Oklahoma repeals 1st Amendment

[BSmack]

Does this mean that it is now illegal to use Chimpy's likeness in any ads? I mean his IS CinC. And a "war President" at that.

Slain G.I.'s ma spurs anti-war T-shirt ban

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_repo ... 8570c.html

[Adelpiero]

bsmacktard pile on in .............3.....................2.............................1

[BSmack]

bsmacktard pile on in .............3.....................2.............................1

I take it you're not a fan of the Bill of Rights?

[OCmike]

bsmacktard pile on in .............3.....................2.............................1

I take it you're not a fan of the Bill of Rights?

So it's okay for Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods to copyright their names and likenesses, but not commoners?

This isn't a free speech issue, it's a free enterprise one. The guy isn't using this soldier's name to protest in front of the white house, he's using it to make a dime. Not a free speech issue.

Oh, and Bri, I'm fine with your usual bastardizations of the English language like "realy" and "basicaly" and let those go without dropping spelling smack on you, even though my kids don't make those types of errors and have far less experience with the English language than you do. But could you take a few minutes to learn how to spell the names of our states? There's only 50 of them after all.

I don't know, maybe post 17 times today instead of 22 to clear up some time on your schedule.

[BSmack]

So it's okay for Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods to copyright their names and likenesses, but not commoners?

This isn't a free speech issue, it's a free enterprise one. The guy isn't using this soldier's name to protest in front of the white house, he's using it to make a dime. Not a free speech issue.

So why extend that protection just to soldiers?

Mmmmmmmmm

Could it be because they don't like THAT kind of speech?

And Mike, I'll start editing my posts to reflect your preferences about never.

[ChargerMike]

Does this mean that it is now illegal to use Chimpy's likeness in any ads? I mean his IS CinC. And a "war President" at that.

Slain G.I.'s ma spurs anti-war T-shirt ban

OKLAHOMA CITY - A woman whose Marine son died while serving in Iraq is fighting to keep his name off anti-war T-shirts.

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

The shirt vendor, Dan Frazier of Flagstaff, Ariz., issued an open letter to family members praising the soldiers' bravery and sacrifice, but said he would not stop selling the merchandise.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_repo ... 8570c.html

...good question, does this then mean Dan Rather can't publish complete bullsh!t based on unsubstantiated or flat out bogus sources?

[BSmack]

...good question, does this then mean Dan Rather can't publish complete bullsh!t based on unsubstantiated or flat out bogus sources?

I think we've established that Chimpy was AWOL. If not while with the National Guard, certainly as President.

[OCmike]

So why extend that protection just to soldiers?

Mmmmmmmmm

Could it be because they don't like THAT kind of speech?

My guess is that it was a lot easier to get something specific passed than something broad and limitless.

And Mike, I'll start editing my posts to reflect your preferences about never.

I'm not asking you to edit your posts, I'm asking you to type them right in the first place.

[OCmike]

...good question, does this then mean Dan Rather can't publish complete bullsh!t based on unsubstantiated or flat out bogus sources?

I think we've established that Chimpy was AWOL. If not while with the National Guard, certainly as President.

I'm not sure, but I think you just hijacked your own thread. Nice going.

[BSmack]

My guess is that it was a lot easier to get something specific passed than something broad and limitless.

Broad and limitless? It's nothing more than extending the protection to everybody instead of a privleged class. It is obvious that the goal is to limit anti war speach, not protect people.

[ChargerMike]

^^^^
good call Mike

[OCmike]

Broad and limitless? It's nothing more than extending the protection to everybody instead of a privleged class. It is obvious that the goal is to limit anti war speach, not protect people.

What's obvious is that the bill was authored because this soldier's Mom felt that her son's name was being used without permission for profit, so she asked that that practice be barred. She didn't ask that this dude not be able to sell t-shirts with the oh-so-original "Bush lied/Soldiers died" logo on it, right? Therefore who is limiting this guy's right to anti-war speech? They're limiting his use of people's names.

