The three shirts on this page feature the names of troops killed in Iraq. List of names is preceded by larger text that reads "4,058 U.S. Troops Who Died in Iraq from March 20, 2003 Through April 30, 2008." List of fallen is in alphabetical order. Five states have passed legislation aimed at outlawing the sale of these shirts (Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arizona). Similar legislation has been proposed in Michigan and Maryland. Federal legislation is also pending. The shirts are also the target of a $40 billion class-action lawsuit. We continue to sell these shirts in all 50 states and will do so until the troops come home or they throw us in jail, whichever comes first.
Scroll down for press releases & more info About this product Below is extensive information about the three T-Shirts on this page. The links below will take you to the sections further down the page. What is the history of these shirts? Have you made a lot of money on the shirts? Does any money go to the families? Save free speech. Donate to our Legal Defense Fund ACLU of Arizona Claims Victory with Injunction 9-27-07 ACLU of Arizona files free speech lawsuit 6-28-07 Essay about passage of Arizona legislation 6-14-07 Comments about the families and the fallen. An open letter to the friends and families of the fallen. Press release about pending federal legislation 7-16-06. Free speech should allow using soldiers' names in protests (essay by Dan R. Frazier.) July 2006 Arizona legislator says she and others voted for SB 1014 by mistake 7-10-07 Press Release announcing release of first Bush Lied They Died shirts (MS Word File) 6/24/05 What is the history of these shirts? The "Bush Lied They Died" T-shirt was the first T-shirt ever produced by CarryaBigSticker. It evolved from a bumper sticker that included the names of 500 fallen troops and the words "Bush Lied." In June of 2005, we printed about 100 shirts similar to the Bush Lied They Died shirt shown above (but with only 1,693 names). Over the course of about a year, we sold them all. We were not planning to print more shirts because the first batch sold slowly. We also knew it would be difficult to fit more names on a shirt. In early 2006, at the urging of certain family members who lost loved ones in Iraq, legislators in Oklahoma and Louisiana introduced legislation intended to stop the sale of the shirts. Federal legislation was introduced during the summer of 2006 to outlaw such products nationwide. Thanks to the legislation, stories about the shirts appeared on CNN, Fox-News, NPR, and in the pages of USA Today and many other newspapers. In August of 2006 we decided to print 300 updated shirts partly because of all the media attention that was being paid to the shirts. In less than three months, we sold all of the new shirts we had printed. We have been printing updated shirts every few months since then. Louisiana and Oklahoma eventually both passed laws targeting the shirts. Oklahoma's legislation, HB2643, was signed into law on April 20, 2006. Louisiana's law, HB1304, was signed into law six weeks later. In January of 2007 similar legislation was introduced in Texas, Arizona and Florida. The Texas legislation, SB 277 passed in May 2007 and takes effect in September, 2007. The Florida legislation (Chapter XXXIII, section 540.08) was passed in the summer of 2007. Generally, these laws prohibit using the names of fallen troops on certain types of products for sale without permission from their families. Florida's law goes further, prohibiting the use of anyone's name without permission on certain types of products. We continue to sell the shirts in all of the above states. The Arizona legislation may be the most significant because CarryaBigSticker is based in Arizona, and is subject to Arizona legislation. Like other state legislation, Arizona's legislation SB 1014 aims to prohibit the use of the names of fallen troops in advertising unless permission is first obtained from their families. The bill was signed into law on May 24, 2007 by Governor Janet Napolitano. The bill was an emergency measure and thus took effect immediately. We continue to sell shirts in Arizona despite the new law. The proposed federal legislation would go even further. The bill introduced in the House, HR 269 says, "no person may knowingly use the name or image of a protected individual in connection with any merchandise, retail product, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to connect the protected individual with that individual's service in the armed forces." In May of 2007, the sponsors of HR 269, Congressmen Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La) announced in a press release that the House of Representatives had approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The amendment, Section 582, is similar in its effect to HR 269. The amendment is awaiting a vote in the Senate. On June 28, 2007, the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to have the new Arizona law ruled unconstitutional. Read the press release from the ACLU. Read the text of the lawsuit. In July of 2007 Phoenix Rep. Kyrsten Sinema apologized to the owner of CarryaBigSticker (Dan Frazier) for accidentally voting for SB 1014. She said that at least