Some people are saying that Cartoon Network should be held responsible that Boston closed part of its city because they thought 10 promotional devices were bombs.
I feel that it isn't the network's fault that Boston went haywire. Why on earth would you put lights on your bomb, place it in a very conspicuous place and have it give you the finger? That would seriously not be very smart, although it did take two weeks for Boston to react to a "possible bomb" which makes me wonder what the scenario would've been if it had been a real threat with secluded bombs. My bet is that Boston wouldn't have had a chance.
I can't wait to see the parody episode of this.
quote: Besides, no one would want to blow up Boston. Nothing good ever came from there.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It looked like a lite bright thing, so I don't know how the HELL these people could have thought it was a bomb. There's no way those cubs who thought of the idea should get jail time for these people and their overreacting. It's like smacking a child just because you're having a bad day. But, perhaps the network should pay just to get the city to shut up.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Boston just doesn't like the feeling of being the nations laughing stock so they obviously won't admit that they made a mistake and overreacted.
*warning, there's language*
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
In LosAngeles during the advertising blitz for MissionImpossibleIII, audio playback machines which were triggered by opening newspaper vending machines caused a similar "It's a bomb!" after mechanical failures left behind just "boxes with dangling wires".
So the guerilla marketing firm responsible for the Boston fiasco was probably well aware that its publicity stunt also would be likely to cause a citywide bomb scare. Quite possibly, they chose their specific stunt in hopes of producing a LosAngeles-like reaction because "There ain't no such thing as bad publicity."
[ February 02, 2007, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Maliam (Member # 9915) on :
LMAO I think its funny they'll admit the things had been up for weeks, but still claim it was some kinda hoax. Besides I thought the point of a bomb was to not draw attention to it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Frankly I hope that the FederalCommunicationsCommission pulls TurnerBroadcasting's license. And that the Boston District Attorney files the harshest criminal charges possible against everybody who approved of or participated in the advertising campaign. Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction, but facing the possibility of prison plus the time&expense of defending against the charges oughtta scare businesses away from pulling similar pranks in the future.
[ February 02, 2007, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The boxes didn't light up in daytime, so it wasn't as obvious then. They didn't do anything about them (likely didn't even know about them) until some citizen reported one of them (that was located near/at the subway) as suspicious. Also, being the good doobies that they are with respect to homeland security, the T (Boston's subway system) has had a campaign for months asking passengers to report anything suspicious around the trains, which is COMPLETELY in line with the "stay vigilant" atmosphere cultivated by the federal homeland security.
The problem was the media ran away with the story long after the bomb squads had been informed of the purpose of the boxes... But they still had to be deployed.
You can laugh, and there is blame enough to go around in this case, but if you are a public official in this day and age, and you hear of a couple reports of suspicious items at various public infrastructure locations, how do you react?
-Bok
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Frankly I hope that the FederalCommunicationsCommission pulls TurnerBroadcasting's license. And that the Boston District Attorney files the harshest criminal charges possible against everybody who approved of or participated in the advertising campaign. Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction, but facing the possibility of prison plus the time&expense of defending against the charges oughtta scare businesses away from pulling similar pranks in the future.
You're kidding, right? Honestly, are you serious about what you just said?
It was a LIGHTBRITE. It was a bunch of LED lights with batteries. That's it. How do you confuse that with a bomb? This publicity technique was used in several other cities and only Boston thought it was inappropriate. Personally, even though I understand what happened in 9/11 was no laughing matter, I will not fear the terrorists because that is what they want. There is a difference between being cautious to attacks and being utterly paranoid. I refuse to live in fear. And what's up with wanting to get their license pulled? Aren't you exaggerating just one bit? All of this was a mistake and we gotta learn to let it go and laugh it off. The authorities were wrongly calling this a hoax and a "fake bomb". This would be correct if the case had been that Turner decided to scare us intentionally but why in the world would they put themselves at risk this way? This was not a "fake" or a "hoax", this was simply a publicity technique and we need to open up our minds and realize that. Personally, I think the public may be reacting a little immaturely about this matter, but then again a person may be smart but people sure are dumb (especially when they are in a state of panic).
