T shirt is banned in 4 states

Yikes, glad I left.

BTW I left not because of Bush, or Clinton, or any other particular view. I left because I didn't want my kids to grow up in an atmosphere of intolerance. (That & I couldn't afford to buy them handguns)

 

I think banning the sale of these shirts is the right thing to do. It may be infringing on your freedom of speech, however no one ever said that freedom was absolute. As with all freedoms we have here in the country, it comes with boundaries. To have otherwise would be complete anarchy. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there isn't one. That seems to be a commonly accepted boundary on your freedom of speech.

The bad part of this law is its clear political backing. It's worded such that it prevents the use of the soldiers names in a commercial medium, supposedly to protect the families of the dead. It does nothing to stop other forms of profit making from others deaths. Take, for example, all the movies that popped up surrounding 9/11. They didn't use names, but they did depict the actions of thousands of people that were killed or injured that day, most likely without obtaining permission first. How is it right to make a profit from that?

As for the people talking about the Vietnam Memorial - get a clue. Yes, a non-profit organization was created to raise funds to create a memorial (they got something like 8-9 million from donations). However, it was an act of Congress that authorized 3 acres for the site. It was the US National Park Service that was put in charge of the site. The entries for the design of the memorial were hung at an Air Force Base while the team of architects decided which one to pick.

The Memorial, and the idea of a memorial, had the full backing of the government, the military, and the civilian population well before it was built. It followed in the tradition of building memorials to the dead after wars - a very long tradition spanning back thousands of years. The only controversy surrounding the Memorial wasn't in the content (the names) but rather in the architectural design of the site. There really is no comparison between this t-shirt and the Memorial.

 

Ironically, three of the four states that have banned the T-Shirts have Democrat governors.

That would be Arizona, Oklahoma, and Louisiana

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 12 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]460303[/snapback]</div>

This makes sence, I wouldnt want someone using a fallen family members name or picture as an endorsement with out permission. Thats call THEFT and/or misusing anothers ID for the gains of others whether for monitary gains or reconition . It falls under "Identity Theft" / "economic crimes" (thats a CRIME)

As for the others jumping on the Bash the conservitive bandwagon, LOL I find it sad that you look for any excuse to spread your hate.. Yes I said HATE, when your party isnt much different.
But Im hoping the next party does as bad of a job so we can hear you make more excuses......

But then again, dems have been caught back during the questionable elections where even people that had been DEAD for 3 or more yrs were found to have voted.. Hmmmm a little dishonesty there? :huh: :lol:

 

We just keep sliding down that slippery slope. You people are just so willing to give your rights away willynilly it truly amazes me. Just because you don't like what someone says ban it make it illegal. Why not just have a civil argument about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jun 13 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]460754[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow Silver just hit home on this one!!!!! :huh: :mellow:

 

So, it seems a list of names on a memorial is fine, but the same list of names on a shirt is not. If the list has no commentary, how are we to tell if the t shirt-wearer is honouring the dead or protesting? How about a list of names in a cartoon, say like Doonesbury? Is that considered fair political comment?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jun 19 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]464718[/snapback]</div>

Here we go again, :huh: the veitnam memorial is just that a "MEMORIAL" it is not a shirt opposing a goverment action...

The whole t-shirt issue is politically driven anyways..... gawd They just cant leave the polotics out of the picture...

 

Not to mention that the t-shirt is designed to bring profit to the makers, where as the memorial is set up as a public service...

Note that the law being set in place against the t-shirt requires that they obtain permission from the families of the individuals whose names they want on the shirt. It doesn't say that the shirt is illegal.

You see similar action in a wide variety of things - just think of all those movies or TV shows where there's a disclaimer at the beginning "The events depicted here are real, but the names have been changed to protect individual privacy". They have to get permission to depict the persons story, why should it be different for a t-shirt?

Great idea for a t-shirt, if anyone cares. On the front you have a disclaimer similar to what i just wrote, and on the back you list out thousands of names, generated at random representing all the soldiers who were killed. No privacy concerns.

 

Okay then, what about newspapers and TV channels? They report the names of dead soldiers, for profit. Any objection there?

And do they have to get permission? Would I be able to stop myself or a family being named on the news if I felt it was invading my privacy?

What distinguishes the T-shirt from news coverage?