a few other Arizona legislators also cast mistaken votes. Frazier sent Rep. Sinema's e-mail to the Arizona media. Read more below. On July 19, 2007, lawyers working with the ACLU filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in an effort to temporarily suspend Arizona's new law, SB1014, regulating the the use of the names of fallen troops in connection with the sale of certain types of products. The injunction, if approved, would suspend the enforcement of the new law until the constitutionality of the law can be determined by the courts. The motion was supported by a memorandum and affidavit. Read the press release from the ACLU. On Aug. 23, 2007, Lee Phillips and other lawyers working with the ACLU of Arizona were in U.S. District Court in Phoenix arguing that a preliminary injunction should be granted to suspend the new Arizona law because the law would likely be found unconstitutional if challenged in court. However, the Judge Neil V. Wake indicated it would not be proper to issue an injunction unless there was an imminent threat of the new law being enforced or used against someone. Though CarryaBigSticker has been contacted by police about the new law, and has been repeatedly threatened with lawsuits over the last two years, these threats might not be considered by the judge to be sufficient to grant an injunction. Furthermore, at the court hearing, prosecutors representing the State of Arizona conceded when questioned by the judge that the criminal portion of the new law did not appear to apply to CarryaBigSticker because it did not appear to the prosecutors that CarryaBigSticker was using the names of the fallen in its advertising. The judge also remarked that the civil portion of the new law had exceptions that allowed for the use of names of troops in news accounts and on memorials. The judge said that our T-shirts bearing the names of the fallen might be considered news accounts or memorials. Based on the judge's remarks, the new law may not be applicable to the T-shirts we sell, though it is clear from legislative testimony that the law was intended to stop us from selling them. On Sept. 27, 2007 Judge Wake granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the criminal portion of the new Arizona law. Read the press release from the ACLU below. Or download the judge's 30-page ruling (PDF). In January 2008, Michigan State Senator Mark Schauer co-sponsored SB 983 that would make it illegal to profit from the use of names or images without permission according to an article in the Lansing State Journal. Michigan thus became the sixth state to introduce such legislation. Read Sen. Schauer's Press Release. Also in January 2008, Maryland introduced SB3, which would ban use of names or images of deceased soldiers without permission. In late April of 2008, the parents of the late Sgt. Brandon Michael Read made it known that they had filed a lawsuit against Lifeweaver LLC, the parent company of CarryaBigSticker, seeking $10 million dollars in damages related to the emotional distress caused by these T-shirts. Read the lawsuit. The lawsuit was amended on April 29 to make it a class-action lawsuit seeking $40.5 billion for all the heirs of U.S. troops who have died in the Middle East. Read the amended complaint. Despite the lawsuit, new laws and pending legislation, we continue to sell the shirts because we believe the message is important. Our customers seem to agree. In January 2007, the "Bush Lied They Died" shirt became our fastest-selling product. The most recent version of the shirts features the names of more than 3,000 troops who have died in Iraq (see product description above for current figure). In March of 2007, we introduced two new shirt designs featuring the names of the fallen. One of the new designs said, "Support our Remaining Troops - Bring the Rest Home Alive." The other design said, "If any Question Why we Died, tell Them Because Our Fathers Lied." The latter design is a quotation taken from the writings of Rudyard Kipling. The words were penned in response to World War l, during which Kipling lost a son. Kipling is best known as a writer of children's stories, including a collection called "The Jungle Book," and another called "Just So Stories." With the Bush presidency entering its final phase, we wanted to offer our customers new products that did not focus so much on Bush. We hope to continue selling these new shirts, and other products like them, until all U.S. troops have returned from Iraq. The shirts are printed on 100% cotton fabric that is pre-shrunk. These shirts are made and printed in the U.S. The names are in alphabetical order, with half the names on the front, and the other half on the back. The names are very small, but easily read. Have you made a lot of money
