Slain Soldier's Parents Sue T-Shirt Maker

[Shakespeare]

Source: Associated Press

PHOENIX (April 23) - The parents of a Tennessee soldier killed in Iraq are suing an Arizona online merchant who included their son's name on anti-war shirts that list names of troops killed in the war.

The suit seeks $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages. It also asks that Frazier be permanently barred from using Brandon Read's name.

Frazier's free-speech rights ended when he used Brandon Read's name for profit and any reasonable person would consider Frazier's actions outrageous, said the lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Tennessee.

Read, a 21-year-old member of the Army Reserve, was killed by a roadside bomb while serving in Iraq on Sept. 6, 2004.


Read more: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/slain-soldiers-parents-sue-t-shirt-maker/20080424100409990001

---

The parents will lose this case, as well they should.

[panader0]

1. My opinion FWIW : It isn't about anything but money

[Freedom Train]

61. ..for the T-shirt makers either, it would seem.

They could just give the shirts away for free and render the suit moot. But no, if there's money to be made on selling them...

[Lerkfish]

2. its in the public record, and its not slanderous.

[leftchick]

24. precisely

:hi:

[Cronus Protagonist]

50. I had similar complaints about this image

The people in the pic were upset I was calling attention to their plight to try to end the war and lessen the numbers of war dead. Apparently this was offensive to them. So they threatened to sue me, but I pointed out it was in the NEWSPAPER, on the public record, and I have no commercial interest in it!

http://www.bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=219

(This is not a photoshop job, by the way, this is a real press photograph)

[laylah]

54. What a very sad picture...

how very sad :cry:

[Cronus Protagonist]

60. Yeah. If it had been put on TV in a national news broadcast it would have done wonders

But the people in the pic want the war to continue, so, well, I can understand them wanting to make the loss more important than it really was, but hey, it's just sad all over.

[TomInTib]

3. I have one of those T-Shirts

And I have worn it through airports and had my hand shaken by TSA workers.

Some bitch in Seattle gave me a hard time about it until her supervisor told her to back off. She was threatening to hold me from my flight. Accusing me of "disrespecting" the President. I told her she was wrong, that I simply hated the bastard.

[Juneboarder]

6. Love it!!

[superconnected]

27. hahahahahahahha rofl rofl. Good one!

[depakid]

58. Where can I get one?

[Buzz Clik]

4. Bizarre.

[Irishonly]

5. I Love My T-shirt

I wear it everywhere and I have never been confronted. I know the maker of the shirts has been sued, Is this the same suit that is a few years old?

[Shakespeare]

7. This is a new suit.

I wasn't aware he'd been sued before. He'll win.

[uppityperson]

8. I am sorry for the family. Did you do the polls? Throw out case.

I am sorry for this family, that their son was killed in Iraq. But I do not think this case is worthwhile and should be thrown out. How does this hurt them except to remind them that he is dead, and I don't think they need reminding?

Did you do the poll? I was appalled at how many support the parents, until I did the second one about do you wear political stuff in public and noticed the small percentage voting yes. Sigh.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. If their son's death was publicly announced by the Pentagon, it is a public record. How could the

parents possibly win this?

[bahrbearian]

10. I thought chimpy was going to put an end to Frivolous lawsuits

[Seeking Serenity]

11. I don't think the parents should lose. I think the t-shirt maker is a jerk

for using the dead man's name after the parents had asked him not to.

[haymakeragain]

12. They asked him not to in advance of production?

Either way it doesn't matter. How are they entitled to $10 million?

IMO, they are bitter, as they should be, they trusted the fuckers and got bent over.

[Seeking Serenity]

13. Since the t-shirt maker is ostensibly making a profit from these shirts,

the dead man's family should entitled to a portion of those profits.

This is not a good thing. Do not let your (2d person plural) hostility and opposition to the war cloud your judgment. This is not a tactic we should support.

[haymakeragain]

14. $10 million? How many names are on the shirts?

How many shirts sold? How has this harmed the family again, they didn't get their share? The lawsuit is frivolous. Nothing is clouding my judgement. The family only wants to stop the shirts because they perceive them as anti-war. They don't want to feel like their boy died in vain.

[Seeking Serenity]

15. I think it's clear the shirts are anti-war.

Perhaps the family doesn't want their son's name used to support a cause they don't, or that their son didn't, believe in. I think that's reasonable.

The $10 million figure may be both compensatory and punitive damage demands. The article doesn't delineate between the two.