Also, were the bill expanded to include everybody, instead of a select group, it undoubtedly would have ended up before the state Supreme Court if not the SCOTUS and taken a hell of a lot longer to become law, if it ever did so at all.

[Mister Bushice]

I don't think they can broad brush that way. The woman can certainly stop them from using her sons name as the rights to individual privacy come into play there, but what if some of those people on that list gave the guy permission to use the dead soldiers names? Where are their rights to free speech in all this?

The states cannot subvert the individuals rights to free speech in that way.

[Adelpiero]

but what if some of those people on that list gave the guy permission to use the dead soldiers names? Where are their rights to free speech in all this?

The states cannot subvert the individuals rights to free speech in that way.

pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent.

should answer your question

[Cuda]

...good question, does this then mean Dan Rather can't publish complete bullsh!t based on unsubstantiated or flat out bogus sources?

I think we've established that Chimpy was AWOL. If not while with the National Guard, certainly as President.

No, we've established that you're a "Certified Dumb Fuck ™"

And Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to putting words in a dead guy's mouth, dumb fuck

[Mister Bushice]

but what if some of those people on that list gave the guy permission to use the dead soldiers names? Where are their rights to free speech in all this?

The states cannot subvert the individuals rights to free speech in that way.

pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent.

should answer your question

Is this advertising, or free speech protest? If the guy donates all his earnings from the shirts to charity it isn't advertising, he's merely expressing his opinion.

[OCmike]

Doesn't matter. He's calling attention to the shirt (advertising) by using the dead soldier's name, along with the names of others, and then selling it for money.

[Wolfman]

funny shit--
Bri--running passe barbs about the POTUS
to validate his lame posts !!

nothing new here--
move on

not you Bri--you're stuck on stupid !!

[Mister Bushice]

Doesn't matter. He's calling attention to the shirt (advertising) by using the dead soldier's name, along with the names of others, and then selling it for money.

Actually you're wrong. The guy is an activist in AZ, writes for some crappy local paper called the Arizona citizen reporter, and is expressing his opinion about the war, not about the shirt. He didn't defame or libel any of the soldiers, the shirt lists names of dead soldiers with the words "Bush lied" on one side and "They Died" on the other. It is a statement of fact they died, it's his opinion bush lied. He does not say the soldiers agree with him, and I don't think you can be sued by dead people. The only point I might agree on is the family may have the right to deny usage, except perhaps for the fact that either a copyright of the name or proof that it is a recognized brand name (Like Michael Jordan) might be required for even that. He's not making any claims the soldiers agree with him.

The bigger problem is that two of the pending bills on this issue want to go further than just requiring consent. They want to prohibit use on any goods or clothing of any names even if the item is not being sold for profit.

Meanwhile in Atlanta, Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Constitution created a cartoon out of the word “WHY?” with the names of 2,000 soldiers who died in Iraq. He won a Pulitzer Prize for it, and on top of that the Atlanta Constitution sells reprints of the cartoon for as much as $290.

So where is the line drawn? Free speech is where. You can't only allow the type of free speech that agrees with the current administrations policies. Certainly seems like we are heading that way, though.

[RadioFan]

Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent.

I'm wondering if this is accurate.

Dan Boren, a U.S. Rep. here, has introduced a bill to make it a federal law prohibiting selling using a soldier's name or likeness for profit, but I haven't seen or read anything about the details of a state law passed here, other than this story, which originated from the Daily Oklahoman, one of the worst papers in the country.

The story also says the law goes into effect in November, which is odd, since new laws -- outside of voter-approved referendums -- go into effect here July 1.


That being said, one can't be sued for libeling or slandering a dead person, according to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure if a dead person's likeness or name can be protected in the sense that a law barring such sales, as distasteful as they may be, would be constitutional.

[Mr T]

BSmack,

What if I sold shirts that said.....

On the front: Your picture
On the back: :insert your name: fucked little boys and goats


Free speech?

[BSmack]

BSmack,

What if I sold shirts that said.....

On the front: Your picture
On the back: :insert your name: fucked little boys and goats

Free speech?

You would be guilty of libel and slander in that case.