on the shirts? Does any money go to the families? Yes, one dollar from the sale of each shirt is being donated to charitable organizations that assist families of fallen U.S. troops. As of April 2008, we had donated $3,896 to such charities. We do not make the names of the charities public because we recognize that the controversy surrounding these t-shirts could hurt these organizations. These organizations depend on the goodwill of the public and therefore prefer to avoid controversy. However, in legal proceedings we have expressed a willingness to disclose the names of the organizations to a judge. I think of this product as both a scathing indictment of George W. Bush and a memorial to the brave young soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq on behalf of their country. Perhaps someday they will get the memorial they deserve in Washington. Until then, this will have to suffice. Bush is most famous for lying about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was this lie that arguably was most responsible for the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, not to mention tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. But Bush has lied in many other ways as well, from denying global warming to boasting about a "mission accomplished" in Iraq. His lies are legion, and have spawned a cottage industry of books including The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn and Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them by Al Franken. For an article about how the 935 pre-war lies of the Bush administration have now been systematically documented, read this article from the Center for Public Integrity posted on Alternet in January of 2008. Dan Frazier comments on $40.5 billion class-action lawsuit brought by the parents of the late Sgt. Brandon M. Read I learned April 30, 2008 that the lawsuit filed against my company related to the sale of anti-war T-shirts has been amended. Read amended complaint. According to an AP story, the lawsuit that was initially brought by the parents of the late Sgt. Brandon Michael Read is now a class-action lawsuit seeking $40.5 billion in compensation for the heirs of U.S. troops killed in the Middle East since 2001. I have set up a legal defense fund and am soliciting donations to assist with defraying the anticipated cost of my legal defense. I am sure that the pain and suffering the families of the fallen have experienced is incalculable. It would far exceed $40 billion if you could somehow put a dollar value on it. I believe that whatever pain and suffering my T-shirts have caused pales in comparison to the pain and suffering caused by having a loved one killed in a war, especially a controversial war like Iraq. Though I do not feel responsible for what these families are going through, like most other Americans, I do wish I could help to ease their suffering. Unfortunately, neither I nor my company has anywhere near the $40 billion some families are apparently now seeking. Despite the popularity of some of our products, we remain a company deeply mired in debt. But we can and will continue to sell our anti-war T-shirts that list the names of the fallen in an effort raise awareness of the enormous human toll that this war is taking on American families. Perhaps we can play a small part in ending the war so that other families will not have to go through what the parents of Brandon Read are going through. As the class-action lawsuit moves forward, and various families of the fallen have an opportunity to get involved, it will become apparent that the families are far from united in their views of the war, or in their views of the T-shirts we sell. I have heard from a number of family members who are supportive of the T-shirts we sell, and some family members have even bought these shirts. News reports have often failed to mention that in addition to selling a t-shirt that overlays the words "Bush Lied - They Died" on the names of the fallen, we also sell a shirt that overlays the words "Support our Remaining Troops - Bring the Rest Home Alive" on the names of the fallen. Regardless of whether this lawsuit against me is brought by two people or 2,000, or whether it seeks $10 million or $40 billion, the fact remains that the t-shirts we sell are political speech protected by the First Amendment. I am very confident that we will ultimately prevail in court. I am hoping to work with the ACLU of Tennessee on my defense. The ACLU has been very helpful here in Arizona in my effort to overturn the new Arizona law aimed at stopping the sale of my t-shirts (along with the Law Offices of Lee Phillips). However, the ACLU of Tennessee has yet to respond to my written request for assistance. The request was mailed just a few days ago, and it may take a few weeks for the ACLU to respond. As a general matter, the ACLU rarely involves itself in civil litigation between individuals, focusing instead on government-related litigation. If I am not able to work with the ACLU of Tennessee, I will seek private counsel. Ironically, the lawsuit faults me for not getting permission from the families of the fallen before using the names of the fallen on the t-shirts my company sells. Meanwhile, this class-action lawsuit on behalf of the families of the fallen makes clear that no attempt has yet been made to sign up all the legal heirs of the fallen to make them active participants in the lawsuit. Apparently, I have to get permission from family members to sell t-shirts, but it's OK to bring a lawsuit on behalf of family members without getting similar permission. The amended lawsuit compares me to a "mentally-challenged monkey," saying, "Even the aforesaid 'mentally-challenged monkey' should