|
5
Nerd-Its
|
|
poll
by | Yes | |
| No | |
| Not sure | |
| Let the courts decide |
Add a Comment (28)
Email This
Message Author
What ever happened to common sense and respect? If I see one being displayed in poor taste, I will extended my 1st amendment right in the form of a t-shirt removal exercise. If that fallen soldier died in my defense, I hope the hell as a true American, I can have the courage to come to that fallen soldiers aid.
This way the courts can make two decisions for the price of one!
What ever happened to common sense and respect?
1) I think the notion of "common sense" is a myth.
2) However, the idea of common sense, whereby there is a shared, mutually understood decorum by which persons conduct their selves is valid. And your comment led me back to something I (surprisingly) heard on TV (by whom and on which station, I can not remember): People are unable to govern themselves. This is not a new concept by any means. Some say that it is for that exact purpose that the Electoral College was instituted: to buffer the will of the people.
My point is that scenarios, like the one described above, call into question the abilities of some to govern themselves.
Also, this scenario elicits some question a) how do people have order without government? and b) how quickly can I set up a Cafe Press account?
My answer was also "No".
But after further consideration, I do not think it should be explicitly illegal.
There was a time in Western societies when no one would have done such a thing because the social ramifications would have meant total ostracization and embarrassment for the offender and his or her family: this is perhaps the softest of what Louis Althusser called Repressive State Apparatuses. RSAs keep individual members of a society in check by invoking shame or (in some religious corners) the threat of damnation when that individual goes against prevailing ideology.
Of course going against prevailing ideologies helped end segregation (to some degree) and slavery, aided in establishing women's suffrage; surely other moments of Good remain unmentioned here, but have been born from 'going against the grain'.
However, the trend of rebelling against these invisible and undocumented social institutions governing U.S. society brings with it those who would rebel against the more helpful aspects of our ideology: for instance, considering unacceptable the notion of profiting off of a soldier's death.
a) how do people have order without government?
I think you've sort of answered your question in each of your posts... common sense and social pressure. Before we had mass government, mass religion, and even "masses" at all, people lived in relatively small groups (practically extended families)... So, people were able to govern themselves and each other with the help of a few traditions and a lot of good people skills, but no need for permanent leadership or institutionalized government. Those who wouldn't or couldn't get along were simply excluded until they could get along, or until they found someplace else to live.
This sort of thing kept people reasonable and responsible, but also fairly free. Now, with our political groups numbering in the hundreds of millions, keeping everyone on the same page seems to require some form of government. We also have a problem because individual freedom is prized so much that responsibility is almost totally forgotten, and it's easy to get away with being irresponsible or disrespectful because you can just disappear into the crowd.
One has to remember - that such an action would also prohibit an organization from the doing the same thing to raise both awareness of the issues and to raise funds for donating to VA facilities or organizations like the Fisher House.
Big difference between raising funds to help soldiers and there families, and some tasteless anti-war propaganda bullshit without the families permission. Yes, you can have one without the other! This New Age is so afraid of stepping on some poor shit heads rights! Men who died in all of the war's defending this Nation are turning in they graves!
you can have one without the other!
Easy to say, but just how would you go about it? Require that the soldier's survivors approve any use of the name? Perhaps give the government the approval authority?
Just who gets to decide what's permissible? The person we want to give approval can't... he's dead.
Yes, there is a difference of personal intent. But ultimately, that doesn't matter. Suppressing things simply because it offends a segment of the population is the making of a one-sided totalitarian society. It always starts all well and good until somebody with power decides "their way" is the only way. Suddenly, rebellion, resistance and freedom becomes a valid rally cry again.
The very thing that makes our nation great is the very thing that makes it possible for the unscrupulous to get under our skin and irritate us. But if we take away that greatness of freedom by choosing tout a majority opinion of righteousness, we grow one step closer to the very type of society we despise. The very type of society that these men died to prevent.
Yes, there are some head-in-the-sky politically-correct knuckleheads that live and breathe for making sure everyone is comfortable and not offended by anything/anyone. And there are people out there that will exploit every aspect of their freedom to maximize their own personal gain, no matter how crass and poisonous their behavior may be. The high road, however, is not one of choosing sides and demanding conformity. The high road is recognizing the consequences of freedom, being the better person for not succumbing to rights suppression and embracing the same freedom granted to you and crushing the perceived indignity by producing a better product that puts him out of business.