Apples and fucking bowling balls.

[Terry in Crapchester]

And Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to putting words in a dead guy's mouth, dumb fuck

And the guy selling the shirts is doing no such thing. He only lists that soldier as one of the soldiers who died (a fact not subject to dispute) as a result of Bush's "lie" (his opinion). He makes no representation that the son of this particular woman, or for that matter, any of the others named on the back of the shirt, agree with his opinion.

Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent.

I'm wondering if this is accurate.

Dan Boren, a U.S. Rep. here, has introduced a bill to make it a federal law prohibiting selling using a soldier's name or likeness for profit, but I haven't seen or read anything about the details of a state law passed here, other than this story, which originated from the Daily Oklahoman, one of the worst papers in the country.

The story also says the law goes into effect in November, which is odd, since new laws -- outside of voter-approved referendums -- go into effect here July 1.


That being said, one can't be sued for libeling or slandering a dead person, according to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure if a dead person's likeness or name can be protected in the sense that a law barring such sales, as distasteful as they may be, would be constitutional.

I think you might be onto something here. Given the fact that so-called invasion of privacy actions are closely related to defamation actions, and the fact that the Supreme Court has held that one cannot defame a dead person, a logical question follows as to whether a cause of action can be maintained on behalf of a dead person for invasion of privacy.

I suspect we'll see a challenge to this law on Constitutional grounds at some point in the fairly near future.

[RadioFan]

Yep, there are a myriad of problems with such proposed laws, at the state or federal level.

If you take the letter of the law to it's logical conclusion, news outlets would be prohibited from reporting a soldier's death without "permission" from the family.

Hell, why stop there? Families of crime victims, accidents or low IQ scores could demand similar legislation.

Dan Boren was quoted in a story in the Tulsa World as saying his bill had language to ensure that news outlets wouldn't be affected, but still ... I'd rather see these kind of laws declared unconstitutional outright, rather than a slippery slope of the First Amendment because someone is "offended."

Also, what happens if one family member gives "permission," and another doesn't? What does "family" mean? Parents? Siblings? Children? Second half-cousins once removed?

The intention may have been good, but this falls under the category of bad idea.

[Mister Bushice]

I'm wondering if this is accurate

I believe so.

to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent is a law (OK legislators passed it), and makes it a misdemeanor. The law goes into effect this November.

I'm not sure if a dead person's likeness or name can be protected in the sense that a law barring such sales, as distasteful as they may be, would be constitutional.

It can be protected, but like I said above, it has to be a name brand, trademark or very well known, like Colonel Sanders, Michael Jordan, etc. The decendants of WC fields have legally defended the image and name rights to their Gin soaked antecedent when others tried to use them for profit, and have done so several times.

I don't think a grunt soldier is in that class, though.

[OCmike]

Actually you're wrong. The guy is an activist in AZ, writes for some crappy local paper called the Arizona citizen reporter, and is expressing his opinion about the war, not about the shirt.

Right, and that's fine right up until the point that he charges $15 for his "opinion about the war." It's at that point that it no longer becomes a free speech issue because he's profiting (regardless of what he does with the profits) off of the names of those listed on the shirt.

[RadioFan]

to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent is a law (OK legislators passed it), and makes it a misdemeanor. The law goes into effect this November.

I've never read anything about said Oklahoma law, nor could I find anything about it on the Internet. Not sayin' it doesn't exist -- it might ... but if so, virtually nothing was written nor broadcast about it here, until this story. I did find something about a similar law in Louisiana, but not much.

Right, and that's fine right up until the point that he charges $15 for his "opinion about the war." It's at that point that it no longer becomes a free speech issue because he's profiting (regardless of what he does with the profits) off of the names of those listed on the shirt.

Hypothetically, what if the dead soldier's father or sister happens to like the shirts? And even buys one? How about if a dead soldier's relative is the one making the shirts and another family member objects?

What if a family member starts selling shirts with a son or daughter's picture/name on it, on e-bay, proclaiming on the shirt that he or she is a hero, and another family member objects?