be worried about potential exposure in this amount." For the record, I am not worried. I am however concerned for the reputations of primates everywhere and regret that primates are once again the butt of jokes in a Tennessee legal proceeding. In the original lawsuit and in the amended lawsuit my name is misspelled (Dan Fraser). It should be Dan R. Frazier. To assist in defraying what could be substantial legal expenses related to my defense, I have set up a legal defense fund. Even if I am able to work with the ACLU on my defense, because this is not a case involving the government, there could be attorney's fees and other legal expenses that I will need to pay out of the fund. Those who wish to make a donation may do so on my Web site (below). In the event that donations exceed my legal expenses, any unspent monies will eventually be donated to an organization that benefits families of fallen U.S. troops. Donate to the Dan Frazier Legal Defense Fund As explained above, the Dan Frazier Legal Defense Fund was established on May 1, 2008 in response to a class-action lawsuit brought against Lifeweaver LLC, the parent company of CarryaBigSticker. Dan R. Frazier is the owner of Lifeweaver LLC. The class-action lawsuit was initiated in Tennessee Federal Court by the parents of the late Sgt. Brandon Michael Read. According to news reports, the lawsuit seeks $40 billion in compensation for the heirs of U.S. troops killed in the Middle East since 2001. The compensation is related to the emotional distress caused to families of the fallen by the sale of T-shirts that list the names of the fallen. Money donated to the Dan Frazier Legal Defense Fund will be used to defend Dan R. Frazier and his company, Lifeweaver LLC (parent company of CarryaBigSticker) and employees from lawsuits related to the sale of T-shirts and other merchandise that list the names of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since March of 2003. The fund will be used only to pay attorneys and other costs directly related to defending Dan R. Frazier and his company in court. The fund may also be used to pay damages awarded to plaintiffs by the court in the event that the plaintiffs prevail. Donations will be held until they are needed in a special bank account to be administered by Dan R. Frazier. Donations are NOT tax-deductible and are not refundable. Donated funds that are not needed right away for legal defense purposes will be retained for at least five years. After five years, if it does not appear likely that donated funds will be required to pay legal costs, unspent monies (along with any interest earned) will be donated to an organization that benefits the families of the U.S. troops who have been killed in U.S. wars. The first person to donate a billion dollars will get a free t-shirt. To donate by mail, send your check or money order payable to "Dan Frazier Legal Defense Fund." to P.O. Box 22324, Flagstaff, AZ 86002.
ACLU Wins Major
Victory
ACLU Wins Major
Victory in Challenge to Law Criminalizing Sale of Anti-War
Shirts
ACLU Wins Major
Victory in Challenge to Law Criminalizing Sale of Anti-War
Shirts
9/27/07 “The First Amendment
has emerged victorious from the Arizona Legislature’s illegal
attempt to keep speech about the human costs of the In his 30-page decision
(download
ruling as PDF file), Judge Neil V. Wake of the United
States District Court stated that the law is unconstitutional
and state or local prosecutors cannot use it to initiate criminal
proceedings against
“Messages such as
‘Bush Lied – They Died’ obviously critique the initiation and
administration of the war in Iraq, perhaps the most salient
and hotly debated issue in current American politics,” said
Wake, who dismissed charges by the state that the t-shirts were
commercial in nature and therefore undeserving of constitutional
protections. “The mere fact that Frazier sells the t-shirts
does not transform them into less-protected commercial speech.
The political and commercial dimensions of the speech cannot
be separated because the mode of expression has a cost.” In May, Governor
Janet Napolitano signed into law Senate Bill 1014, which prohibits
the use of the name of any soldier, alive or deceased, on any
item for sale without permission of the soldier or a legal representative.
The law imposes civil and criminal penalties for using the names
of American soldiers and was passed unanimously by both chambers
in the Arizona Legislature. “The state cannot
give anyone a right of commercial exaction for the exercise
of someone else’s First Amendment rights,” added Wake. “The
Nation’s debt to its fallen soldiers may not be paid by giving
their families a toll on free speech. The debt must be paid
in other ways.” One month after
it was passed, police officers in Flagstaff visited Frazier
to notify him that they were preparing a report for the Flagstaff
City Attorney’s Office that could results in criminal charges
under the statute. Similar laws were recently enacted in “This ruling offers
a bit of assurance to me and my family that at least for now
I am not going to be arrested or charged with a crime for simply
exercising my First Amendment rights,” said Frazier. “This
is a small victory for everyone who cares about free speech.
