Oklahoma repeals 1st Amendment

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:45 am

OCmike wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
OCmike wrote: 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.

A moral right, perhaps, but not a legal one unless they can provide some proof that the child gave them the right to do so.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:47 am

Whoever was placed in charge of the decendent's estate would be able to sue on behalf of the estate. In many cases that would be Mom or Dad, in many cases not.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:48 am

OCmike wrote:
RadioFan wrote: 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.

Link me up to one case of a person in question who's dead.

Be sure and lock up before you leave.

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.

Aside from your apparent money should determine law argument ...

Family disputes are exactly why these kind of laws are a bad idea. Good intentions, sure.

Btw, extremely lame of you to go to the "lefty" card.

You guys are the ones who don't want all these pesky lawsuits tieing up the courts, right? Yet, you cheer on idiots who do the exact same thing that you claim you hate -- namely trying to put forth arguably unconstitutional measures, based on the fact that someone is "offended." Only in your case, this time it happens to be from the Right. Pathetic.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:50 am

OCmike wrote:Whoever was placed in charge of the decendent's estate would be able to sue on behalf of the estate. In many cases that would be Mom or Dad, in many cases not.

a 19 year old with an estate? That economic bracket doesn't send their kids to war. Don't you know that?

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:59 am

RadioFan wrote: Link me up to one case of a person in question who's dead.

Took me all of 30 seconds to find one using Yahoo! search:

Spring of 2001. This time, we had a circumstance in which an artist created a charcoal drawing of the Three Stooges and sold them as lithographs and on T-shirts. The likenesses of the Three Stooges were extremely realistic. The owner of the rights in the Three Stooges likeness sued under California law, which prevents the unauthorized use of the deceased person's likeness "on or in products, merchandise, goods or for the purposes of advertising, selling or soliciting purchasers of products merchandise, goods or services". The artist argued, the statute did not apply since the lithographs and T-shirts, which embodied the image, did not constitute an endorsement or sponsorship of a product. The artist also made First Amendment claims, which while the Court found had merit, in this instance, the Court did not agree with the artist.

Btw, extremely lame of you to go to the "lefty" card.

Maybe lame, but with a few exceptions, lefties seem to pull the slippery slope card a lot more than righties.

You guys are the ones who don't want all these pesky lawsuits tieing up the courts, right? Yet, you cheer on idiots who do the exact same thing that you claim you hate -- namely trying to put forth arguably unconstitutional measures, based on the fact that someone is "offended." Only in your case, this time it happens to be from the Right. Pathetic.

This case isn't tying up the courts, it's in the legislature.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:00 am

Mister Bushice wrote:
OCmike wrote:Whoever was placed in charge of the decendent's estate would be able to sue on behalf of the estate. In many cases that would be Mom or Dad, in many cases not.
a 19 year old with an estate? That economic bracket doesn't send their kids to war. Don't you know that?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:05 am

Spring of 2001. This time, we had a circumstance in which an artist created a charcoal drawing of the Three Stooges and sold them as lithographs and on T-shirts. The likenesses of the Three Stooges were extremely realistic. The owner of the rights in the Three Stooges likeness sued under California law, which prevents the unauthorized use of the deceased person's likeness "on or in products, merchandise, goods or for the purposes of advertising, selling or soliciting purchasers of products merchandise, goods or services". The artist argued, the statute did not apply since the lithographs and T-shirts, which embodied the image, did not constitute an endorsement or sponsorship of a product. The artist also made First Amendment claims, which while the Court found had merit, in this instance, the Court did not agree with the artist.

I wonder how much the 3 stooges brand came into play? When you're talking hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year in sales related to an image that is being sold by the rights holder, that's an easy decision.

However in this case we're talking about a single name among 1700 others, none of which clearly or individually stands out as the primary message of the shirt, which was to say "Bush lied". The statement "they died" is not an opinion.

I wonder if he had made a profit off a T shirt that said
"In memory of" if she'd still be bitching? Me thinks this is more political than anything else.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:22 am

I know it's not a perfect example, but he asked for one. :D

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:28 am

OCmike wrote:
RadioFan wrote: Link me up to one case of a person in question who's dead.
Took me all of 30 seconds to find one using Yahoo! search:

Spring of 2001. This time, we had a circumstance in which an artist created a charcoal drawing of the Three Stooges

I said a person who's dead, not a commodity. Nice try, though.

You're right about one thing, the "public" aspect of trying to sell an image or name -- nobody would buy it. Except, in the case of an otherwise unknown soldier, they did, not because he was a commodity, but because of a political message. Totally different thing, Mike. You're searching for copyright infringement. I'm asking for a link to a successful judgement against using a dead person in sales, who isn't a public figure. That is what this issue is about. Especially because it IS a slippery slope issue. What I'd like to know is how this woman in Bokoshe, Okla., even found out about this, and what her real motivations are. It's not like dude has billboards up all over OKC with her son's pic on them.

