It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Families Angered by Crosses at War Protest

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
It's interesting that they never made a fuss about these appearing at any other rally -- pro or ant -- or boots, or flags, or coffinsi.

But this high-profile one suddenly creates a squawk.

Also, I don't see much of an organized outcry in my newsletters from military.com. That might come, but there's not been a shrieking call to action as there was over the issue of pay.




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
These displays have created controversy in the past, but just as most displays don't get the publicity this one is getting, neither do the controversies. Also, more people are likely to express their displeasure at having family memeber's names and family tragedies co-opted for questionable purposes when the events are getting coverage every single day.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd


Also, I don't see much of an organized outcry in my newsletters from military.com.


Dead soldiers aren't noted for letter-writing campaigns.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Obviously, it would be living soldiers and their families, as well as the families of those killed, who might be outraged by the use of their fallen comrades' names in an anti-war protest.

No offense Grady, but are you feeling alright? I've noticed a change in the tone of your posts lately that has me concenrned about your frame of mind.

I'm not trying to be flippant or insulting, just concerned. What's up?

edit to satisfy Grady

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising


No offense Grady, but are you feeling alright? I've noticed a change in the tone of your posts lately that has me concenrned about your frame of mind.


You'll have to be more specific.

As to those who would write to military.com, I would suggest that it is family members who would be more likely to take umbrage at the usage of names of the fallen by the lunatic fringe. Most service members have more important things on their mind like payscales.

[edit on 2005/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I doubt placing the names of fallen soldiers on crosses to be used in this blatently political display is illegal, but it's certainly in bad taste. It shows Cindy Sheehan and her cohorts are more interested in using fallen soldiers as political tools than honoring their service and willing sacrifice for their country.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Thanks for the WATS vote redhat


This is the first politically charged thread that I have read since Springer's-thread revolution and I must say im impressed.

This thread has been 'reduced' down to a woman using names in public domain on crosses and a protest. Nothing more, nothing less. Kind of puts things in perspective when the political parties are removed from the equation. To me this is a breath of fresh air and a serious "back of the net!" for discussion on ATS.

Now we are seeing the reasons why people agree or disagree with this woman's actions. Its rather less reactionary and alot more sober


As a member of the ATS Council for ATSNN, I have to say im proud of how readily the members have taken up Springer's challenge and dumped the partisanista agendas.


[edit on 25/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Yes, but I'm sure Britany Spears doesn't authorize the use of her name every time it appears on 'Entertainment Tonight', nor does Bill O'Reilly need permission to say Cindy's name every night on his program. The point being, writing a name on a cross, a piece of paper, or anywhere else, and I'm no lawyer here, but I'm pretty sure that isn't against the law. If you were to slander that name, then I could see some kind of legal precedent.


That would depend on how the piece of paper was being used. You could make a case that the crosses are being used as a symbol calling attention to the views of the group that createted them. It could also be construed that the people whos names are on these crosses agree with the views of the creating group.

Entertainment Tonight and Bill O'Reilly both represent the media. It has been determined in court that the media has the right to report on matters of public interest. Brittany Spears is a public figure and her action are considered a matter of public interest. As long as the media makes a reasonable effort to report facts or opinions then they are protected by law. If the information being reported is untrue or libelous then the media can be held accountable for it. Look at the settlement just awarded to Justin Timberlake.

Unless this group has permission from the estate of these soldiers it should remove the names from the crosses.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join