If I was a city official and I heard of a suspicious object, then I'd have it investigated first before I sent out a Swat team that ended up costing over $700,000 worth of taxpayers money.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
So that's the trick. So "suspicious" is bad, but "obvious" is OK?
I bet if terrorists put a nuclear weapon inside a bright orange steamer trunk with the words "THIS IS A BOMB" written on it in flourescent green, and dropped it on the sidewalk in the middle of town it wouldn't get the level of response that this did.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So anytime a terrorist wants to plant a bomb, s/he should just place LiteBrite-like packaging around it so people will ignore what should be viewed as a suspicious package? Cuz that is what will happen if stunts similar to those which occurred in LosAngeles and Boston become a part of corporate advertising culture. When was the last time you heard a car alarm go off, and not assume that the person taking off with the car was the owner who had accidentally triggered the alarm? When was the last time that you heard a car alarm go off without an immediate response from the owner, and not think "Somebody oughtta rip off that nuisance"?
Before 9/11, you had better believe that terrorists had probed security to find out what kind of weapons could be brought on board an aircraft without arousing suspicion before the decision was made to use boxcutters with 4inch snap-blades. Wanna another 9/11? 7/7 London? 3/11 Madrid? Well the advertising "genius"es behind the Boston stunt have performed a terrorist probe, have proved that you can leave packages for several weeks at target sites: ie those which are commonly heavily crowded. Set the timers 2+weeks beforehand, and blow up revellers at the eg Michigan vs OhioState post-game party gathering spots.
And "investigated first" how? Have a cop kick a box to see if it explodes? Have the bomb squads work in the middle of large crowds instead of calling in large numbers of police officers to evacuate the areas?
[ February 02, 2007, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
My dear, any item with that description will cause the whole nation to panic. Especially with all the media coverage it would get.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I just have to say, given that these things were around for WEEKS before anything was down about them, if they HAD been real bombs, we'd all be screwed. So in that sense, the city really failed it's people.
And why wouldn't they call off all the bomb squads after Turner owned up to what was going on?
Nice link AoD, when the one guy goes off on the "they'd been around for weeks" bit I was dying.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The things is that it wasn't a "prank" or a "hoax." It is what it is. A creative marketing idea that got out of control. There is no proof that the ad company or Turner knew what would happen, or that they wanted the publicity of a bomb scare. Sure, it's possible, maybe even likely, but I don't think one should advocate sending them to jail based on a 'possible' or 'might'.
If it could be proved that they knew or expected this reaction, I would support their prosecution. But other than that, maybe they have to pay a fine or something.
Also, I think there should definitely be a way for them to tell if it's a bomb or not before shutting down half of the city. I understand precaution; recently there was a suspicious package at the local airport and it was shut down for and hour or so. But they pretty quickly found out what it was and cancelled the alarm. Could the Boston police/bomb squad not have figured out what this one device was before giving the terrorist alarm?
Anyway, to sum up, I think the only law they broke was posting an advertisement without a permit. I don't think they diliberately misled anyone into thinking it was a bomb, though they may have diliberately misled some people into thinking there were Mooninites flicking them the bird. They should be fined however much it cost to illegally post signage multiplied by however many times they posted the ads. Barring further incriminating evidence, I would stop at that.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Did anyone else see the press conference done by the two who were arrested? It was very funny, they went an about hair styles through the decades. Whenever a reporter tried to ask them a question about he case, the two scolded the reporters and told them to stay on topic.
Though a couple reporters did play along. One asked if the main guy who was talking was afraid that they would cut his hair in prison. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:It was a LIGHTBRITE. It was a bunch of LED lights with batteries. That's it. How do you confuse that with a bomb?
Bombs can look like any damn thing their makers want them to, Alt. They don't even have to be all that big. There would be plenty of room to hide a bomb in a litebrite, and still have it function as an actual litebrite as well.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote: Originally posted by aspectre: Wanna another 9/11? 7/7 London? 3/11 Madrid?
No. I want people to stop panicking, open up their minds and start using their brains to gather information and form their opinions based on several different sources instead of being spoon fed from your daily news broadcast, which more likely than not is heavily biased politically.
quote: And "investigated first" how? Have a cop kick a box to see if it explodes? Have the bomb squads work in the middle of large crowds instead of calling in large numbers of police officers to evacuate the areas?
