 Thorne says: Please read the whole story about this. It's a serious 5th amendment issue. Bush already controls most of the media. If not for the internet, one would think all of the US supports this illegal invasion of Iraq. Homeland "security " is spending an inordinate amount of time and money in identifying "anti-war" radical, liberals,(free)speech advocates who happen to be anti-Big Brother etc. etc. It's time to "Be Very Afraid" To lose a loved on in any war is a terrible thing. To lose a loved on in a controversial war is even worse. But to take anger out on people who opposed this war from the beginning, and who continue to work to bring our remaining troops home in one piece, would seem to be a case of misplaced anger.Amen to that. Oh my! "They" will be coming soon... How on earth can they forbid the sales? Isn't free speech supposed to be legal? Grrr! If at any point somebody wants one of these t-shirts and can't get them, then luckily they still have the means to make them themselves.You can get iron-on transfer thingys that you can use to print out things through your computer and iron on to your own t-shirts then! Until they forbid privat-owned computers, printers, software like PhotoShop etc, then they can't shut everybody up! Shhh... don't give them any ideas! They'll have it written into the Constitution in a week! That thought actually struck me while after I posted...  ...while reading it after I posted. Meanwhile, in the Louisiana Senate a SB281 is awaiting a vote that would make unauthorized use of a soldier’s name on goods or clothing grounds for a lawsuit. Violators could be subject to the award of damages similar to those awarded in cases of the wrongful death of an injured person.Amazing ... I don't suppose they'd enforce these laws if the names appeared on a pro-war shirt. Did anyone selling these shirts try the out-route of, "I'm not referring to the President, I'm referring to a bush — you know, a generic plant that sticks in the ground." Rather flammy, but I'd be surprised if noone's done that technique yet. As Ernesto "Che" Guevara said: " Los poderosos pueden matar una, dos o tres rosas, pero jamas conseguiran detener la primavera entera" (The powerful can kill one, two or three roses, but can never restrain all of Spring.) On the other side of the coin, and after reading the whole thing, the proposed law talks about banning "the unauthorized use of a deceased soldier's name or image for a commercial or political purpose" I don't disagree with that. You can wear them all you want. Free speech is OK but is profiting from the death of our soldiers OK too? Personally, I don't think so. If they make no money out of it and just charge to cover the cost, it may be acceptable. Otherwise is sad -and disgusting- seeing people making money that way. The request to ban that sale came from family of deceased soldiers. Don't they have, at least, that right? The case for a clipmarks t-shirt just got stronger I read the whole article, too. As well as the info in the other court case, and the letter written in response. The issue is not whether someone can profit from using these names and images, it's the 5th amandment and a case that would go yet another step toward limiting our rights. "the unauthorized use of a deceased soldier's name or image for a commercial or political purpose""political purpose" has nothing to do with profit by a shirtmaker. This would make it illegal for an individual to wear a name or photo of any deseased soldier. It doesn't even say a soldier killed in wartime. Why should the wearing of such be any less legal than wearing MLK shirts, Elvis, (he's ... Oh yeah, please see my clip entitled : U.S. death toll in Iraq seen spurring anti-war protests Most of these peaceful protesters would be breaking the law, while excorcizing their right to free speach. I am not surprised at this, as we approach the police state that is slowing but surely evolving. The fact that the shirt is true makes it even more disturbing, as any criticism of this worst president in history is being seen as a traitorous act. To speak out against the government without punishment is not only guaranteed by our Constitution but was encouraged by men like Thomas Jefferson, who stated that the people have not only the right but the duty to speak out when they believe the government (and its leader) are wrong. If they prevented from doing so, we are well on our way to tyranny. @Thorne Most of these peaceful protesters would be breaking the law, while excorcizing their right to free speach.Ooh, this get's me very angry!! Getting the MCA 2006 repealed is a top priority or else these folks are literally putting themselves up for prosecution...naaa, I take that back. Prosecution requires Habeus Corpus, which they probably won't get. Oh, well...right? What do we care as long as it isn't US? We often discuss politics and post anti-war and anti-Bush stuff and so on, (some us at least) so we're the people referred to in the MCA 2006, as people with "unpopular political beliefs" who could get themselves in big trouble. That makes US the bad guys you kno... I read 1984 and Animal Farm when I was about 12 years old. Also, Slaughterhouse 5, Catcher in the Rye, A Clockwork Orange...let's see...How about as excellent an anti war statement as I've ever read. "Johnny Got His Gun". (I think I was 13 or 14 by the time I got to that one.) That one's simply amazing. It'll wrench your heart out, and I remember when I realized it was written regarding WWI!! Talk about timeless. (Sad to say) A movie that also made a great impression on me back then was "Soylent Green"... If I were selling those shirts, and someone complained to me about using the name of a family member, I would probably just take a permanent marker and make part of the name illegible on all the remaining stock of shirts. It wouldn't diminish the impact of the shirt, and it would respect the family's wishes (to a point). |
View the Top Clips from December 28, 2006
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