It is also a small victory for everyone who wants to end this
war and bring our men and women in uniform home safely.” Other attorneys on the case were Charles Babbitt and Natalie Jacobs, also with the Law Office of Lee Phillips. The case number is: 07-CV-8040-PCT-NVW. ACLU Files
Free Speech Lawsuit on Behalf of Anti-war T-shirt Maker Essay about
Arizona Legislation The First Amendment to the Constitution says in part, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” Legislators in Arizona take an oath that says in part, “I … solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States…” Our legislators have ignored their oath and let us all down by voting to approve SB 1014, the new law that attempts to make it a crime for me to continue selling T-shirts that include a list of soldiers who have died in Iraq. The shirts also feature a political statement superimposed on the list of names, such as “Bush Lied – They Died.” This new law is not only an attempt to take away my First Amendment rights, but it is also an attempt to take away the rights of every American who wants to make a powerful statement about the war. This decision will be heard around the world, and Arizona politicians will be thought of as a bunch of Bush-loving buffoons. On the eve of Memorial Day weekend, our representatives chose not to remember the fallen, but to sweep the names of the fallen under the carpet, while simultaneously taking away one of the very rights many of the fallen believed they were fighting to defend. Though I am disturbed by the passage of this law, I am heartened by the outpouring of support for free speech that has been evident in letters to the editor. I am also heartened by the Sun editorial that opposed this law and grudgingly supported my right to sell these shirts on free speech grounds. Other newspapers have published similar editorials, either about the Arizona law, or about similar laws that have passed in three other states. One quibble I have about the Sun editorial is that it said, “We have to wonder if lawmakers would have been as eager to ban the use of soldiers’ names if the T-shirts had contained a ‘Support our troops’ message.“ In fact, my company sells three T-shirt designs listing the fallen. One of the newer designs says, “Support our Remaining Troops --Bring the Rest Home Alive.” One person who criticized me in this newspaper accused me of being a “money-grubbing non-patriot.” For the record, I love my country, and most of what it is supposed to stand for, including free speech and the entrepreneurial spirit. One letter writer wrote of my supposed claim that it’s not about the money, calling it “a flat-out lie.” But I have never insisted that this has nothing to do with money. I am both an anti-war activist and an entrepreneur. I would love to be able to give these shirts away, but I can’t afford to. Critics who say I should give the shirts away should buy some shirts to give away. Laws like this one have sometimes been defended as necessary to protect the memories of the fallen. But banning the publication of the names of the fallen hardly preserves their memories. And shouldn’t we be more concerned about protecting the living – our men and women in Iraq? Some say this law will protect the grieving families of the fallen. But what are we doing for the families who have living sons and daughters in harm’s way right now? The truth is that these kinds of laws protect neither the dead nor the living. If they protect anything, it is only the false veneer of patriotism our politicians think they must wear to get re-elected. Those who have pointed to the unanimity of the vote as an indication of its correctness would do well to remember that unanimity is a poor indicator of the rightness of an idea. At one time, nearly everyone agreed the Earth was flat. For a while, the 13 U.S. colonies were unanimous in allowing slavery. There have been four unanimous votes in the U.S. Congress since 2003 to fund the Iraq War. The unanimity of the vote on the T-shirt bill says more about the ignorance and cowardice now so common in our elected representatives than it says about the merits of the bill. You can read more about this controversy on my Web site, where I also sell shirts. Dan R. Frazier Comments about the families and the fallen I want to acknowledge that a number of relatives of fallen soldiers have contacted me to express their displeasure (or disgust) with the products I sell that bear the names of their loved ones. I also have heard from some family members of fallen troops who have expressed support for these products. I admit that I did not contact the families of soldiers to get their permission. This would have been a monumental exercise, and would no doubt have proved impractical given the differing opinions among various family members. Of course, this product is not meant to be a statement on behalf of the families or the fallen soldiers. It is a statement on behalf of those who believe that this war was a tragic and terrible mistake -- and not an innocent mistake. I should also like to point out that many of the soldiers who died in Iraq believed that they were fighting for democracy. Democracy is built in large part on freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects these products, and all such similar examples of free speech. Finally, I would like to express my sincere condolences to all of those who have lost loved ones in this war. No matter what they believed, or which side they were on, those who died will be missed. ------------- An open letter to the friends
& Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about the Bush Lied They Died products my company is selling. I am sorry that I am not able to respond individually to the messages that I am receiving from the friends and families of those troops who have died in Iraq. However, I am reviewing every message and I would like to respond to some of the most common concerns expressed in these e-mails. I am surprised at the outpouring of emotion that has been aroused by these products. For nearly a year and a half, my company sold a large bumper sticker that said "Bush Lied" and included the names of more than 500 fallen U.S. troops. I do not recall receiving a single complaint about that product, which sold-out after I sold a few hundred stickers. I am sorry that some family members and friends of the fallen have been so offended by these products. It was not my intention to offend these family members. Nor did I expect this kind of reaction. Despite all the criticism I have received, I still fail to see how my products change the indisputable fact that these men and women exhibited great bravery on behalf of their country. The statement on the shirt is much more about the president than about the troops. The names of the troops are used to underscore the scale of the human tragedy caused by the president's lies. As it clearly says on my Web site, these products were never intended to be a statement endorsed by the fallen or their families. But I also know that at least some family members would endorse such a statement. And if we could somehow poll the fallen themselves, we might be surprised at how many of them would agree with the statement that these products make. These products are not meant to imply that the cause for which these men and women died was not worthwhile. History may show that these troops did in fact die for a worthy cause. Peace and stability may yet come to Iraq. Only time will tell. These products do not in any way imply that these men and women died for a cause they did not believe in. Much has been made of my failure to get permission from the families before using the names of the fallen. Not only would this have been a monumental endeavor for a small company like mine, but it would be impractical. There would certainly be many cases where the wife said no, but the mother said yes, or vice-versa. All kinds of disagreements would arise between family members. Who would have the final say? A number of people have accused me of trying to "make a buck" off the fallen troops. But it is not clear that I have made much money on these shirts. These shirts were expensive to design and difficult to produce because of the many names involved. I had to substantially discount the first batch of shirts in order to sell them. It is true that I am a business man. I do try to make money so that I can continue my business and feed my family. Usually, that is not a crime. But I am also an anti-war activist. I have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with other concerned citizens holding candles in remembrance of the fallen. I organized educational peace-themed events in my community. I have marched in parades carrying the U.N. flag. Several wives and others have asked me to remove various names from the products. Others have asked me to discontinue selling these products. Despite these requests, I have no plans to remove any names or discontinue any of these products, no matter how many requests I receive. Every name matters, and will be retained to help underscore the horrific loss of life that has been caused by President Bush's rush to war under false pretenses. The more plentiful and impassioned the pleas that I take names off these products, or stop selling them, the more aware I become of the depth of the pain and suffering that has been caused by the lies of President George W. Bush, and the more convinced I am that products like these should be part of the national debate over the merits of this war. Some have said that I should not be degrading the sacrifices of the troops because it is sacrifices like these that enable me to enjoy the freedoms I enjoy, including freedom of speech. First of all, I do not believe that I am degrading anyone's sacrifice. Moreover, if I agree with the idea that throughout history my fellow Americans have fought and died for my freedoms (true enough), why would I be so cowardly as to give up these freedoms? Surely I should be exercising these freedoms, especially when the end result of doing so might be to prevent the deaths of more brave soldiers who may believe that they are fighting for democracy and all that it entails, including free speech. To lose a loved one in any war is a terrible thing. To lose a loved one in a controversial war is even worse. But to take your anger out on people like me 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. We are all American brothers and sisters. My grandfather fought in World War II and was wounded. My father was also in the military. We may not always agree with one another, but I think we can agree that the names of the fallen should be remembered, that telling the truth is important, and that every American has a right to speak their opinion. Dan R. Frazier July 17, 2006
Federal Legislation to Ban Certain Anti-War Merchandise Targets Flagstaff Entrepreneur
Just months after legislators in Louisiana and Oklahoma voted to outlaw the unauthorized use of the names and images of U.S. soldiers on anti-war merchandise, representatives of those two states have separately introduced new legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would outlaw such use on merchandise across the nation.