[Mister Bushice]

and as I pointed out, it has been done before and is still being done (without the Bush rhetoric), FOR profit, and it even won an award. Not a word about that one from anybody listed in that cartoon including this woman. I'll bet if that AJC cartoon had said "WHY, MISTER BUSH" it would be a different story.


This is the proposal that is an attack of free speech:

On July 13 U.S. Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. of Louisiana and U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky, both Republicans, jointly announced in a press release that they were introducing H.R. 5772 that would ban the unauthorized use of a deceased soldier's name or image for a commercial or political purpose.

[OCmike]

Hypothetically, what if the dead soldier's father or sister happens to like the shirts? And even buys one? How about if a dead soldier's relative is the one making the shirts and another family member objects?

What if a family member starts selling shirts with a son or daughter's picture/name on it, on e-bay, proclaiming on the shirt that he or she is a hero, and another family member objects?

Good thing you're not playing devil's advocate here or this thing could really get crazy...

[OCmike]

and as I pointed out, it has been done before and is still being done (without the Bush rhetoric), FOR profit, and it even won an award. Not a word about that one from anybody listed in that cartoon including this woman. I'll bet if that AJC cartoon had said "WHY, MISTER BUSH" it would be a different story.

And I think that anyone that has a problem with their relatives being listed on that shirt should have their day in court (or the legislature as the case may be) if someone or some entity is profiting from it.

[RadioFan]

Good thing you're not playing devil's advocate here or this thing could really get crazy...

We are talking about using a soldier's name or likeness to make a profit, correct?

Or did you just post the rolling eyes because "family" could never, ever disagree?

[OCmike]

No, I posted the because of all of the "Yeah, but what about this..." scenarios. BTW, all of those were excellent reasons to just ban the use of soldiers' names for profit altogether.

[Mister Bushice]

and as I pointed out, it has been done before and is still being done (without the Bush rhetoric), FOR profit, and it even won an award. Not a word about that one from anybody listed in that cartoon including this woman. I'll bet if that AJC cartoon had said "WHY, MISTER BUSH" it would be a different story.

And I think that anyone that has a problem with their relatives being listed on that shirt should have their day in court (or the legislature as the case may be) if someone or some entity is profiting from it.

Agreed, provided of course they have some connection (wife, husband) that gives them the right. Not so sure that parents have any legal connection rights to adult children in a case like this, at least from a legal standpoint. Unless they have some documentation stating what their child would have to say about it, its speculation for them to say "Johnny wouldn't have agreed to this".

If Cousin Elmer makes a stink about I don't think he has a case at all.

[OCmike]

Hypothetically, what if the dead soldier's father or sister happens to like the shirts? And even buys one?

Then there's no problem.

How about if a dead soldier's relative is the one making the shirts and another family member objects?

Sounds like a case for Judge Wapner.

What if a family member starts selling shirts with a son or daughter's picture/name on it, on e-bay, proclaiming on the shirt that he or she is a hero, and another family member objects?

Unrealistic. Who's going to buy t-shirts with one guy's face on it other than family and friends. And again, if someone objects, they can take the seller to court.

I'd be fine if this were done in an "opt in" manner, rather than a blanket ban, but I just don't think that it's realistic. Who would keep track of who okays the use of their deceased relative's name for profit?

I have no problem in principle with the anti-war speech, even though I don't agree with the method. People have a right to bitch in this country, but there are limits. Those unwashed hippies can go nuts with their "Quagmire Accomplished" bumperstickers and all, but I don't think it's right to put someone's name on a t-shirt and sell it for $15 unless they or their next of kin are cool with it.

[OCmike]

and as I pointed out, it has been done before and is still being done (without the Bush rhetoric), FOR profit, and it even won an award. Not a word about that one from anybody listed in that cartoon including this woman. I'll bet if that AJC cartoon had said "WHY, MISTER BUSH" it would be a different story.

And I think that anyone that has a problem with their relatives being listed on that shirt should have their day in court (or the legislature as the case may be) if someone or some entity is profiting from it.

