Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Free speech- unless you make a profit?

A little while ago a story made the news that a Michigan mother whose son had been killed in the Iraq war realized her son's name was among the 3,000 listed on a t-shirt which said "Bush Lied." The flap made headlines when Vicki Dickinson enlisted politicians to line up and kick sand at the maker of the shirt containing the name of her son and 2,999 other dead soldiers and propose yet another piece of feel-good legislation which will surely get overturned in the courts.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, politicians rushed in to save the day and trampled over the Constitution to get to the side of the grieving mother. Even more sad was that one of those was State Senator Mark Schauer who obviously is trying to prove that he's no liberal and that he can restrict free speech as good as any Republican. As you may know Schauer has announced he is taking on radical right wing nut Tim Walberg who sits in the U.S. House of Representatives after beating moderate Republican Joe Schwarz in the GOP primary with lots of money from out-of-district special interest right wing groups like Club for Growth. Schauer is a well-liked moderate Democrat who has built his career on community and constituent service who would be an obvious improvement over the radical idealogue he seeks to replace.

Schauer has co-sponsored a bill which would make it illegal to make a profit using someone's name or image without their permission.

"No one should be allowed to make a buck by exploiting the name and image of someone else, particularly someone who has fought and died for this country," Schauer said in a statement released by his office.

"This measure will prevent greedy profiteers from taking advantage of people and protect the identities and reputations of private citizens."

Obviously, one feels for ALL the mothers who've lost their sons and daughters in a war most Americans think was a mistake, but this bill is so obviously and deeply flawed that it should never even be considered by the legislature. However, if our current political system one has to wonder if even one politician will be willing to stand up and do what's right and vote this thing down if it makes it to a vote.

I was reminded of this controversy when reading the letter column of a national magazine which, in its year end issue, had published the names and photos of American soldiers who died in Iraq in 2007. There was no anti-war message or "exploitation" but one could reasonably argue that publishing those photos would have violated the law proposed by Schauer and others. After all, when someone paid for that magazine, doesn't that mean they profited from the publication of the names and photos? Or does the proposed bill only apply to those who oppose the war?

This bill would open a can of legal worms that I almost can't even wrap my head around: would news broadcasts be forbidden from naming the soldiers who've been killed in the war until they get permission to do so? Obviously, this would even extend far beyond just the debate over the war as many works of journalism, art and literature are based on using people's name or likenesses. Often, it's often simply impossible to get permission from everyone pictured in a news story, a documentary film or even a t-shirt. One can imagine numerous examples where the participants would obviously be unwilling to give permission even though the now-outlawed activity might serve a vital interest. I for one would argue that political expression is a vital interest and the impact of the anti-war shirt would be muted considerable if it didn't contain the names of the REAL people that died in a war that someone believes was started because "Bush Lied."

While many people see nothing more than a grieving mother, I think there's more to it. Sadly, this seems like just a back door way for someone to silence opposition to the war in which their child gave his life. The mother almost admits as much when she says:
"I support my son, and I don't worry about whether I support the war. I support my son, and I support the troops. My son would be upset with this man."
"Supporting the troops" has become both a meaningless catch phrase (often used by those who extend their tours of duty but don't see to it they have body armor or adequate health care) as well as a bludgeon with which to crush opposition of the war- all criticism of the Pentagon, the generals, the Commander in Chief, etc. can be said to "hurt the troops." If the war goes badly because it was a dumb war to begin with, or because it was poorly executed, or because the intent was to sow destruction and chaos to destabilize a region in order to maintain control of it's natural resources, no one can ever point this out because one will "demoralize" the troops. One has to wonder how the troops face the bullets and bombs of the enemy if they can't even tolerate a Congressional debate- obviously, it's not the troops who fear the debate but the politicians and war profiteers who fear losing the debate and resort to cheap straw man or bait and switch rhetorical tactics to prop up the unpopular war. How sad that so many can't see through the cheap theatrics used to stifle this important debate.

Lawmakers should quit trying to score cheap political points by caving in on the rights these soldiers are said to be protecting. I worry that Schauer's support of this bill is just yet another sign that too many Democratic politicians are willing to sell out the core principles of the party to curry favor with supposed "moderates." Too bad the mythical moderates are too often turned off by Democrats who pander on important issues instead of standing up for what they believe in and the base of the party is left without anyone to carry their message and the political debate once again drifts further to the right. After all, why should voters send Mark Schauer to Washington if he's going to try to strip us of our right to free speech and to political dissent? We already have Tim Walberg to do that.

