| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
wavingpalms
|
1
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 10:43 AM ET (US)
|
|
whoops- I found 'where to post this'-
LOOOOOOVE this heading!
A pox on Fox!
|
Red Headed Ba*d
|
2
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 11:04 AM ET (US)
|
|
Edited by author 08-13-2003 11:14 AM
"In late-breaking news, Fox anounced that it 'no longer believes that Al Franken meant to defraud the network.'
"And according to an unrelated press release, Al Franken and Fox Network have also signed a development deal for future projects in which the noted comedy writer's ass wll be held by Fox." .
|
Hanan Omous
|
3
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 11:27 AM ET (US)
|
|
I don't think that the point here is to *stop* Fox from suing Al Franken. There is far too much of an emphasis on stopping people from doing stupid things these days, and it's just knee-jerk reactionism. People should have the right to do stupid things, but if they are a big, public entity that ought to know better, they deserve to be mocked for doing so.
The important thing is to emphasize the idiocy, frivolousness, and baselessness of the suit, rather than to decry the wrongness of such a suit.
There's nothing wrong with having the right to sue. It is an important tool in this country, and it can be used for good (as well as for evil). The tool is not the problem.
And Al Franken ought to buy a case of champagne for the Fox attorney who filed this idiocy in thanks for the publicity boost that this is providing.
|
ernie
|
4
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 12:28 PM ET (US)
|
|
 ;)
|
Red Headed Ba*d
|
5
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 12:28 PM ET (US)
|
|
Baseless, yes, but Fox's suit is neither idiotic nor frivolous.
I believe it's a carefully calculated move on the part of a large team of expensive lawyers to create a chilling effect on anyone who might contemplate making fun of Fox News.
They almost certainly don't expect to win. But they do expect to make people think twice before laughing at them.
|
Stefan Jones
|
6
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 12:40 PM ET (US)
|
|
Yeah, and that worked out REALLY WELL for them didn't it?
|
Brian Carnell
|
7
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 12:42 PM ET (US)
|
|
I'm curious about how far Fox's legitimate trademark (if any) might extend. For example, if NBC News started using "Fair and Balanced" as a tagline to its broadcasts, would Fox have a legitimate complaint?
|
DaveW
|
8
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 01:12 PM ET (US)
|
|
If we can't get rid of trademark law altogether and start over from scratch (aka throwing the diarrhea out with the bathwater), the least we could do is mandate that trademarked taglines have to have some relation to reality.
Sunkist oranges can't say "a hint of mint". Dodge Neons can't say "the luxury of power". Arby's can't say "meat". Blue Cross can't say "health care". Enron can't say "I am not a crook". Fox News can't say "fair and balanced".
|
Red Headed Ba*d
|
9
|
 |
|
08-13-2003 01:39 PM ET (US)
|
|
Can I play too?
Campbells Soup can't say "M'm! M'm! Good!", FedEx can't say "overnight", KFC can't say "finger lickin' good", United Airlines can't say "friendly skies", Allstate can't say "you're in good hands", Avis can't say "we try harder", OJ Simppson can't say "the real killers" and George Bush can't say "weapons of mass destruction".
It worked, I feel better now. .
|