California AB 585 to ban T-Shirts that Honor/"Exploit" Bush Gulf War deaths and allow lawsuits

[omega minimo]

http://www.cynical-c.com/?cat=5&paged=5
http://www.banshirts.com/t-shirts/court-rules-for-anti-war-t-shirt-maker

California lawmaker wants to curb sales of slain troops' images
http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1789968.html
[email protected]
PUBLISHED SATURDAY, APR. 18, 2009

Assemblyman Mike Duvall's anger was sparked by $18 T-shirts for sale on the Internet. They list 4,058 dead troops as a backdrop to blood-red print reading "Bush Lied" on the front and "They Died" on the back. His legislation may test the limits of free speech, however, in a nation that provides the constitutional right to express even the most crass political statements.

"It certainly raises very forceful constitutional problems," said Vikram Amar, law professor at UC Davis. "The fact that you're selling something does not make it nonpolitical speech."
*****
AB 585 would allow civil suits to be filed by the families of any fallen military member depicted. The Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the bill unanimously this week. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position.

Duvall's wrath was sparked by Internet T-shirt sales by Arizona peace activist Dan Frazier on his Web site, carryabigsticker.com.

Five states already have passed similar laws, but Frazier vows to continue selling his T-shirts "until all the troops have come home from Iraq."
*****
Defended by the American Civil Liberties Union, Frazier won a federal injunction in his home state of Arizona last year to bar enforcement of a law targeting sale of his T-shirts.

Frazier does not abandon his free-speech rights by tacking his anti-war message onto T-shirts, the court found, adding that "it is impossible to separate the political from the commercial aspects."

"My primary intent is to draw attention to the human toll the war has taken," Frazier said. "I think of myself both as an anti-war activist and as an entrepreneur."
*****
Frazier said he has sold about 4,600 anti-war shirts in the past four years, perhaps hundreds to Californians. He donates $1 from each sale to a charity that assists the families of fallen troops, he said.

"The families of the fallen (troops) are as divided about the Iraq war as the rest of the country," Frazier said, adding that some have bought his T-shirt in remembrance of their loved one.

Duvall said his bill would not bar anyone from selling anti-war shirts or making controversial political statements, only from exploiting dead troops to do so.

But Amar, the UC Davis law professor, said that "particular words evoke particular images," so free speech isn't necessarily free if government dictates what words or images can be used.
*****
Darrell Rogers, 62, a Vietnam veteran who lives in Merced, opposes the bill.

"If they can put the names on a plaque on a wall in Washington, D.C., without the permission of parents or relatives," Rogers said, "then who am I to say they can't put it on a T-shirt?"

[Laelth]

1. That shirt is undoubtedly protected, political speech.

And no person has a right to privacy that protects their name. If this law passes, it should be overturned with the first case that comes before the Court.

:dem:

-Laelth

[omega minimo]

3. more detail on the bill. It piggybacks on celebrity "Marilyn Monroe" legislaiton

"It certainly raises very forceful constitutional problems," said Vikram Amar, law professor at UC Davis. "The fact that you're selling something does not make it nonpolitical speech."

Assembly Bill 585 would ban the use of a dead soldier's name, photo, voice or signature for commercial gain unless permission is obtained from the victim's family.

The bill piggybacks onto the state's existing "Marilyn Monroe Law," which bars misappropriation of celebrities' names or images to the financial detriment of their heirs.

AB 585 would allow civil suits to be filed by the families of any fallen military member depicted. The Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the bill unanimously this week. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position.

Duvall's wrath was sparked by Internet T-shirt sales by Arizona peace activist Dan Frazier on his Web site, carryabigsticker.com.

California retailers would be affected by AB 585, but it is not clear how successfully it could be used against Frazier or others who mail goods into the state. Buyers are not targeted.

[Laelth]

4. Interesting. The Marilyn Monroe Law is probably unconstitutional, as well.

Has it ever been challenged?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[omega minimo]

5. Dunno. Smells funny that's for sure. If the shirts sales are exploitation

and buyers are not targeted but families must sue for damages based on "misappropriation of celebrities' names or images to the financial detriment of their heirs........"

... sounds like the families are being exploited here by the Assemblyman.

I understand people may view it different ways, but how is a representation of names like on the memorial walls disrespectful?

IMHO it's more disrespectful that their return trips home have been hidden from public view during Bush Gulf War I and Bush Gulf War II.

He lied. They died. I wouldn't buy the shirt but we ought Never Forget.

[Laelth]

11. Lemme see.

I suppose, under the common law, the family members might have a "false light" defamation case, but, even if they do, what are their damages? How has their economic well-being been hurt by this shirt?

I think it would be a hard case to win. In all likelihood, the person who is sponsoring this bill is just posturing, knowing full well that it will never get passed by the legislature.

:dem:

-Laelth

[damntexdem]

6. I think so. But can law protect names?

The legislature couldn't stop the shirts from being sold; but if the law protects names, could the families still sue?

[Laelth]

10. People always have access to the Courts.

You can sue your neighbor for having a nice smile. The question is not whether you can sue, but whether you can win if you do sue. In this case, the legislature is clearly granting those who sue the power to win, but the Courts could overturn that law if they deem the law unconstitutional. In this case, I suspect the law is unconstitutional, and the Courts will overturn the law.

But who knows? Courts are unpredictable.

:dem:

-Laelth

[dkofos]

2. Another waste of time.

[omega minimo]

7. Thanks for the kick

:kick:

[X_Digger]

8. Gah! If it can appear on a memorial..

it should be able to be used on a shirt. cripes!

[omega minimo]

9. Esp. if the shirt IS a memorial

The leg seems self serving.