Is she going to demand that friends of his get "permission" from her before they can blog (on say, myspace, which runs ads) about, say, his funny habit of preferring blondes to brunettes? Even though Mommy Dearest might not "allow" it because her boy is still a virgin?

See whatimsayin?

under California law

That doesn't count. :wink:

This case isn't tying up the courts, it's in the legislature.

Oh, OK.

So the Right ties up the legislature, and the Left ties up the courts. Swell.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:09 am

Btw, anyone who'd like to send a link to the specifics of this alleged Oklahoma law that's due to go into effect in November will get a special prize.

GO!

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:31 pm

HB 2643 (Brown/Wilson): Prohibits the use of names or pictures of service members, either in the military or deceased, in advertising for the sale of goods, etc., unless such person or the survivors of such person gives prior consent for the picture or name to be used. Effective 11-1-06.

http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/

what do I win? :)

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:03 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote: 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..

of course he does you fucking moron.

go back & sell your bullshit at can't-move-on.org; you'll find no shortage of buyers there

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:06 pm

Cuda wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: 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..
of course he does you fucking moron.

Where? All he said was that the guy died. That's not in dispute, except perhaps to idiots like you who probably still think Elvis is alive.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:12 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Cuda wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: 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..
of course he does you fucking moron.
Where? .

all over your mom's back.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:12 pm

Unless the words "They said" appear before the words "Bush Lied", of course.

Maybe cuda inked them in on his T shirt.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:18 pm

^^^ charter member of can't-move-on.org

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:19 pm

^^^ charter member of can't-catch-on.org

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:23 pm

^ :) :)

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:44 pm

Tatseless idea for a shirt.

That said, the soldier died while an employee of he American Taxpayer. Dude fully bought and paid for the use of that name.

Or, reactionary flag-wavers can continue with their stupidity(out of Oklahoma...who woulda thunk it?), and follow this to its logical conclusion, which would make freaking newspapers check with family before publishing news of a soldier's death.

I mean, why stop with trashing just a few Constitutional Rights? That's not the "conservative" way, it would seem. Heck, just check the scoreboard --

"Faith-based intiatives" -- How much public money was given to Jewish, Muslim, or Satanic groups? The establishment of religion is very strongly implied with that one.

This "law"(it's not a law if it conflicts the BoR-btw) abridges the press' right to report national/international news(after all, why does a newspaper print anything? To sell copies and make money).

Ask Cincy Sheehan et. al. about the "Right To Peaceably Assemble."

Now, we're ditching that whole pesky "Free Speech" thing, although the "conservatives" swear that troops in Iraq are "fighting for your freedoms"...one of the silliest things I've heard in a while.

Petition the government for redress of grievance? Nah, it's better4 for the White House to block any attempts by the Justice/State/Any Other Department from investigating rights violations by elected officials.

Secure in our persons...warrants/probable cause SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION...nah, don't need that one, either. W out front told me.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...well, that one sounds good...unless you're Muslim. Toss that whole "speedy trial" on that shitpile, too.

And "states rights" don't even get me started. Gonzales v Oregon made it very clear where our current "conservative"(can't... stop...laughing) stands on states rights...they feel states don't have any.

So, that's about 8 of 10 "inalienable rights" that have become alien in the last 5 years. What's one more?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:57 pm

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:This "law"(it's not a law if it conflicts the BoR-btw) abridges the press' right to report national/international news(after all, why does a newspaper print anything? To sell copies and make money).
Newspapers have no such right.

Now you're going to tell us the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:02 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote: Newspapers have no such right.
Now you're going to tell us the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here?
No, it doesn't. Executive Order 8985 should have told you that.

Not by a longshot. Presidents do not have the authority to unilateraly amend the Constitution.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:10 pm

mvscal wrote: Executive Order 8985

Office of censorship? That was formally abolished in November of 1945. How exactly does that apply to this topic?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:12 pm

mvscal wrote:They don't have to, dumbfuck.

How about you stop trying to speak in riddles and just get to the fucking point?

Dumbfuck.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:14 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:idiots like you who probably still think Elvis is alive.

He is alive, and still playing Vegas.

shutyomouth is Elvis?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:17 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Office of censorship? That was formally abolished in November of 1945.

Executive Order 9631 to be exact.....

How exactly does that apply to this topic?

it doesn't......

what's your point.......

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:20 pm

mvscal wrote:Executive Order 8985 should have told you that.

Every now and then, mvscal says something really fucking stupid, for the sake of...whatever it is he believes in.

But this....this is truly one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read here.

Cicero couldn't be this fucking stupid in a month of sundays.

War Wagon on a Bud Lite and ether binge couldn't even dream of approaching this level of stupid on his worst day.

Holy fuck.

The ONLY reason the press is censord is to assure national security, in the form of strategic secrecy. The ONLY reason this takes precedence over the Bill of Rights(which is still "INALIENABLE"....look up the word in the dictionary, if necessary), is in the interest of national/military security, which serves the greater good(look up the word "greater" if necessary). Passing laws to protect the sensitivities of a few in no way, shape, or form protects the greater good. Therefore, application of EO8985 is not only irrelevant, it's unconstitutional.