Which leads to an interesting question. Part of the outrage is that the soldier's name is being used to promote an anti-war cause, etc. etc. One argument is that the majority finds it an atrociously uncouth to use that name for such a cause. BUT, building on the notion that the morally acceptable T-shirt would put him out of business - would it? IF the shirt [his] sold wildly does that not indicate the majority actually favors the message, in which case as other posters have commented, the soldier continues to fight for peace and awareness even in death. Just something to think about.
You never know, one day there may be something you are trying to say/oppose/voice that is being suppressed as illegal, unpatriotic and treasonous.
This is an interesting question for me, because I don't believe the US should have gone into Iraq and I don't like Bush much either, but I'm flat out against putting fallen soldier's names on T-shirts as a political tool--that's just disrespectful. It's like these commercials I see all the time for "9/11 memorial coins"--they're gold with a folding image of the world trade center, supposedly minted from actual silver from the vaults at ground zero. Every time I see it it makes me sick and I want to throw something heavy through my television.
I can't fathom the mind(s) who would seek to profit from death and horror. That's no different than actually causing the death and horror.
As long as the person who has responsibility for the fallen soldier's body and property signs a release, it's really no different from anyone else's name being used anywhere. Otherwise, the marketing source could be sued for slander.... No?
This question is loaded and as such muddles our decisions. The question posted is whether our free speech should be limited on the premises that our speech may in some way offend someone. We are Americans here. We fought a bloody battle to ensure this bill of right. So I say heck yeah this should be legal.
Yes I'm offended by this and yes I believe it shouldn't be happening, however I do not believe in opening Pandora's box and giving the government the power to censor our speech in this manner. Where will it stop? Proselyting missionaries may offend some people or dissenting comments against public schools or government on blogs may offend... Were do we draw the line when we start talking about our feelings becoming the rule of law. Just go to China if you want live under controlled speech.
Yes our culture and values have changed since the inception of this great country by our founding fathers. But that is more of a reflection on the degrading values.
There maybe a catch 22 here. Does anyone know the statue on trade marks as it relates using names for profit?
Example: Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hillfiger etc...
Depending on the wording and interpretation on this law, I could see this law suit swinging either way.
If someone rapes and kills your wife and four year old child, do you just sit back and let the courts handle it, or would you take matters into your own hands if given the chance? Point is, these soldiers are our family. Do two wrongs make a right? No, but there is more than one kind of justice. Sometimes, you just have to stand up for the victims. If they are dead, they can't stand up for there selfs. Cut the crap, you know whats right! If you can't stand up for our dead soldiers, because of the so called big picture, you need to search your sole and wonder about your freedom!
I get the emotional aspect here. If someone raped or killed my wife and or child I would do something about it. Though I still would expect there to be consequences for my actions.
Besides, your comparing something illegal to something that is legal but insensitive.
Ok, I have to call foul, here.
I think your attitude is no better than that of the hypothetical "profiteer" posited by the question. You've chosen to take enormous offense on behalf of someone you know virtually nothing about. But it suits your pro-war, conservative ideology, so you spin it for all it's worth.
Perhaps this soldier was himself very much against the war and would have entirely agreed with the sentiment expressed by the t-shirt. What would be wrong with the use in that case?
What you're doing here is trying to whip up some sort of conservative, "anti-hippie", knee-jerk response. Sorry, but I don't buy it. The war in question is, in my opinion, a criminal act against the American people, perpetrated by the Bush administration. I don't see it as being substantially different than when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. They were trying to pull off a political agenda that, if successful, would have put the neo-conservatives in firm control of the government for a long time. The soldiers who died in the war had their lives thrown away by a government that cared nothing for them.
I support the troops. I've got a great deal of respect for the military - I've worked with them, and I have more than the average man-on-the-street's familiarity with them. They were treated poorly by the administration, and give them credit for trying to do the best they can when dealt a crappy hand. I don't want the soldiers to go through what the Vietnam veterans did - they were unfairly blamed for a war that wasn't their fault.
The blame here has to rest fully on the Bush government, and if using the names of their victims - the soldiers - can help people express their anti-war sentiments, then I've got no problem with it at all. It's honoring the name of the fallen, not debasing it.
Trying to spin this as an "look what the evil liberals are doing" is just as disgusting as the image you're trying to portray of the evil profiteer saying "look, I can make a quick buck off this dead guy."
