101998 said:There is another one on 67 just before you hit 35 coming into downtown, it has a picture of Saddam and says "Captured", one of Yasser Arafat and says "Dead", then one of Bin laden and says "Next".
Sage said:I keep thinking more and more how we are headed towards "1984"
Sage said:i was referring to the book
Yeah, that suppression of free speech and all.Sage said:I keep thinking more and more how we are headed towards "1984"
RussSchultz said:Yeah, that suppression of free speech and all.Sage said:I keep thinking more and more how we are headed towards "1984"
epicstruggle said:In what way is this like 1984 or even 1934?? I read the book and dont see any connection between the 2.
epic
epicstruggle said:The terms 1984, big brother et al, are misused all the time. You are misusing it here. IF the sign was put up by the govermnent then you might have a case. But since a local radio station with their own funds put up the sign it is not propaganda. Sorry. Its advertising, for a certain audience. Unless you want to curb their freedom of speech you have to let them advertise however they want (within reason).
epic
Actually there are many laws that limit what type of advertising you can place. You cant have naked people on billboards, you cant put an ad up that causes major distraction (in chicago some years back, someone painted a giant michael jordan picture against the side of a building, caused major road back ups, city ordered it taken down), .... So there are limits to advertising.Sage said:Also, sadly, I do have to let them do it. I think they should be allowed to advertise whatever they want... within and without reason. Throwing in "within reason" is pretty dangerous because what exactly defines "within reason" ? ANY limit on civil rights can be dangerous if the wrong people decide to exploit it.
But if the people who owns the radio station and politicians sleep in the same bed together (which in the case of the current administration and Fox is true), would you still see it the same way?epicstruggle said:You are misusing it here. IF the sign was put up by the govermnent then you might have a case. But since a local radio station with their own funds put up the sign it is not propaganda.
however much they might or might not support the current admin, has no bearing on their right to advertise(within reason) their local radio station.Guden Oden said:But if the people who owns the radio station and politicians sleep in the same bed together (which in the case of the current administration and Fox is true), would you still see it the same way?epicstruggle said:You are misusing it here. IF the sign was put up by the govermnent then you might have a case. But since a local radio station with their own funds put up the sign it is not propaganda.
You don't think private money can't be used to change public perception of something so official policy can change too? Whaddya think lobbying groups have been doing for the last 100+ years, huh?
UK advertising regulators signaled a weariness of the double entendre used by French Connection to sell its FCUK brand and warned the clothing chain again, this time over a promotion for its line of fragrances.
In an ad placed for French Connection by Zirh International in the Boots pharmacy chain's magazine, a picture of a young couple sitting on a bed in their underwear included fold-out samples of perfume with the phrases "open here to try fcuk her" and "open here to try fcuk him."
The company is currently required to submit its outdoor adverts to the ASA for approval before they are posted, the second two-year sanction to which it has been subjected.
epicstruggle said:Actually there are many laws that limit what type of advertising you can place. You cant have naked people on billboards, you cant put an ad up that causes major distraction (in chicago some years back, someone painted a giant michael jordan picture against the side of a building, caused major road back ups, city ordered it taken down), .... So there are limits to advertising.
epic