Not necesarily have a cop kick it. Have a small team investigate the object without actually making physical contact in order to see if it indeed could be an explosive device (take a good look at it), for a Swat member this should be relatively easy task since they have pretty vast knowledge of explosives. I'd expect that someone who get's paid >70k a year should be able to tell the difference between a real bomb and a lightbrite. Besides, those things had been out there for WEEKS. It could not possible have been a bomb. Why don't you take a look at the second link I posted? I warn you that there is lots of a language, but you should find it informative.
And by the by, who in their right mind would WANT to bomb Boston? Please answer that to me. I'm not trying to put down the city, it's just that there are several other places that had those devices that could've been far more effective bombing sites for a terrorist. Like any city in California (God forbid!).
From my understanding of your logic, anyone could place a call to any city in the U.S. and claim that somewhere there is a bomb. Prank calling would sure be something else if it was.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I said "Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction..." precisely because "...possible, maybe even likely..." isn't enough to obtain 'beyond a reasonable doubt' guilty verdicts. The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors will scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future. Prevention of repeat performances is a good enough reason to "waste the money" on prosecution (attempts).
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Also, I think there should definitely be a way for them to tell if it's a bomb or not before shutting down half of the city.
Like what? If you were in charge of a city and discovered that there were multiple suspicious devices planted in high traffic areas, would you really feel comfortable gambling with your citizen's lives by waiting until you were 100% certain that the objects were bombs before evacuating the area?
quote:Could the Boston police/bomb squad not have figured out what this one device was before giving the terrorist alarm?
Sure, they could have. Instead they erred on the side of caution, which was the responsible thing to do.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:From my understanding of your logic, anyone could place a call to any city in the U.S. and claim that somewhere there is a bomb. Prank calling would sure be something else if it was.
Whole schools and government buildings have been evacuated with a mere phone call. Before 9/11, the call was usually ignored or not taken to that level.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: The things is that it wasn't a "prank" or a "hoax." It is what it is. A creative marketing idea that got out of control. There is no proof that the ad company or Turner knew what would happen, or that they wanted the publicity of a bomb scare. Sure, it's possible, maybe even likely, but I don't think one should advocate sending them to jail based on a 'possible' or 'might'.
If it could be proved that they knew or expected this reaction, I would support their prosecution. But other than that, maybe they have to pay a fine or something.
Also, I think there should definitely be a way for them to tell if it's a bomb or not before shutting down half of the city. I understand precaution; recently there was a suspicious package at the local airport and it was shut down for and hour or so. But they pretty quickly found out what it was and cancelled the alarm. Could the Boston police/bomb squad not have figured out what this one device was before giving the terrorist alarm?
Anyway, to sum up, I think the only law they broke was posting an advertisement without a permit. I don't think they diliberately misled anyone into thinking it was a bomb, though they may have diliberately misled some people into thinking there were Mooninites flicking them the bird. They should be fined however much it cost to illegally post signage multiplied by however many times they posted the ads. Barring further incriminating evidence, I would stop at that.
I love you.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
My initial reaction was that Turner and the Cartoon Network were in the bad. I now think that they should have anticipated that the city officials might inadvertently jump to the conclusion that these were bombs, and that they should ahve told the city what they were going to do. That said, the city and the FBI over reacted. 1) These things were in place for weeks. Someone with the city should have noticed, and likely did, these things much earlier. 2) After they removed the first one and saw that it was just a lighted sign, why continue to escalate the drama. 3) It shouldn't have taken too much effort to see that these things weren't bombs. This drama unfolded during the daytime, and the things weren't that unaccessable. Based on the video of these guy installing the things, it looks like they were no more than six feet above eye level. Boston, invest in a pair of binoculars and provide some vision screening for your cops.
Bottom line, although there were some things that the advertisers should have done as good citizens to prevent this, the city overreacted and is trying to cover its embarrassement by blaming someone else.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I said "Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction..." precisely because "...possible, maybe even likely... isn't enough to obtain "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilty verdicts. The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future. Prevention of repeat performances is a good enough reason to "waste the money" on prosecution (attempts).