Man did you ever get a wrong number! I never mention liberals, If only that damn Bush had not of blown up those towers. I am glad you have flown you true colors. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one is more anti-war than the soldier's and there families. You think the officer's and family don't hurt and don't want these damn war's to end. Somethings are understood and don't have to be stated, so I'll close. You go make you profit of the one's who granted your freedom, after all that's why they die.
your not you, off not of, damn public schools :)
I never mention liberals, If only that damn Bush had not of blown up those towers. I am glad you have flown you true colors.
I don't think my colors have ever been in question. I've been pretty clear that I think Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever.
Bush didn't blow up the towers, but neither did Hussein. Bush did lie to convince the American people to wage war on Iraq, though. You don't have to mention liberals for your pro-war stance to show your conservative colors - extreme right-wing conservatives are the only ones left who still think this war is a good idea.
If the sentiment on the t-shirt coincided with your own feelings, you wouldn't be railing against the use of the soldier's name. But it doesn't, so you're pretending outrage at this "abuse" of the soldier's memory when you're really just trotting out the usual conservative pro-war bullshit.
The reason I voted "yes" is only because I disagree with this useless war. There have been so many soldiers bludgeoned, but yet hearing about it every day desensitizes who we are losing and the great men and women we have lost. I feel if we place a name on t-shirts or handouts it gives a much more personal realization to whats happening, rather than a label. If I lost someone to this war, I would feel proud to see that their name has been printed on a shirt or handout. And so their legacy continues in a sense.
It should not make a difference whether the t-shirts were produced for profit. The much acclaimed common sense would dictate that the same decision ought to be applied regardless of any t-shirt maker's ulterior motive.
Just for argument's sake, let's say some extremely rich person of certain political views decides to manufacture the infamous t-shirts and give them away for free (or for free plus S&H of $7.99 per t-shirt). How is this different? Why shouldn't the parents get pissed and sue again? Someone has to manufacture the t-shirts anyway...
Ok, how about if one creates one's own design with the same text and get it printed at the local mall? Or maybe get 100 liberal, pot-smoking, obviously profoundly unAmerican folks to order the same t-shirt at the local mall? Should the parents sue? Should they sue the manufacturer, or the design provider?
How about if the controversial manufacturer is in fact an independent or even republican-leaning, yet very astute businessman? (and don't give me the crap with "a true republican is so patriotic that he/she will never... just like a true republican obviously cannot be gay") After all, controversy is free publicity, right? Said businessman would probably print t-shirts for both sides of the political spectrum, because there is nothing better for the t-shirt business than two sides who hate each other.
To end this, it always puzzled me that some folk (of either political conviction) would be so arrogant to believe that they are obviously right on most of the issues and the "other" side has nothing valuable to add to the conversation. Human perception at work, right?
RSS
Not Sure by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 April 2008
When I say "not sure" I mean legally. Well, duh! Personally, I think that unless the shirt or handout is in memoriam and a-political, putting a fallen soldier's name on it is simply tasteless. Legally, I am inclined to say it should be allowed ... but there are nuances to likeness and maybe privacy rights that I don't fully understand. Having said that, I would rather err on the side of free speech, even for (especially for, really) douchebags making a cheap political point by using the names of their betters as a political bludgeon.
RE: Not Sure by milhous :: NR6 :: on 28 April 2008
my question for you is a question, not an accusation as I'm trying to generate opinions here: So if you had a brother who died in Iraq and some dude made $10 million off a t-shirt that had your brother's name on it (along with other names), would you be upset?
Personally, I think more people are upset that someone made $10 million and want to recoup some of that just because they think they have a legit case, than they are physically/mentally upset, but I don't know because I'm not in their shoes.
Another Stroke of Automatic Ads by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 28 April 2008
When I loaded this page up ... this was one of the ads AdSense decided to post: "Will Kill for Oil t-shirt Leftwing and Libertarian T-Shirts Many Designs, or Design Your Own" (Note: I'm not including the link ... if it shows up again, then so be it).
RE: Not Sure by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 28 April 2008
if you had a brother who died in Iraq and some dude made $10 million off a t-shirt that had your brother's name on it (along with other names), would you be upset?
Upset? Yes, absolutely. Would I sue? No, because my brother would have died for this douchebag's freedom of speech. I might beat the frak out of him in a dark alley, but I would do so with a lot of love, like a good American.
RE: Not Sure by milhous :: NR6 :: on 29 April 2008
I like the response.....so after all that, you would still vote "not sure" or would it be safe to say it is a "no" for you?
RE: Not Sure by milhous :: NR6 :: on 29 April 2008
I mean, "yes" it should be legal?
RE: Not Sure by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 29 April 2008
Yes, it should be legal.