[northzax]

21. so I could sue

as my uncle's sole heir, to have his name removed from the Vietnam wall? After all, Maya Lin was paid for that, right?

[Seeking Serenity]

33. No, you couldn't.

To make your analogy work, the parents in this case would have to be suing the actual manufacturers of the t-shirts or the guys who are doing the screen printing, who are being paid to provide goods and services. Here, they are suing the man who is selling the shirts to the general public.

Maya Lin was paid to perform a service, to wit, a wall with names etched in.

To make your analogy work, you would have to sue the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, if the DOI was a private entity and was making a profit from the wall, and was putting forth a message via the wall that your uncle's estate would be opposed to and would not want to be associated with.

[haymakeragain]

55. It doesn't make any difference whether it is anti-war or not, it is a fact

in the public domain, he died in the war.

[fasttense]

62. Now, I really don't understand that attitude,

that listing the names of our dead military is somehow unpatriotic. When did this ridiculous idea start? I remember during the Vietnam war the dead rolls were frequently read in church or posted on the church bulletin board (at least the dead from the local area).

Now we have a huge memorial with each of the dead Vietnam warriors listed by name. How is that unpatriotic? I just don't get it.

Honoring the dead who fought for our country even on a T-shirt (which seems to be the only place it is done anymore) should be considered very patriotic.

Or is it more likely that honoring our dead military from the Iraq occupation dishonors the bush (who said the war would be cheap and short). Are people somehow conflating disrespect to a political leader with disrespect to a country? If that were true, then never ending coverage of the Clinton scandal should have also be considered unpatriotic.

[marshall]

20. It's the same situation Yoko Ono is in

Her family's name was used to promote Ben Stein's movie by including a musical clip and including a mention in the credits (which is her argument, since the use of the clip falls within fair use). She doesn't want the public to think the estate endorses the film. By the same token this family doesn't want the public to think the estate of their slain soldier endorses the statement made by the shirt.

[northzax]

22. and she doesn't have a leg to stand on either

if the clip was fair use, then it is perfectly acceptable to cite the owner in the credits, mandatory, actually. Credits are basically the endnotes of a book, right? She can argue that it was inappropriate use, but if it's fair use, you have to cite the source.

[pop goes the weasel]

30. completely different

Copyright covers the works and public images of John Lennon. Ben Stein and his ilk, fierce supporters of private ownership and capitalism that they are, stole the use of Lennon's music. But anyone could make a t-shirt with his name on it, say, as a list of victims of gun violence. That's a matter of public record, not a matter of copyright.

[Tesha]

26. Nonsense. Cite some case law supporting your theory. (NT)

[superconnected]

28. I agree.

I don't support the war, I don't like what I think the parents are up to, but the tee shirt maker is a jerk and profiting off the death of their son.

[Winterblues]

45. What if he donated all receipts to an Anti-War Charity?

What if there were no Profits just publicity costs? Putting Dead GIs on any sort of marker is not a crime especially if the goal is awareness. Prohibiting the publication of name of the American soldiers that lost their lives needlessly is the crime...

[joeglow3]

48. It is still profit.

What he chooses to do with the profits (i.e. donate it to a charity) is a completely separate step.

Note: I am not giving an opinion, but rather letting the CPA in me talk.

[superconnected]

51. This isn't a marker, it's a product.

[Hobarticus]

52. You are absolutely correct...

The t-shirt maker cannot profit off of someone's name, public record or no.

People need to switch to decaf and use their heads.

[Tempest]

16. Doesn't matter what you think

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake said the shirts are political speech and that enforcement of the law's misdemeanor sanction would violate Flagstaff resident Dan Frazier's First Amendment rights.

http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=605121


The parents will lose.

[Seeking Serenity]

17. Well, heaven forfend anyone continue to hold an opinion

once a federal district judge has spoken.

The US Supreme Court spoke in Bush v. Gore. I guess it doesn't matter what I think about that.

[ohio2007]

19. people sue doctors for malpractice all the time.

no reason to change now

[northzax]

23. unfortunately

being a jerk isn't actionable.

[Occulus]

36. Don't know much about law, do ya? n/t

[daleo]

18. It sounds like a SLAPP suit

I think that is the term. I can't see the parents having a hope, given the circumstances. I wonder who is putting up the money for the suit? If it is the parents, they are sadly wasting their money. If it is someone else, you have to wonder about their motives.

[Bozita]

53. Yup, Michael Weiner Savage laid one on our own Symbolman. ... Unsuccessfully!

Who's financing this suit? THAT's the question.

