controversy]; Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 646, 661 [advertising is not thrusting oneself into the vortex of a controversy].

The t-shirts imply things that may not be true. For instance, that the soldiers did or families do support the idealism and/or share the political beliefs of the shirts author.

Groups placing crosses in protest of the war have been asked, and either complied or were forced to remove crosses by families of fallen military whose names were on the crosses.

Political free speech does not allow a right to my name, even after death, to be placed on a t-shirt superimposed by the words "Vote for Hillary".

So I believe a good argument could be made for the families.

[VoTrooper99]

I hope this T shirt manufacturer gets crushed.

$22 a shirt and losing money? Either he's a liar, a horrible business man, or skilled at moving money around behind the corporate veil.

Fuck this guy.

[Psycho7]

What a fucking vulture. Trying to profit and use those who have died in this war to for his own profit. I say tie him to a stake in the middle of the west Texas desert and let the aninmals feed off of him.

SLOW AND VERY TORTUROUS DEATH.

[Skyshark]

I'll be honest. If he didn't get permission to use the soldiers names then I can understand. If he does get the permission to use the names then I don't see what the big deal is. I can see it as a memorial, a protest or whatever. I think using the names with out permission is in bad taste.