Judge: Use of Troops' Names Protected

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

Anti-war T-shirts displaying the names of slain American service members are political speech protected by the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a new state law that makes it a misdemeanor to sell items that use names of slain troops without permission of their families.

Flagstaff resident Dan Frazier, who sells the T-shirts with the names of nearly 3,500 troops who died in Iraq and the words "Bush Lied — They Died," had sought the preliminary injunction.

The requirement of getting permission from families amounts to a flat prohibition "given the difficulty and cost of finding, contacting and obtaining consent from the soldiers' numerous representatives," U.S. District Judge Neil Wake wrote.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_re_us/dead_soldiers__names_1

[Massacure]

1. Good. A common sense ruling for once. n/t.

[Purveyor]

2. K&R Kick it up, kick it up! eom

[Rage for Order]

3. Hmmmm.....

I'm okay with this as long as all proceeds from the sale of these items goes to the families of the people named on the items or to a charity of their choosing. However, if someone is making a profit from it other than the family members I'm not in favor of this.

[TheMadMonk]

9. So MLK's family is entitled to a share of any profits...

...eventuating from an event of device (t-shirt) which bears his name or likeness.

Should Charles Manson profit from any treatise on the nature of charismatic psychopaths?

It is publically available information. He (or anyone else) is entitles to print it on any medium whatsoever and sell that "printout" available to those who wish to buy it.

This person, might be "expected" to share his profits on moral grounds, however there is, and should be no requirement that he be made to "share".

If you are having trouble getting your head around this idea, engrave these words on a baseball bat. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now take aim at your head and go for it.

[Rage for Order]

11. The short answer is "Yes"

Try selling your own Elvis memorabilia, or Dale Earnhardt, or John Lennon, or various other people. Maybe the family members need to copyright the name in order for it to be protected: I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but obviously there is a legal means available to keep others from profiting off of someone else's likeness, name, etc.

Bringing Charles Manson into the discussion is a non-starter, unless you're equating troops who died in combat with Charles Manson, which I don't think was your intent.

Finally, I'm not sure why you're so hostile, but to suggest that I should be beaten in the head with a baseball bat because I don't think an outside party should profit from the death of someone they did not know and were in no way related to is, at best, sophomoric.

[uppityperson]

4. k&r

[TheUniverse]

5. How do laws like this even pass?

Do people go to congress with the intention of burning the constitution?

[annabanana]

6. Good to know.. . . .eom

[fasttense]

7. So, there is a judge out there who has heard about freedom of speech.

Too bad the judge is not on the supreme court.

[Marrah_G]

8. Good

If my brother died I would not want his name used to make money and show support for the war by some right wing asshat.

[Dr. Strange]

10. According to this ruling, though,

it could happen. Couldn't it? (That's the way I'm reading it.)

[Orsino]

12. Duh.

If a news story can use the name, a t-shirt sure as hell can.

No one, not even the next-of-kin of the fallen, owns the fact of his or her death.