Dan Frazier,
the owner of CarryaBigSticker, says the legislation directly
targets some of his merchandise. His Flagstaff, Ariz. company
mostly sells anti-war and anti-Bush bumper stickers via the
Internet. In June of 2005, his company introduced a T-shirt
listing the names of about 1,700 U.S. troops who had died in
Iraq. The list of names covers the front and the back of the
shirt. Overlaid on the names of the fallen troops are the words
"Bush Lied," and on the back, "They Died."
The company also sells a similar magnetic vehicle sign
(discontinued).
On July 12
U.S. Rep.
Dan Boren of Oklahoma, a Democrat known for his conservative
leanings, announced
in a
press release that he was introducing
H.R. 5755, prohibiting the unauthorized use of the names
or images of American service men and women.
The U.S. Attorney General is granted the authority to seek an
injunction in federal court against violators.
On July 13 U.S.
Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. of Louisiana and U.S.
Rep.
Geoff Davis of Kentucky, both Republicans, jointly announced
in a
press release that they were introducing H.R. 5772 that
would ban the unauthorized use of a deceased soldier's name
or image for a commercial or political purpose.
The proposed
federal legislation comes in the wake of new laws recently passed
in Oklahoma and Louisiana.
On June 2
Louisiana
Governor Kathleen Blanco signed into law
HB1304
making it a crime
to use the name or likeness of a deceased soldier in advertising
without the permission of the closest living relative. Violation
of the law is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to
a year in prison. 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.
Sharon McLeese and Yvette Burridge,
two mothers whose sons died in Iraq, pushed for the new Louisiana
legislation. Lance Cpl.
Justin D.
McLeese,
and Pfc.
David Paul
Burridge, appear
on the “Bush Lied They Died” merchandise sold by Frazier’s company.
In testimony before a committee of the Louisiana House of Representatives, Burridge specifically mentioned this
merchandise.
Despite the new laws and the pending federal
legislation, Frazier plans to continue selling his controversial
anti-war merchandise. He said he believed it was a free speech
issue and that his merchandise deserved a place in the national
dialogue on the merits of the war.
“I believe I have a moral obligation to do the
right thing here,” said Frazier in a prepared statement. “To
me, the right thing is to continue drawing attention to the
horrific toll this war is taking in terms of the lives lost.
If these legislators really cared about the families of the
troops, they would stop their political posturing and pass legislation
to bring the troops home.” He says he will fight any new legislation in court if necessary. But with his supply of merchandise running low, he may run out of merchandise before the new legislation takes effect. He says his “Bush Lied-They Died” merchandise has sold poorly. He says he is unlikely to produce any more.
RELATED
LINKS:
March 6,
2006
news story from Louisiana.
Oklahoma
Senator Jim Wilson’s April 12
press release about the then-pending Oklahoma bill.
Free Speech Should Allow Using Soldiers’ Names
in Protests
By Dan R. Frazier
Roughly 800 Words, Revised July, 2006
Imagine a black T-shirt with the names of 1,700 fallen U.S.
troops on it. Even in tiny white letters, the partial list of
soldiers killed in Iraq fills most of the front and back of
the shirt. Now imagine, the words “Bush Lied” in giant red letters
superimposed over the list on the front of the shirt. And on
the back, the words, “They Died” in equally large red letters.
My small Flagstaff, Ariz. company, CarryaBigSticker, has been
selling just such a shirt for about a year now. We also sell
a similar magnetic vehicle sign. Unfortunately, these products
have not sold as well as some of my other anti-Bush and anti-war
merchandise. Nonetheless, these two products have helped to
spark a controversy about whether or not such products should
be legal. In fact, Oklahoma and Louisiana recently passed laws
intended to outlaw such products. A third bill is pending in
the Louisiana legislature. Meanwhile, two bills have been introduced
in the U.S. House of Representatives that would effectively
ban such products in all 50 states.
These bills have emerged at the behest of a small group of mothers
of fallen soldiers. These mothers argue that their consent should
be required before their sons’ or daughters’ names are used
on products like mine. Most of thes bills focus on businesses
that use the names or images of fallen soldiers for profit.
But two of the pending bills appear to go further, prohibiting
use on any goods or clothing, even if the item is not being
sold for profit. If these bills become law, they could be used
to stop war protesters like Cindy Sheehan from writing the names
of fallen soldiers on wooden crosses set up to protest the war.