Agreed, provided of course they have some connection (wife, husband) that gives them the right. Not so sure that parents have any legal connection rights to adult children in a case like this, at least from a legal standpoint. Unless they have some documentation stating what their child would have to say about it, its speculation for them to say "Johnny wouldn't have agreed to this".

If Cousin Elmer makes a stink about I don't think he has a case at all.

Agreed on Cousin Elmer. Tough shit.

Parents may not have rights with married soldiers, but there are plenty of 19 y/o single yay-hoos in our nations army and I think Mom and Dad do have a right to speak for them.

[Mister Bushice]

I have no problem in principle with the anti-war speech, even though I don't agree with the method. People have a right to bitch in this country, but there are limits. Those unwashed hippies can go nuts with their "Quagmire Accomplished" bumperstickers and all, but I don't think it's right to put someone's name on a t-shirt and sell it for $15 unless they or their next of kin are cool with it.

Essentially I agree with this, however the current bill pending will extend the law to not only cover financial gain but political opinion.

Meaning that you couldn't hold up a sign with the image of the tshirt on it or you'll get arrested.

[RadioFan]

And I think that anyone that has a problem with their relatives being listed on that shirt should have their day in court (or the legislature as the case may be) if someone or some entity is profiting from it.

As was asked, why stop there?

Using that logic, the relatives of everyone ranging from Jeffrey Dahmer to Mother Theresa should get their day in court, regarding all the "hurtful" T-shirts and other stuff that has been sold with their likeness and names, right?

BTW, all of those were excellent reasons to just ban the use of soldiers' names for profit altogether.

You're having a hard time understanding this "slippery slope" concept, aren't you, Mike?

Or should we just go ahead and do away with obituary/death notice pages in newspapers?

I have no problem in principle with the anti-war speech, even though I don't agree with the method.

And therein lies your problem, Mike. You seem to think speech is just fine, as long as the "method" is conveying the "right" message. You think I'm not being "realistic," when, in fact my scenario is entirely plausible.

Unless, of course, you're going to argue that families don't disagree about politics. Let me know how that works out.

[OCmike]

Using that logic, the relatives of everyone ranging from Jeffrey Dahmer to Mother Theresa should get their day in court, regarding all the "hurtful" T-shirts and other stuff that has been sold with their likeness and names, right?

Happens all the time. Judges issue a cease and desist order and the seller can't sell the Dahmer (or whatever) t-shirts anymore. You just don't see it happen all the time because not everyone has the time or $$ to take Jose the t-shirt vendor to court.

You're having a hard time understanding this "slippery slope" concept, aren't you, Mike?

No, I just don't have Slippery Slope Paranoia like a lot of lefties.

And therein lies your problem, Mike. You seem to think speech is just fine, as long as the "method" is conveying the "right" message. You think I'm not being "realistic," when, in fact my scenario is entirely plausible.

Right, but damn near every scenario involving families is plausible, which is what earned you the in the first place.

Unless, of course, you're going to argue that families don't disagree about politics. Let me know how that works out.

Families are free to disagree all they want, but unless the person who is peeved has some sort of legal leg to stand on (i.e. they are in charge of the decedent's estate), boo-fucking-hoo.

[Mikey]

I wonder if the Kilroys will be suing soon.

[OCmike]

Essentially I agree with this, however the current bill pending will extend the law to not only cover financial gain but political opinion.

Meaning that you couldn't hold up a sign with the image of the tshirt on it or you'll get arrested.

If you hold up a sign with a picture of a t-shirt on it, you should be arrested...just sayin'.

Yeah, I'm not down with that aspect of the bill. Since no one would be profiting from the use of the names, I really don't see the problem. If some Dem Congressman or Senator wants to filibuster or some such and read the names of the dead from the podium, he has the right to do so. Ditto someone running for office.

The only way that I could see this being an issue is if the same name was used by a political candidate over and over again without the family's consent and in a way that they didn't approve of (whether they were pro or anti-war). But I would think that they'd be able to take care of that in the court system and not have to drag the legislative branch into the fray.