[Orsino]

25. No slander. It's journalism.

Profit doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with free speech.

[HuffleClaw]

29. i wonder who suggested this to them

displacing their grief onto this issue was not likely their idea

they will lose.

[classysassy]

31. Sorry for your lost

but shoudn't you sue the person that sent him over there?

[saigon68]

32. Yes but they are too dense to realize that

They should really be suing Gangster Cheney and the rest of the NEOCON War Criminals

[dflprincess]

49. They may not be dense

They may be trying to cope with the loss of their child by convincing themselves he died for something. I don't understand where they're coming from, but I'm not in their shoes and I do hesitate to slam someone who is grieving.

[Mike Daniels]

34. The damages are a tad excessive but I think they have a right to not want their son's name used

"It's Bush Lied, They Died" that seems to be the issue.

If the parents or son don't feel that Bush lied, then they have a right to not have their son's name attached to that particular message.

OTOH, I suspect there are lots of other parents who disagree with "Bush Lied" in which case why haven't they filed suit as well unless they know they don't have a case?

[Seeking Serenity]

35. For those who support Dan Frazier's position, consider this analogy

and say whether you, honestly, would support this hypothetical t-shirt maker:

An anti-choice fundie collects all of the names of women over the past 30 years who died from complications of legal abortions. He put all those names on a t-shirt to make a political argument against the freedom to choose and sells them, a lot of them, for profit. The family of one of these women sues the seller for infliction of emotional distress, as the family in the real story has done.

Can you honestly say that you would be as supportive of this t-shirt maker as you are now of Dan Frazier? Or, if you are truly honest with yourself, is your support based on rank political expediency, that is, you approve of the political point Frazier is trying to make but you would disapprove of the political statement my hypothetical t-shirt seller is making, rather than a principle that transcends mere politics?

[dropkickpa]

37. Were those women all govenment employees

Who died while working and whose names and manner of death were a matter of public records released by their employer? And was their death directly attributable to their employment? No? Big difference then.

[BigDaddy44]

39. Wow. Really.

So since these people are now "owned" by the federal government, their families have no rights as to how their names are used for profit by a non-government entity?

Is that your position and you're sticking with it?

[northzax]

41. you can't own a name

unless you actually go ahead and try to copywrite it. the tshirt in question simply lists the public record of names of people who's names are part of the public record for a certain thing. I appreciate that it could be distressing to the family to have their son's name associated with dying in a war, but I'm sorry to inform them that he did, in fact, die in that war. It's not libelous, it's a statement of verifiable fact. they aren't using an image, so there are no potential copyright issues.

did they sue the New York Times for publishing his name along with the other casualties? Nightline? the local news?

[dropkickpa]

46. Your example stunk

I just pointed out how there was no comparison between the two. I made no position statement, but feel free to try to say that I did.

[Occulus]

38. What we *want* and how we *feel* isn't the point

What the law says about use of public records is the only relevant item. The parents' outrage- real, or manufactured- is irrelevant.

Aside from that, your example- such as it is- would constitute a public service: informing of the dangers of legal abortions. It is a medical procedure, and some people do have complications, and some people have died. Again, it is a matter of public record.

The parents will lose this suit, as they ought to. Here's to hoping their case gets dismissed with prejudice.

[northzax]

40. if those names are a matter of public record, yes

distasteful as it may be. if the death certificate lists the cause of death as 'botched abortion' or some such thing.

after all, I could make an equivalent shirt with the names of women who died from illegal abortions, right?

once a name enters public record for something, it's fair game.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Exactly right

People are confusing public and private, and form and content. The question is whether the name is public. if it is, then the content is beside the point.

[northzax]

47. no one ever said free speech was pleasant

or commerce for that matter.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. If the information is in the public record, he can do whatever he wants with it

If it's not in the public record, then he cannot. It's really that simple. What the person is arguing has ZERO fucking bearing on it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Confusing public and private

Once your daughter died in a public war, dear family, her name became part of the public record. You can't have it both ways: she died for her country. That means the whole country - including anti-war protesters - "own" a piece of her. It's either a sacrifice, or it's a private matter. It can't be both.

[and-justice-for-all]

56. All they mught get his name removed and an apology..

but they will not be rewarded damages.

[depakid]

57. It's a SLAPP suit

Nothing more.

I hoe the Tennessee courts have some provisions for sanction on frivolous, vexatious suits but something tells me that they likely Don't.

[Thickasabrick]

59. Hasn't someone tried to sue before about this or is this deja vu?