Executive orders aren't there for the purpose of abridging rights for political glorification. It's there for stop-gap security/safety issues. This doesn't apply in this case. To invoke this EO in this case is treasonous.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:20 pm

Felix wrote:
How exactly does that apply to this topic?
it doesn't......

what's your point.......

Something along the lines of "mvscal is full of shit"

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:23 pm

Mister Bushice wrote: Something along the lines of "mvscal is full of shit"

So, in a political thread, a member of this board took an opposing stance, and then started calling people names to support his unpopular commentary on the subject?

Wow, I think we're witnessing the dawn of a new era on these boards.

I can't even fathom something so revolutionary.

KatMode · Post by **KatMode** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:31 pm

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 839.1A of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

Any person, firm, or corporation that uses for the purpose of advertising for the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise, or for the solicitation of patronage by any business enterprise, the name, portrait, or picture of any service member of the United States Armed Forces, without having obtained, prior or subsequent to such use, the consent of the person, or, if the person is deceased, without the consent of the surviving spouse, personal representatives, or that of a majority of the adult heirs of the deceased, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This section applies to the name, portrait, or picture of both active duty members as well as former members of the Armed Forces of the United States. Every person convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed one (1) year, or by both said fine and imprisonment.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2006.
Passed the House of Representatives the 14th day of March, 2006. Passed the Senate the 12th day of April, 2006.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/D ... eID=445899

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:34 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Adelpiero wrote:bsmacktard pile on in .............3.....................2.............................1
I take it you're not a fan of the Bill of Rights?
Go ahead and point out the section of the Bill of Rights that permits you to use someone's name to endorse a product without their consent.

Those names are not being used to endorse a product, they are being used as evidence.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
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."
Evidence?!?

Unless Vincent is still alive, the inclusion of his name supports the argument that "they died".

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:23 pm

He's using the names of dead people to make a buck and the lefties cheer him for it. What a bunch of classless losers.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:25 pm

OCmike wrote:He's using the names of dead people to make a buck and the lefties cheer him for it. What a bunch of classless losers.

No different that the NFL using 9-11 victims names during their halftime show.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:28 pm

ChargerMike wrote: does this then mean Dan Rather can't publish complete bullsh!t based on unsubstantiated or flat out bogus sources?

Rather got schooled on a source, but that didn't change that fact that Dubya's record in the reserves is a fucking joke.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:38 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:No different that the NFL using 9-11 victims names during their halftime show.
It's quite a bit different, asshole.

Oh yea, that was done in the context of "rallying round the flag". I guess then it is OK to use the names of innocent victims without their permission.

Right?

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:48 pm

BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:He's using the names of dead people to make a buck and the lefties cheer him for it. What a bunch of classless losers.
No different that the NFL using 9-11 victims names during their halftime show.

You can't see the difference?

* One is honoring the dead, while the other is exploiting it for a buck.
* There was no Atta lied/they died message to accompany the list of names
* There was a press conference well before the superbowl letting everyone know that this was what they were going to do.
* They didn't charge anyone for the halftime show. It was free, dipshit.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:48 pm

mvscal wrote:It was done in the context of a non-partisan tribute to the victims of Islamic aggression.

It was not:

A. Partisan political propaganda

But it was propaganda.

B. A commerical product

An NFL halftime show is not a commercial product? Cool! I guess that means that I can just walk into next year's Super Bowl without a ticket. After all, it is not a commercial product.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:50 pm

The NFL doesn't sell a commodity?

I'm sure you could find plenty of losers who would be "offended" by what the NFL is selling. And I'm not even talking about last year's SB halftime show.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:51 pm

OCmike wrote:
BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:He's using the names of dead people to make a buck and the lefties cheer him for it. What a bunch of classless losers.
No different that the NFL using 9-11 victims names during their halftime show.
You can't see the difference?

* One is honoring the dead, while the other is exploiting it for a buck.

No, they both exploited the dead for a buck. Super Bowl commercial prices out front should have told you that.

* There was no Atta lied/they died message to accompany the list of names

So what?

* There was a press conference well before the superbowl letting everyone know that this was what they were going to do.

So they advertised their commercial product. Wow, who would have ever thunk it?

* They didn't charge anyone for the halftime show. It was free, dipshit.
[/list]

So now Super Bowl halftime shows are free? What fuckin PLANET are you on?

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:56 pm

BSmack wrote: No, they both exploited the dead for a buck. Super Bowl commercial prices out front should have told you that.

You can't see the difference between charging people for the halftime show and charging for commercials?

So they advertised their commercial product. Wow, who would have ever thunk it?

So if someone wanted to complain or opt out, they had the option to do so.

So now Super Bowl halftime shows are free? What fuckin PLANET are you on?

After you're done getting worked on SuperBowl Halftime Shows, are you going to move on to the OKC bombing and the newspapers that were sold for $.25 with the names of the dead in them? Your act is tired.

T1B

Oklahoma repeals 1st Amendment

Re: Oaklahoma repeals 1st Amendment