I still believe that your opinions are exaggerated.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
press conference video(or discussion of hairstyles throughout the decades):
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Bottom line, although there were some things that the advertisers should have done as good citizens to prevent this, the city overreacted and is trying to cover its embarrassement by blaming someone else.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I still believe that your opinions are exaggerated."
Then go live in Baghdad.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: press conference video(or discussion of hairstyles throughout the decades):
I'll watch it as soon as class goes on break, love.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I said "Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction..." precisely because "...possible, maybe even likely... isn't enough to obtain "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilty verdicts. The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future. Prevention of repeat performances is a good enough reason to "waste the money" on prosecution (attempts).
I still believe that your opinions are exaggerated.
Wait a mintute, did I read this right?
quote: The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future.
You mean using fear as a way to get others to do what you want?
ter·ror·ism: –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Isn't that what we're fighting in the first place?
Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and expression?
And why would I ever go to Baghdad? I'm trying to get away from the dangerous places, that's why I'm thinking of moving to some lost and desolate place that nobody really cares about like Wisconsin...
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I disagree wiht your position AoD, I think it was inappropriate and I'm glad that it was investigated. I also think the kids were dorks to act that way after the ruckus they'd caused. I would love to see them prosecuted just for the complete disregard they had for the trouble they caused.
I would rather have unknown situations over-investigated than not taken seriously and have nothing done, even if it were weeks later. Ideally it would have been discovered sooner, ideally the investigation would have wrapped up a lot sooner and ideally the media wouldn't have gone nuts over it...it's easy to critisize after the fact but I don't see any other choice but to investigate each and every one, to be safe.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the city overreacted, but did so somewhat understandably.
I do not agree with the rationalization that the city reacted appropriately because the objects were anomalous in a high traffic area. Check out anomalous objects, sure, but be flexible to the fact that there's going to be safe anomalous objects in the public square.
I don't understand how what these guys did was illegal beyond, maybe, littering.
As Strider rightly points out, the real issue is the fact that the city didn't even react to the devices until weeks later, and when they did react, they overreacted to what was pretty clearly a false positive.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here's the thing. Even if you know, and have notified people in the city government (though there is no evidence that the city officials knew anything about these devices), you have to follow the procedures in place since 9/11. No doubt hundreds of citizens did see these things over the last couple of weeks, and thought nothing of it. That said, once one (or more) people report it, with the current political climate it is un-PC not to take the threat completely seriously, evacuate these public areas (which can't be worked around... You can't try and identify a bomb in an area still populated by lots of people without accepting an implied risk for those people).
Also, there were 38 of the devices, across the city, so we aren't talking one or two of the things. And from what I read, after they were notified, the law enforcement folks acted accordingly... It was the MEDIA COVERAGE that continued to stir fears. You can complain that maybe the city should have notified the media outlets, and I think that is probably the only real mistake the city made in this whole deal. --
I hate this climate of fear perpetuated by "security moms", or whoever. However, once the process is set in motion, you can't blame them for doing things the way many people wanted them to do. I, of course, have long thought the terrorist paranoia in some circles is ludicrous, and has been since 9/11. Odds are terrorist attacks will happen again, whether or not we continue our distraction campaign in Iraq, but I'm refusing to live in such a way that liberties I enjoyed pre-9/11 no longer occur.
The city is in a damned if they do, damned if we don't situation, and WE put them there. I am not going to criticize them for faithfully, doggedly following their processes in this incident, in and of itself.
-Bok
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well said, Bok.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
fans of the show came to the press conference with the following signs:
"1-31-07 Never Forget"
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't think they should be prosecuted but they should definitely be fined an amount large enough to cover the cost of deploying all that manpower to investigate and take care of the items. I can assure you, that will be a monumental cost, and the size of the fines may work to discourage such tactics in the future.
And honestly, since the tv show is getting publicity out of it, the money might even be considered well spent.
I have a husband who has been trained on all this first responder stuff, he IS a first responder and I can assure you, their training hammers home the idea that you must take everything seriously, even if you are 99.9% sure in your heart of hearts that the scare is ludicrous and nothing to worry about, that 0.1% chance you're wrong could still mean people get killed.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm with Synesthesia. I can't imagine why anybody would think a Lite-Brite was a bomb, and the incredible stupidity of authorities is really the authorities' fault. (Also explains why they want to nail somebody else for it.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I thought the guys arraigned yesterday were actually quite funny during their press conference. Personally I don't care so much if they get punished (that would have no real useful point) but getting their employers to cough up some cash would be okay by me.
