Do you support the law preventing the use of dead soldiers' names and images?

DjaugheOld · July 13th, 2007, 10:17 AM

Thought this would make an interesting poll question.

Quote:

3 lawmakers regret vote on slain-GI bill
House Dems wish they'd considered problems in Ariz. 'T-shirt' measure
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.12.2007

PHOENIX — Several House Democrats are having second thoughts about supporting a law making it a crime to use the names or images of dead soldiers on merchandise sold in Arizona.

"I shouldn't have voted the way I did," House Minority Leader Phil Lopes said. The Tucson Democrat blamed his vote in favor of Senate Bill 1014 on a "senior moment."

Rep. Tom Prezelski, D-Tucson, said he thought problems he originally had with the measure had been fixed. He acknowledged not reading the final version.

And Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, conceded that she wasn't paying attention and was totally unaware of the contents of the bill on which she voted at least twice — once after a proponent of the measure gave a short floor speech explaining the essence of the bill and why he believed it was necessary.

The net result was that the measure passed unanimously.

Sinema said it's possible that if someone had raised an alarm, others might have been alerted to what she said are constitutional problems with the bill.

That, she said, might have resulted in more votes against it — and the possibility that Gov. Janet Napolitano would have refused to sign it into law.

But gubernatorial press aide Jeanine L'Ecuyer said a divided vote would not have resulted in a veto.

"Her concern is for the families who lost someone," L'Ecuyer said.
Asked if Napolitano, a lawyer, believes the measure is unconstitutional, L'Ecuyer's only response was, "The governor signed the bill."

The constitutional question is going to be decided in court. The American Civil Liberties Union is asking a federal judge to void the law, which took effect on May 24 when it was signed by Napolitano. No date has been set for a court hearing.

Backers of the measure acknowledge that it's aimed almost exclusively at Dan Frazier, a Flagstaff business owner who markets several anti-war items.

What has caused all the fuss is a T-shirt with "Bush Lied" on the front and "They Died" on the back, superimposed over the names of more than 3,000 U.S. service members killed in Iraq.

The law makes it a crime, punishable by up to six months in jail, to use a dead soldier's name for commercial purposes without permission of next of kin. Another provision allows relatives to sue to stop production of the items and claim any profits.

Lopes said he really didn't think about the implications of the measure when he voted for the bill, once on April 17 and again on May 21.

"I think it's a free-speech issue," he said. "I wish I hadn't voted that way."
Lopes said he realized his error "about five seconds after he did it," but he acknowledged that he never asked to speak to say he made a mistake or try to correct his vote.

Prezelski noted that he cast the lone vote against the measure when it was considered by the House Committee on Counties, Municipalities and Military Affairs. But he said it appeared there were sufficient changes made by a House-Senate conference committee to make the bill constitutional.

It was only later, after reading the final language, that he realized it still was unacceptable.

"These things slip past us all the time," he said, calling his action "the one vote I regret from the session."

Sinema, in contrast, said she never really focused on the legislation.
"If I had been paying better attention, I would have voted no," she said, adding that the measure got lost among other bills being voted on that day.

Unlike most of the other measures approved that day, however, this one did initiate a short floor speech from Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson.

"I wish we didn't have to have a bill that would stop somebody from using a soldier's image or their name," Paton said during the April 17 vote. "But that's the world we live in today."

dreamcastrocks · July 13th, 2007, 10:27 AM

How does that work in Pat Tillman's case?

DjaugheOld · July 13th, 2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

How does that work in Pat Tillman's case?

Which case is that?

Jersey Girl · July 13th, 2007, 10:32 AM

I find it disappointing that the officials voted on this issue and later said that they really didn't know what they were doing. Way to do your job, people.

D-Dogg · July 13th, 2007, 10:37 AM

I support that law. If it were my child, I would not want their name/image used for someone else's profit without my approval. They are not public figures.

That article is terrible...I don't even understand what the counter-argument is because they don't really outline it. It isn't a free speech issue to use the actual names for profit. He could also just use numbers on his shirt and say Bush Lied, Xthousand Died.

dreamcastrocks · July 13th, 2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djaughe

Which case is that?

Not a case per se, but there are a lot of t-shirts, etc that I see about Tillman all the time. I don't know of the Pat Tillman foundation tries to shut them down, but shortly after his death, his name was placed on tons of products.

Jersey Girl · July 13th, 2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks

Not a case per se, but there are a lot of t-shirts, etc that I see about Tillman all the time. I don't know of the Pat Tillman foundation tries to shut them down, but shortly after his death, his name was placed on tons of products.

True. A lot of people on this site have t-shirts that were designed and purchased by someone (can't remember who) on this site. There was no profit made, but, as the article reads, that would still be illegal.

I think using fallen soldiers for profit is horrible, but I don't think it should be against the law.

DjaugheOld · July 13th, 2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jersey Girl

I find it disappointing that the officials voted on this issue and later said that they really didn't know what they were doing. Way to do your job, people.

Kinda the ongoing theme of the democratic party....J/K!!!!

Rivercard · July 13th, 2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jersey Girl

I think using fallen soldiers for profit is horrible, but I don't think it should be against the law.

Jersey as usual is right on the money. It's unfortunate that when something unpleasant happens there is an immediate call to ban everything related to it. Making a law that effects everybody because one person is abusing a situation (which is what they did here) is almost always a bad thing.

82CardsGrad · July 13th, 2007, 11:09 AM

I didn't vote as I really don't believe it's a decision for me to make... Has anyone asked the actual military and their families how they feel? If so, what are the results???

Linderbee · July 13th, 2007, 11:14 AM

I voted for it. If they get the next of kin's permission, they can still do it. I feel that in the case of a dead soldier, the permission of the next of kin should be had, plain & simple.

Rivercard · July 13th, 2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

Has anyone asked the actual military and their families how they feel? If so, what are the results???

Would their feelings count more than non-military families? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just wondering. Other people die too - should we ban all pictures of all dead people since they could be used for selfish reasons?

This should really be a constitutional issue not an emotional one.

82CardsGrad · July 13th, 2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivercard

Would their feelings count more than non-military families? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just wondering. Other people die too - should we ban all pictures of all dead poeple since they could be used for selfish reasons?

This should really be a constitutional issue not an emotional one.

Seems to me the poll question is directed towards the military...

But, if I had a vote - I would vote against ALL pix of dead people being made public...

Jersey Girl · July 13th, 2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivercard

Would their feelings count more than non-military families? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just wondering. Other people die too - should we ban all pictures of all dead people since they could be used for selfish reasons?

This should really be a constitutional issue not an emotional one.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

People own shirts with John Lennon's photo on them. He's dead. And someone is surely profitting from the sale of these shirts. Should those shirts be banned?

I think laws like this are written so the government can try to make people do what they think is the right thing. But, you can't legislate morals.

Rivercard · July 13th, 2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

Seems to me the poll question is directed towards the military......

Not really. It's regarding legislation that effects all of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

But, if I had a vote - I would vote against ALL pix of dead people being made public...

Think about the overwhelming legal ramifications of that in regards to media, medicine, personal freedoms etc......

Land of the free?????