24 comments:

Pol Watcher said...

Oh, and in case anyone still doubts Bush and company ever actually lied about the war, here's a new study which not only proves it, but counts every instance...

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

lonevoice said...

pol watcher,

I wish you would be so concerned now as you were in the past with a much closer issue to us in Barry Co.

You spent many a column in the past being the outspoken voice for those in Barry Co. that would suggest there was corruption in the management of the 911 system.

Yet now you choose to write nothing of the ongoing behavior of the elected officals that lied to us about some terrible embezzlement.

The same elected officals that now are taking $6,000 dollars from the taxpayers to travel to Florida to learn how to run a jail?????

Should not have "Barry Co. Barney" known how to run the jail before he took the office?

It is clear by your lack of comments or blogs since Nystrom was railroaded out of the directors office that you were part of the plan from the start.

Yu take exception to George Hubbka's behavior as it relates to the recall and the fact that he misrepresented the facts.

I ask you what are you and the "sheriffs" merry band of followers continuing to do?

And the invesitigation continues, how much has that cost us as taxpayers?

ts

Pol Watcher said...

TS, I warned people about electing a person for the job of prosecutor that I felt might not be up to the task. I also was opposed to Dar Leaf for sheriff as I thought he was nothing more than a puppet for the "no gun law" crowd that saw Sheriff DeBoer as a Communist who wanted to steal their God-given right to bear any and all arms no matter what their criminal history or mental state.

However, as I've stated here in the past. There IS a difference between knowing or even believing someone violated the law and being able to prove it in court. I can't make Evans an effective prosecutor and I see this and many other examples that demonstrate to me I was right in reluctantly endorsing his opponent in the last election.

Frankly, I had planned to address this in the past as I AM very angry at the lack of ANY public statement which I believe he owes the tax payers as well the person publicly accused on a serious charge at a public meeting. You likely won't believe me but it was simply one of many things I haven't had time to adequately deal with due to a number of other activities and not part of a grand conspiracy. Believe me, if I had any REAL power I wouldn't waste my rare free time banging away at my keyboard hoping to get 100 people to read what I have to say.

I think the public deserves some public statement from our county prosecutor about the issue and I think his silence in the matter is not only dispiriting to those of us who still believe taxpayer money was mishandled but yet another sign that sadly he is just not up to the job.

lonevoice said...

PW,

I just had to pick myself off the floor, and find a chair.

Just when I thought nothing could surprise me, you have.


ts

lonevoice said...

PW,

I just had to pick myself off the floor, and find a chair.

Just when I thought nothing could surprise me, you have.


ts

Spirogyra said...

Shauer drank the Kool-Aide.

Patti said...

I am very disappointed to read this about Mark Schauer. We certainly don't need another repug lite in Washington. Most of the democrats are not much better than the repugs and don't deserve our support. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two of them.

All of this fake outrage is just an attempt to shut up the opposition. Shame on Mark Schauer for trying to benefit by pandering to these people.

Bulwark said...

Pol and TS: Wondering out loud - when Barney our so called sheriff without a FOI request; demands, orders, and threatens the 911 secretary to "research the files on county time" in order to defend his civil suit, is that EMBEZZLEMENT of county money or is that MALFEASANCE OR MISFEASANCE by a public official?

The prosecutor and sheriff (barney) have publicly interpreted and proclaimed what embezzlement is; so everybody clearly knows what that is, but is it possible that our barney is committing Malfeasance or Misfeasance ? Our legal dictionary defines:
MALFEASANCE: "conduct by a public official that cannot be legally justified or that conflicts with the law"

and

MISFESANCE: the abuse of lawful authority in order to achieve a desired result.

Could our barney (sheriff)himself be committing embezzlement, malfeasance, or misfeasance ? It's even rumored that his deputies even have to work on his civil suit while crime runs rampant in our county. Is this fair ? Wow is this ever costing the people of Barry County lots and lots of money.

Like Pol Watcher implied......... wouldn't it be warn and fuzzy to have Deboer and Pratt back in the saddle again ? Hindsight certainly is 20/20

agnosticrat said...

In essence a copyright for soldiers to allow their names and images to be only used where they want. This could also bring with it the right for soldiers to make profit on those names and images.
Maybe we can start talking licensing deals?
A Nike swoosh on a M1A1 Abrams tank?

Disclaimer: The image of any soldier may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this war may not be disseminated, without express written consent of the commissioner of baseball.

"now we'll be taking you back to New York for the Prudential after action intelligence report!"

Spirogyra said...

