George Bush is a public figure; these deceased soldiers are not. The rules are different for public figures, especially government officials (Doug, please correct me if I am wrong; this is my understanding from what I learned from a busniess law class I took some time back).

My guess would be nothing. Why, because none of the families would have complained.

You’re correct. After reading my last statement, I was conflating issues. I agree that this is protected speech. But, does he have the right to use deceased soldiers names without consent of the estate? AZ law now says no. AZ is not banning this guy from making the t-shirts, they are not banning him from using deceased soldiers’ names. AZ is saying that he has to ask the families of the deceased for permission to use the deceased’s name. He can print the names of those for whom receives consent.

As offensive as it is, its clearly political speech. What if this was a close up of the Vietnam memorial ?

You’re right this was not illegal. It now is. So now the question is: “Is this new law unconstitutional?” I don’t think it is. I do not see this as being protected speech. If this was a artist’s rendering of soldiers, that would be one thing. I do not think that this guy’s right to free speech trumps the families rights to not have their names associated with a political message that they do not agree with. To me, it’s the same as the case about non-union employees being forced to pay the unions money that can be used for supporting candidates that the non-union members do not support.

You may be right, but it’s my understanding with respect to privacy laws here in Virginia that any right to assert a violation ceases to exist when the person dies. A claim like this cannot be asserted by the family or the deceased person’s estate.

Assuming this is also true in Arizona, then, legally, this is perfectly acceptable.

Again, I think it’s sleazy but its not illegal

A politically oriented t-shirt using private individuals names is none of those things.

Reportage, documentary, and parody are clearly protected, but most fictional depictions (episodic television, movies, novels etc..) are not; this is established law in this country.

I would say that Souveneirs would fall into the unprotected classes of speech.

If it was Arnold Schwarzenegger or Paris Hiltons name being used on the shirt, they would sue, and they would win. How is this any different?

The only way I can see them legitimately and successfully defending themselves is by saying either that a t-shirt counts as reportage of events… and honestly that’s not going to stand up… or that by dying in a well publicized war, that these servicemen have become “public personages” (which has never been a well defined thing by the way).

I don’t know about their names being used without permission by politicians, media outlets, etc. Typically, when service people’s names are used in an editorial nature, the family is interviewed as well. In this case, families have specifically petitioned this man to not use their loved one’s names, as they do not agree with his message. He has refused, basically saying that his right to free speech trumps their right to privacy. While the fact that they died is a matter of public record, they may not have agreed with the message “Bush Lied, They Died.” Since everything else goes to the next of kin when a person dies, shouldn’t the right to use a namre for a message go to them as well?

Legally, the state is in the wrong.

But how is it different from the media using the names without permission?

I am not just talking news. Politicians, talk show hosts, authors… all of whom can and do make a profit from it, have chosen to drop the names of soldiers.. without permission. And these media outlets are also designed to make a profit, even under the guise of delivering content that people need to know.

So, now we have a law that stops this man from making anti-war t-shirts with a unauthorized name, a name that is in public record.

Next, the name will be unable to be used in books. They make a profit, right?

Next, the media will be unable to report it… they make a profit, right?