-Bok
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: press conference video(or discussion of hairstyles throughout the decades):
I'll watch it as soon as class goes on break, love.
It's great!
Theses guys are hilarous. It's the first time the news, especially FOX, makes me laugh this much. Seriously the ONLY THING they talk about is hair styles while the images on the other pannel are depicting what is going on with the swat and whatnot. XD
EDIT: "That's also not a hair question!" HAHAHAHA
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I'm with Synesthesia. I can't imagine why anybody would think a Lite-Brite was a bomb
Have you read this thread? Several people, including me, have addressed this point.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think people should GET OVER IT!
If this was a response to a real bomb, there would be blood in the streets. This is the city fathers trying to cover up for the fact that they are inept and incompetent. Not to mention the cities and the media trying to whip this into 'manufactured' news, and media hype. This is a classic example of non-news being whipped into a national crisis.
-Turner told them it was an advertising campaign. What more did the need?
-They were up and in place for weeks. Fast reactions on the part of the city there.
Really, lighten up.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Turner told them only after the suspicious items were reported to the police. They didn't tell them weeks ago. At least, that is how it appears right now.
-Bok
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Seattle authorities found the devices in their city too, and said they were "obviously not suspicious" according to Wikipedia. Only Boston freaked out.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Seattle found them after Turner notified all the cities, I believe. When Boston found out about them, it was through a regular citizen (subway employee who had no doubt been trained to report anything suspicious, to be consistent with the MBTA safety campaign) report of suspicious items. Turner didn't issue any official statement until 4:30pm, the first device was found at around 9AM. Even if Turner told the city (actually a few separate cities: Boston, Cambridge, and presumably Brookline) earlier than that, the process was already set in motion.
-Bok
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Perhaps Turner, or anyone who decides to do something liket his in the future should include a disclamer- This is not a bomb, it will not explode. Then folks will put stuff like that on bombs and you just won't be able to win. But, I think they all need to CHILL. There has to be middle ground between indifference and panicing and evaculating a whole building everytime someone leaves their walkman on a bench.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I'm with Randy. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
The simple solution, of course, would be to notify the authorities before you randomly scatter blinking electronics around town. Or, on the government's end, provide some protocol for doing so.
--j_k
[ February 02, 2007, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
But if they'd asked, the government would have just said no...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe Dag can answer this question:
Is there a law saying that Turner has to notify the police department or the city in some way when they put up that kind of advertising?
If there's no law, then I don't think it's Turner's fault at all. It might have been a bad idea to do this without giving some sort of shout at all to authorities, but I don't think this was a bad idea all by itself. I don't really fault the authorities for reacting to this in such a manner. We're acting on a general "better to be safe than sorry" principle, and that's fine with me.
There should be a statute defining what sort of notification this sort of advertising needs to have. Turner shouldn't pay that much of a price. If anything Boston should thank them for a chance to test their readiness. If this had been a real attack, they'd have failed miserably.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
If the ads were placed on property that Turner did not own and did not get permission to use, then their actions were illegal regardless of if they notified the city or not. Other companies, including Microsoft and I believe Coke, have gotten fined heavily for littering and/or vandalism for graffiti style advertisments in various cities, including chalked ads on sidewalks. You can't just go throwing advertisments up anywhere you want.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: If the ads were placed on property that Turner did not own and did not get permission to use, then their actions were illegal regardless of if they notified the city or not. Other companies, including Microsoft and I believe Coke, have gotten fined heavily for littering and/or vandalism for graffiti style advertisments in various cities, including chalked ads on sidewalks. You can't just go throwing advertisments up anywhere you want.
I wish we had consistency for these rules. If corporations can't do it, then people shouldn't be allowed to put up "lost pet" or "garage sale" or "come see our band" fliers without equally large fines.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Right. You would normally have to get a permit to put up any kind of sign/attention getting device. It would be incredibly difficult/impossible to get said permit if you did not own the property you wanted to display on, or did not have permission from the property owner. That is what they did illegal and that is what they should be charged with.