Really, if anyone's seriously worried about war profiteering, it strikes me that T-shirts are not the place to be looking. And there's definitely no privacy concern. The roll call of the military dead is public record.

 

and, of course, you have the ultimate in profiteering:

Rich Guys Running For Public Office

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jun 19 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]464718[/snapback]</div>

Well I can only speak for the Arizona shirt -- The words on the shirt are "Bush lied, they died" superimposed over the list of names. Sounds like a protest. OTOH, so what? Why should the purpose -- so long as it's a legal purpose -- matter?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 19 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]464754[/snapback]</div>

the t-shirt is designed to make a monitary profit to the makers..

The media uses names for ratings / non monitary profit.

Having or making the T-shirt is not illegal. It's the deceptive way of posting false information/ slandering a dead persons name to gain monitary profits or elctorial votes, thats the issue that comes under fire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ozyran @ Jun 12 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]460413[/snapback]</div>

It is only the deep respect that is felt for the fallen that triggers the outrage that some of us feel. If you truly believe that our young soldiers are our finest, and that their lives are being tossed away by those who are among our worst, how is that disrespectful?

 

MarinJohn was pretty right on with his first post regardless of it's connection with the OP's ideas on the topic. Those who fail to see his point of view IMO are fairly ignorant on the subject in which he speaks OR you are simply an ill-informed nice person who doesn't care about the long term success of this country no matter how much BS you spout about how wonderful our soldiers are for doing the job they are paid to do. I have many friends and a brother in the military and I can confirm all of their ignorance on greater issues and roots to civil and global problems. Does this make them bad people? No, it simply makes them ignorant (many of the people I know).

Do your research them come back in here and tell me about how you are so brave because you serve your country in war times so I can run my mouth about my beliefs and how false they are. I chose not to serve because I do not believe in the cause. There is a big difference between bravery in the face of adversity, and ignorant followers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Jun 20 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]465494[/snapback]</div>

And, as was pointed out earlier, no one was forced to serve.

--------

It's amusing how the Right gets all bent out of shape when this form of "freedom of expression" is put into practice...but they have no absolutely no problem with Ann Coulter and others taking advantage of *exactly the same freedom.*

It's *all* hatred. It's *all* hate speech. So, either it's *all* okay, or it *all* isn't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Jun 18 2007, 12:04 AM) [snapback]463803[/snapback]</div>

Wishing you hadn't left; we need all the help we can get.

Hey, get this: I understand that Smith and Wesson is coming out with "my first handgun."

The trigger is smaller and easier to use ---perfect for little fingers!--- and there are both blue/gray and pink/black/silver versions, which are designed specifically to reinforce gender stereotypes.

And...if you order before midnight tonite, we can engrave your child's name (up to eight letters) right on the barrel (choose block letters for him; script for her). Show your child ---and the people (s)he shoots at--- how much you care!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 21 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]465511[/snapback]</div>

Maybe if I was on my own I'd still be happy to fight the good fight right there in the belly of the beast.

Couldn't do that to the kiddos though. Its hard enough growing up in the best of places.

Had to laugh at the other thread suggesting that owing a prius is a political protest -- if only we'd known it was that easy way back when. could have been driving nice cars to stop the war, instead of getting our heads busted by the cops. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Jun 20 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]465325[/snapback]</div>

I may be missing your point,

But no one is twisting our soldiers arms to join the military. I have family and friends that were ready & willing to go to iraq..

As for the left or the rights uses of different freedoms. you have those freedoms from war and people fighting for what they believed in....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 20 2007, 07:19 PM) [snapback]465509[/snapback]</div>

YET.

I AGREE. Freedom of speech should be just that. If you don't agree with something, than don't buy it. I can't stand Ann Coulter so I don't watch her or buy her crap books.

I do agree that the names of the dead soldiers should not be used. Say I was an American who wanted to go to Iraq and believe that we were there for a good reason and agreed with Bush, than I would not want my name in association with an anti-war t-shirt. Just like I'd be pissed if anyone put my name in association with a pro-"Operation Iraqi Freedom" t-shirt.

Since when is this criminal though? If my name is put on a tshirt with something I don't agree on, I don't expect the police to arrest the tshirt maker or lawmakers to pass state bans on this tshirt. I expect to take their asses to Judge Judy.

P.S. Wildkow, is your real name Elizabeth Hasselbeck?