Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "false light" as it pertains to the use of someone's name or likeness for commercial gain.

It absolutely is an invasion of privacy issue.

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p04.html

That said, such a claim is a civil tort, and the government should not be able to assert prior restraint to prevent the use of such a name.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

How does this put the dead soldier in a false light? And how will the soldier sue if he's dead? From what I understand, it just puts a soldier on a shirt in the light that he died. And if the soldier really died, how is that a false light? The rep in this article argued a different way:

I guess any anti-Bush movie with any profits should now be illegal, eh?

So how does it place the soldier in a false light?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

ok, then its unethical to use someones name, let alone DECEASED someone, to fill your fucking bank account.

__________________

Maybe so, but that is irrelevant. We are discussing the BANNING of this, not the LISTING AS UNETHICAL of it.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Actually, it is a case of misappropriation:

Misappropriation

The use of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes without consent is misappropriation. The law protects an individual from being exploited by others for their exclusive benefit. A person's entire name need not be used. If the person could reasonably be identified, the misappropriation claim probably will be valid.11

Use of a photograph to illustrate a newsworthy story is not misappropriation. Even if a photo is used to sell a magazine on a newsstand, courts usually will not consider that a trade or commercial purpose. The line between news and commercial use is not always clear, however, and even photographs used to illustrate an article may create liability for misappropriation if the article is considered to have an overriding commercial purpose.12

__________________

Unethical AND illegal.

See my previous post.

__________________

Link?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

sorry. here you go: Handbook: Invasion of Privacy: Misappropriation

__________________

I hardly think disallowing someone to commercially use your name to sell something - is "banning free speech"

If the use of the name is intended as an anti-war message, and that person did not hold that view, then it is portrayal in false light.

Pro-Bush or anti-Bush is irrelevant. Commercial speech has always been subject to restrictions that non-commercial speech is exempt from.

Your guess is both incorrect and silly, but you are entitled to be both if you please.

Any way you cut it, though, both the false light and misappropriation complaints are civil torts. Passing a law preventing the sales of these shirts would seem to be over-reaching, since there is already a remedy at law for the problem.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I have to say, I definitely disagree with that law. What if two people share the same name? Can one prevent the other from using it?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Are those dead soldiers anti-war? And how can it be portrayal in a false light unless it says "these soldiers oppose the war:..." ? If it just says they died, I don't think that portrays them as anti-war.Why is that?Why is that? If the movie is making a profit, are you saying it loses its first amendment abilities?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

If it implies that the soldiers oppose the war, then it is casting a false light.

You seem to be repeatedly ignoring the point that these are civil torts, and that while the t-shirt proprietor might well be liable in civil court, this does not preclude them producing the shirts.

The legislation proposed is prior restraint, and that is a vary tough hurdle to get over in court.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I don't understand where you want to go with this arguement. Matt has said several times that he thinks the passage of the law was wrong...he agrees with you.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I don't see it that way. I see it as dead soldiers being listed to point out that the war is bad, not to say "they oppose it." I think you're making a leap, here.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.