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?
What are the
shirts made of?
Have you made
a lot of money on the shirts?
Does any money
go to the families?
What do you mean,
Bush Lied?
Dan
Frazier comments on $40 billion
class-action lawsuit brought by parents
of Brandon M. Read 5-1-08
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
Press
Release about proposed Texas law outlawing the unauthorized
use of names. (MS Word file) 1-1-07
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.
What are the shirts made
of?
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?
No. Much of the first batch of shirts was sold at a deep
discount. The shirts were complex to design and expensive to
produce. The cost of the shirts has been kept low to encourage
sales and spread the important message. Keep in mind that the
price includes shipping and a donation to charity. Also, due
to the legislation targeting this product, there will likely
be legal expenses associated with selling this product. Nobody
is getting rich here. I am more deeply in debt now than when
I started my business in 2002.
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.
What do you mean, Bush Lied?
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
–
In a victory for free speech, a federal judge
today issued a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement
of an Arizona law that makes it a crime to sell anti-war t-shirts
in Arizona. The landmark decision in this closely-watched lawsuit
held that the misguided law is a content-based restriction on
political speech that violates the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment
has emerged victorious from the Arizona Legislature’s illegal
attempt to keep speech about the human costs of the
Iraq
war out of the public discourse,” said Dan Pochoda, Legal Director
of the ACLU of Arizona, which filed a lawsuit on June 28th
challenging the law. ACLU of Arizona Cooperating Attorney Lee
Phillips was lead counsel on the case.
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
Flagstaff
activist Dan R. Frazier, who owns and operates a Web site,
www.CarryaBigSticker.com,
where he sells three different types of t-shirts featuring anti-war
messages.
“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
Florida
,
Louisiana
,
Oklahoma
and
Texas
. Although today’s decision only involves a challenge to the
Arizona
law, the First Amendment analysis would apply to similar enactments
by other states or the federal government.
“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
Press Release - June 28, 2007
PHOENIX, AZ - The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
today filed a
lawsuit in federal court, charging that a recently-enacted
Arizona state law criminalizing the sale of anti-war t-shirts
violates the First Amendment.
At issue is
Senate Bill 1014 which prohibits the use of the name
of any solider, alive or deceased, on any item for sale without
permission of the soldier or a legal representative. The law,
which was passed unanimously by both chambers in the Arizona
Legislature, was specifically intended to prevent Flagstaff
activist Dan R. Frazier from selling t-shirts featuring the
names of the troops who died in Iraq. Governor Janet Napolitano
signed the bill into law on May 21, 2007 as an "emergency measure
that is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety."
"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," said Frazier, 41, who has sold 2,200 anti-war t-shirts
over the past two years. "A vote in support of this law was
a vote to sweep the names of the fallen under the carpet and
simultaneously take away one of the very rights many of the
soldiers believed they were fighting to defend."
Frazier, a former newspaper editor and writer, has been selling
bumper stickers and t-shirts with political slogans for four
years through his on-line store www.carryabigsticker.com. Frazier
sells three anti-war t-shirts that list the names of the deceased
soldiers, including one with the phrase: "Bush Lied . They Died"
and one stating "Support our Remaining Troops ... Bring the
Rest Home Alive." He donates $1 from all of the anti-war shirts
to an organization that benefits families of the fallen soldiers,
and has been doing so since the t-shirts were first manufactured.
"These t-shirts, like many of Frazier's products, are designed
and sold to prominently display an anti-war message and to have
this message reach the public and contribute to the public debate
over the war in Iraq," wrote ACLU of Arizona cooperating attorney
Lee Phillips, an attorney from Flagstaff who is serving as lead
counsel in the litigation.
In its lawsuit, the ACLU points out that the names of soldiers
killed in Iraq are already matters of public record and can
be accessed by private citizens in numerous ways. By requiring
Frazier to seek permission from family members to print the
names of the soldiers, and carving out exemptions for art, books
or films, the legislation is targeting him on the basis of the
anti-war content of his message. As noted in the lawsuit, the
t-shirts are produced and bought because of the political message
that is in bold and large letters on the shirt, and not because
of the newsprint-size name of any one of the almost 3,500 soldiers.
"This was an attempt by elected officials to stifle fundamental
rights of political speech, and to keep the expression of sentiments
that personalize the damage done by the war in Iraq out of the
public discourse," said Daniel Pochoda, Legal Director of the
ACLU of Arizona. "The fact that the shirts are for sale is immaterial
to free speech protections outlined in the Bill of Rights, especially
since the very purpose of selling the t-shirts is to change
policies related to the Iraq war."
In addition to Phillips and Pochoda, attorneys Charles Babbitt
and Natalie Jacobs, of the Law Office of Lee Phillips, also
are serving as counsel in this case. The lawsuit, Frazier vs.
Boomsma et al., was filed today in federal district court in
Phoenix. The case number is: CV07-1274.
Essay about
Arizona Legislation
Published June 14 2007, Arizona Daily Sun
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
&
families of the fallen
(revised April 16, 2007)
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 April 20 Oklahoma
Governor
Brad Henry,
a Democrat, signed into law
HB2643,
creating penalties for the commercial use of a soldier's name
or likeness without consent from the soldier or the soldier's
family. Violation of the law is punishable by a fine of
up to $1,000 or up to one year in prison. The law was the result
of lobbying efforts by the mother of the late Cpl.
Scott Michael Vincent, whose name appears on Frazier's merchandise.
Vincent’s family also contacted Rep. Boren requesting federal
legislation. The Oklahoma law is set to take effect Nov. 1,
2006.
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.
We really can’t know
what our fallen soldiers would say about anti-war products and
protests if they could speak from beyond the grave. We may know
what they said before they died, but can we really know what
they were thinking at the moment they breathed their last breaths?
What we do know for sure is that every soldier who has voluntarily
served this country has been brave, especially in a time of
war. We also know that many soldiers who have served have believed
they were protecting the rights and liberties their country
stands for, including freedom of speech. We do them a terrible
disservice when we take away these liberties, particularly when
we say we are doing it for their sake.
---------------------------------
Arizona legislator says
she and others voted for T-shirt law by mistake
Posted July 10, 2007
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.