How do you handle a name like John Smith? This nonsense presumes each and every military person has a unique name. This may or may not be true.

agnosticrat said...

So true! But not every soldier is a Reggie Jackson, or for that matter a Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf!
This item comes with our certificate of authenticity and Lifetime Guarantee!
http://store.steelcityauctions.com/stnoscausi11.html

Jay said...

Sorry to see that this, a once promising blog, has descended into sour grapes.

Spirogyra said...

Sour grapes? Are we talking about free speech or Barney the cop?

agnosticrat said...

Norman Schwarzkopf?
or
Reggie Jackson?
Now I am confused too!

lonevoice said...

PW

Thought you would be interested in this, "Barry Co. Barney" is being sured again...

This time by his union, seems he has decided to ignore the contract has has hired the old undersheriff as a guard in the courthouse to go alongwith his new security system he is attempting to get thru homeland security.

And the tab for his leagl fees just keeps going up.

TS

Spirogyra said...

Schauer sided with the Repugs in endorsing the prez's "stimulus" package. Bush's tax cut to the rich was supposed to trickle down and stimulate the economy. And one would think that spending 2 1/2 billion per week would satisfy that old macroeconomic theory of prosperity through war. This tax refund just adds to the national debt and will ultimately force up interest rates or add to inflation. It lowers yet again, the value of our dollar which is used in the oil trade...which means the price of oil will go up again. I could go on with more and more reasons why this tax give away is the worst thing to do, but then, Americans are clueless.

loulabell said...

Free Speech is great, it's the people w/out morals that ruin it. How can any American use a fallen soldier to get their point across and not consider the soldier or the families. If they feel Bush lied than take it up w/Bush not soldiers who choose to make a sacrifice. This isn't vietnam w/draft it is enlisted men serving their country in high honor, obviously a lesson some Barry Co. blogers ought to take note of. God Bless the USA.

sentinel said...

I agree Loulabell. Those damn self-righteous Republicans who proclaim the higher ground while living a secret amoral life have ruined this country. Pedophiles, womanizers, and that biggest conservative ever, drug user Rush Limbaugh.

agnosticrat said...

The fallen soldiers are not being blamed for Bush's lies. They are merely the outcome of those lies. Of course if it hurts Lou's feelings maybe the magazine could also use the names and images of the well over 100000 innocent Iraqis that have also been killed!
God forgive America!

agnosticrat said...

Oh, and .... ummm?
Welcome?

Gate Keeper said...

TS, there is a difference between a grievance and a (sued/suit) "sured", if that's what you meant by "'Barry Co Barney' is being sured(sic) again" Don't they have unions at the MSP?

Gate Keeper said...

TS, Do you have the full story on the trip to Florida or are you just interested in carrying out your personal agenda when you go about blathering about our Sheriff?
What's your background? How about the Michigan State Police wanting to spend millions on a headquarters when they have a perfectly good facility on Harrison Road? Did you and Bulwark serve at the same post?

lonevoice said...

GK,

You would have to ask someone who works for them if they have a union or not.

The articles i have read suggest it is the gov. and her friends who have pushed the new building.

As far as the trip to FL. read it in the paper and in the co. comm. minutes.

They could be lying, they have in the past.

TS

Chetly Zarko said...

This is why the "right to privacy" (ignoring for a minute the implications it has on abortion - only looking at it regarding image, etc.) is such a tenuous notion relative to the First Amendment. The Founders did not include such a right, because free speech trumps it in spades.

Here, you have Democrats willing to justify regulating free speech in the name of controlling evil profiteering (off the names of fallen) and Republicans willing to sacrifice their own market principles in the name of patriotism. While both have some valid point in the crassness of misuse of images and names (in this situation, or any other similar misappropriation) - their complaint is a social one, not one they should be able to use government to regulate.

Unless you live in a hole, you shouldn't be able to completely control the use of your public image. Common sense suggests some regulation of privacy even in public (the stupid case a few weeks ago where a judge allowed a shopper at Target to get off a criminal charge for brazenly taking a picture of a woman by quickly falling to the floor, snapping a cell phone shot up the skirt, and attempting to flee (on the grounds that she had no reasonable expectation of privacy in public)), but clearly the purpose of this speech here was political.

The right thing to do is strongly condemn speech you don't like. Not legislate against it. Any privacy legislation should be precise and well-defined. Medical, educational, tax, and other records. Children, certain physical stuff, etc.

And you're strongly mistaken in your implication Dems are somehow less inclined to legislate against speech. At best, both parties seem pretty good at it.