Freedom_User

PHOENIX — A Tennessee couple who lost their son in Iraq want an Arizona merchant to pay more than $40 billion in damages to survivors of soldiers whose names are on the anti-war shirts he is selling online.
A complaint seeking class-action status for the lawsuit by Robin and Michael Read says Dan Frazier of Flagstaff has no right to profit from commercial sale of products that use the dead soldiers' names without permission.
The change, requested Tuesday in federal court in Tennessee, would cover the heirs of all U.S. service members killed in the Middle East since Sept. 11, 2001, and seek $4 billion in compensatory damages and $36.5 billion of punitive damages.
The Reads' original lawsuit named only themselves as plaintiffs and sought $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
Frazier's "Bush lied — They died" T-shirts, sold at his site CarryaBigSticker.com, list Iraq war casualties' names, and Frazier contends he is covered by First Amendment free-speech protections.
"We think it will be clear that this is political expression and not done for profit," said Lee Phillips, Frazier's attorney.
The Reads' amended complaint says Frazier has no right to make a profit from the commercial sale of products using the casualties' names without permission.
Frazier will ask that the lawsuit be transferred to the federal court in Arizona, which has already begun considering his challenge to an Arizona law barring use of slain service members' names for commercial purposes without permission, Phillips said.
A federal judge in Arizona said in a preliminary ruling that a portion of that state's law making violations a misdemeanor crime violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and the press Arizona is among several states that have enacted similar laws.
The Reads' attorney, Frank Santore, said in an e-mail that court rules barred him from comment.



FOXNews.com - Parents of Soldiers Killed in Action Seek $40B From Anti-War Shirt Seller - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News



Should this guy get sued for using the 1st Amendment? I mean, 40 billion is allot of money!

__________________
The feds continually use and twist this simple clause as an excuse to expand their own power - at the expense of our liberty.

"If you shot a ton of pot to the Sun, will it burn up and get everyone high?"

majorhigh

I believe that you have the right to know what your employees names are and if you want to use that name the you have the right. No person that I am aware of has ever been asked if they would like to pay a portion of a soldiers pay, much less asked if they would like to pay for benefits for soldiers. Instead this money is taken from our tax dolars and given out the way our govt. sees it fit to distribute. My point is that the man who chooses to exercise his right to free speach on a tee shirt is also one of the same people who helps pay the salery of the soldiers. People should stop acting like they deserve monetary compensation when they see something they don't agree with this is still America and you are free to find something you do want to focus on.

BigGun1

Contrary to your beliefs American Servicemen and women are not your employees just because you pay taxes. I'm all for freedom of speech unless that speech hurts other people.

Regardless of weather someone who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I served with and knew allot, believed in the war or not they all died doing something they believed in and volunteered for. To use their names and make a profit to spread an antiwar message without the permission of the surviving family members amounts to theft.

The only way this guy should be able to claim free speech is if he individually collected the express written consent of the next of kin.

racin36er

I have to agree with BigGun on this one. Just because our taxes pay Service Men and Women's salaries, doesn't necessarily mean we are their bosses. Although I'd like to agree that this were true, its simply not. We don't have the control over the Military that a boss would have. And again, don't soldiers pay taxes, too? Unless you're talking to a VERY high ranking officer, they would hardly agree they are their own bosses, i would imagine.

I think its just wrong that he didn't ask the next of kin for permission, but I don't think they are going to award $40B for it. He could have to pay the family a portion of what he earned selling the tshirts, but i can't see him having to pay $40B.

__________________

Freedom_User

Yeah, I would have to agree with what everyone has said. The money the guy has made for the shirt, he should give to the families. Not this ridiculous 40 billion. I think the families are still mourning over the deaths of there loved ones. However, I am anti war, and can see where this guy is coming from.

BigGun1

I've got nothing against anyone who's against the war, it's just that what really pissed me off was this guy using everyone's name as shock value to make a political statement. I'd be just as pissed if someone used the names to make an opposite statement.

I'll have to research the site as I'm sure there are probably names I know, just one more thing to trigger my PTSD.

shibshib

Just to clear some points up in this thread... I don't think majorhigh was going to the extent of saying we are their "bosses" or own them or anything just because they pay taxes... however, since they are a part of the government, they are technically "public domain".

Not them as a person, or them as their soul, etc... but their image and their name.

Just as pictures taken by the government are free to be used by public domain... you can also use photos of police/government officials/armed forces.

Maybe calling them our "employees" is a bit too much... but by working for the government, they are--by definition--working for the people, or atleast in the peoples interest.

This means just as you can say with pride, "Those are our soldiers!"... they are "our soldiers" in other ways. And if they die, we are allowed to mourn them even if they are not blood.

This guy selling shirts is making a profit, but that doesn't make what he is doing wrong. They are names of soldiers who died in a war funded by americans. Their names are just as much public domain as their photos are of them doing their job... their government job.

That's just my 2cents... not trying to weigh in on whether I agree with the shirts or not, just trying to smooth out the perspective of a soldier's right to their name.

edit: As for BigGun's comment regarding "shock effect"... I don't know enough about the guy to say whether or not he did it for the money or for the actual "art" of what he believes in...

But just keep in mind how many memorials there are that list soldiers names which are often used to exemplify the casualties of war, and anti-war efforts.

Whether on a wall made of ganite or a shirt made by hanes... its the same message.

sterbo

I wonder how many times the same names listed on these shirts have been listed, prior, on the Obituary pages of newspapers all over the United States.
Or the world even.
How much money have the owners and/or stockholders of those same periodicals made selling those papers. While the % of those sales due to individuals making the purchase solely to identify the names of the deceased is unknown, I doubt that would be a point of contention anyway.
The fact is that there has clearly been income derived. The fact is no one has complained or sued them (to my knowledge).

This suit is without merit.

Does my heart break for the families whose loved ones have died in service to this country? Of course.
Does any one of them have the right to sue because they don't share another's political philosophy? Of course not.

It's called "freedom of speech, or of the press"...

__________________

Buzzby

I'm with you. This is strictly a 1st Amendment issue.

If it weren't, the Ohio concealed-carry licensees should be able to sue the newspapers that listed all of their names, putting their lives and property at serious risk. That's real damage, not just hurt feelings.

__________________

troublemaker_42

A little off-subject, but SD put an end to the list of concealed-carry permit holders being published in the newspaper. Thaty didn't stop the Argus Leader from publishing a list of all current ccw holders immediately before the law took effect, complete with a SEARCHABLE DATABSE allowing one to search for permit holders by city, county, etc. While legal, I thought it was extremely poor judgement on behalf of the paper. For one time in my life, I was glad I was currently ineligible for the permit. Now that I am, I'll conviniently NOT be listed in the database

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?