While I am deeply sympathetic to these mothers and their loss,
I do not intend to stop selling the merchandise in question.
In fact, it is such grief as theirs that motivated me to produce
these products. I do not want to see any more mothers or fathers
lose their children to war – especially to a war that was launched
on falsehoods.
I have been surprised by the outrage expressed by some family
members who have written to me about these products. Many have
said that the fallen soldiers they knew and loved would never
have supported the message of my shirts. But my shirts do not
say that the soldiers listed believed Bush lied about the war.
My shirts merely say that Bush lied -- and these people died.
Some people have told me that they support free speech, but
they think consent should be required before the names or likenesses
of fallen soldiers are used on items like those I sell. But
this is much easier said than done, especially when we are talking
about thousands of names. Furthermore, “getting consent” and
“free speech” are mutually exclusive concepts. You can’t have
it both ways.
I have a background as a writer and editor. I know that libel laws could catch up with me if I made demonstrably false statements about living people, especially if such statements hurt their reputations. But I also know that in most states you can’t be held accountable for libeling a dead person, no matter who it is. I could write a newspaper story stating that President John F. Kennedy was a Nazi, and I would not have to get anybody’s consent. Nobody could haul me into court even though the statement is patently false. Why should it be possible to haul me into court for printing my “Bush Lied-They Died” shirts? The soldiers are dead. Legally, I could write a letter to the editor calling them a bunch of communists if I wanted to (I don’t). Furthermore, I have not made any false statements about the soldiers.
How is what I am doing any different from what Atlanta Journal
Constitution cartoonist Mike Luckovich did? He created the word
“WHY?” out of the names of 2,000 fallen soldiers who died in
Iraq. He won a Pulitzer Prize for doing so. The Constitution
sells reprints of the cartoon for up to $290.
Arizona legislator says
she and others voted for T-shirt law by mistake On July 9, 2007 I received an e-mail from Rep. Kyrsten Sinema in which she admits to having voted for the Arizona T-shirt bill (SB 1014) by mistake. She also indicates that other representatives voted for this bill by mistake. She also apologizes for the error. Representative Sinema's e-mail is included below. I am not too surprised to learn of the mistake. I had previously seen Representative Sinema speak in Flagstaff and had thought her to be a fair-minded representative who would be unlikely to vote for a bill like SB 1014. I accept Representative Sinema's apology and I look forward to receiving similar apologies from other representatives who voted for this bill by mistake. The admission of the mistaken votes is important partly because many people have pointed to the unanimity of the vote on the SB 1014 as evidence that this was the proper way to vote. Several legislators have said or implied as much, including Representative Ann Kirkpatrick. In her e-mail Representative Sinema indicates that Rep. Kirkpatrick and other representatives also voted for this bill by mistake. However, Rep. Kirkpatrick had previously contacted my wife and another Flagstaff constituent about this bill and did not indicate that a mistake was made. I had heard good things about Ann Kirkpatrick prior to this vote. Her vote also surprised me. I would be interested to know if it is true that she cast her vote by mistake. Perhaps she then felt the need to justify the vote rather than admit the mistake. I feel it would have been better for her to admit the mistake, if it was a mistake. I and other constituents look forward to a clarification from Ann Kirkpatrick. I am sending this message to interested representatives of the Arizona media because I feel it is important that the public be aware that their legislators are apparently sometimes casting votes for legislation without knowing what that legislation is. Clearly, steps need to be taken to rectify this situation as soon as possible. Below is the text of the message I received from Rep. Sinema: Hi Dan, it is true that there are a number of us who did not intend to vote for this bill, but because of a mistake on our part (the bills were placed on the board out of order and we were not paying close attention), several of us mistakenly voted yes. Those who did so include me, Rep. Lopes, Rep. Prezelski, and Rep. Kirkpatrick. There may also be others as well who were mistaken, although I have only spoken about it with these three members. When talking with (a mutual aquaintance) several weeks ago, I strongly recommended that the ACLU file suit and challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. It appears that they have done so - and I hope that this challenge will protect you at some level. Please accept my apologies for the mistake - I was not paying close attention, we were in the middle of voting about 40 bills, and when I realized it later, I was upset about the mistake. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
