Be prepared to be disappointed
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| TxtEdMacs Sep 16, 2005 4:54 PM EDT |
Though it's inconsistent, I will argue as a lawyer would, assuming that a similar case had already occurred and the network won as claimed. It would go like this: 1. The intent of the law was to bar political advertising - the MS logo is not political, but commercial message. (Not sure about this, but if the public TV has been forced as in the U.S. to take sponsorships as a funding source) 2. Under the newer rules imposed on Public TV, we are just displaying a sponsor's logo,. This is not even a commercial message, and it in no way impinges on the political process. 3. Essentially the same case has been argued previously and the precedent was set that allowed similar, non-invasive commercial displays to be shown beside our regular news reports. 4. We need the cash! |
| jimf Sep 17, 2005 7:46 PM EDT |
Oh, you are undoubtedly correct. I doubt that this will hold up for long, but, the public perception of of it and the embarrassment and annoyance to Microsoft is priceless :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!