Forcing them to pay for anything else that happened in the city that day would not be an appropriate reaction (IMO). They should have to pay for what they did, not what the city did.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: If the ads were placed on property that Turner did not own and did not get permission to use, then their actions were illegal regardless of if they notified the city or not. Other companies, including Microsoft and I believe Coke, have gotten fined heavily for littering and/or vandalism for graffiti style advertisments in various cities, including chalked ads on sidewalks. You can't just go throwing advertisments up anywhere you want.
I wish we had consistency for these rules. If corporations can't do it, then people shouldn't be allowed to put up "lost pet" or "garage sale" or "come see our band" fliers without equally large fines.
Fine EROSOMNIAC! I hope you enjoy your big corporate business backed dribble music! Way to crush inspiration and budding artists with your elitist machine!
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I wish we had consistency for these rules. If corporations can't do it, then people shouldn't be allowed to put up "lost pet" or "garage sale" or "come see our band" fliers without equally large fines.
They can be, it just usually doesn't happen. Kinda like how it's illegal to get drunk in a bar but it is rare that someone is charged with it. If you put up a sign anywhere public, you have to have a permit.
Edit: also, the fines usually aren't that big.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I dunno, eros, flyers on telephone poles seem different from ads sprayed on sidewalks and sides of buildings, even if they're sprayed with stuff that will wash off eventually.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, I only see band flyers on community bulletin boards, usually. And garage sale signs around here have to be taken down again after the sale is over, within a certain amount of time, I think.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:I wish we had consistency for these rules. If corporations can't do it, then people shouldn't be allowed to put up "lost pet" or "garage sale" or "come see our band" fliers without equally large fines.
They can be, it just usually doesn't happen. Kinda like how it's illegal to get drunk in a bar but it is rare that someone is charged with it. If you put up a sign anywhere public, you have to have a permit.
Edit: also, the fines usually aren't that big.
I probably should have said: "I wish we had consistency in the enforcement of these rules."
quote:I dunno, eros, flyers on telephone poles seem different from ads sprayed on sidewalks and sides of buildings, even if they're sprayed with stuff that will wash off eventually.
Not seeing how that's different than kids drawing enormous hopscotch grids and hideous pictures on public sidewalks/streets.
quote:Also, I only see band flyers on community bulletin boards, usually. And garage sale signs around here have to be taken down again after the sale is over, within a certain amount of time, I think.
Probably due to the difference in geography: I see them all the time, everywhere. Fliers for bands, lost pet notices, missing person notices, signs and ads asking people to become grassroots workers for Save the Children, WashPIRG, etc.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Must be geography. Kids around here only draw on the sidewalks in front of their own house, too. Which is still public, but since the homeowner has to pay for the sidewalks, I'm fine with their kids using them. But I'd be pissed if some company sprayed an ad in front of my house.(I just had to pay to replace a chunk of sidewalk in front of my house two summers ago, because the city inspector thought it was heaving up too much from a tree root.)
We get missing pet notices, but the rest of that stuff seems to be confined to appropriate places.
I checked google, btw. Microsoft had to apologize for sticking butterfly decals up in NYC, Verizon was fined for spray chalk on sidewalks in D.C., but I couldn't find how much, and IBM had to pay $120,000 for fines and clean-up costs for spray chalk promoting Linux in Chicago and San Francisco in 2001. Not that much, really.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
the problem with all the calls to fine/punish these advertisers above and beyond whatever permit violations they are guilty of is that while the light-bright ads may look like bombs (to some) but so could an almost infinite amount of other things.
If I toss a pringles can on the curb under a bridge should I be fined the $5000 for littering or imprisoned for attempt to incite terror? I mean, I could concievably put a small bomb in a pringles can and leave it anywhere to go off at a later time.
What about when I'm walking around town carrying my brief-case or suit-case? I could have a nuke in one of those and be walking toward some high-population area to set it off...
What about when a box or barrel etc falls off the back of a pickup truck? should there be greater fines because those could concievably house a bomb?
Sure it's quite possible that these things weren't advertising devices and were actually bombs (from the initial observations) but the same could apply to just about anything else around the size of a book or bigger.
Do I think it's most likely illegal and somewhat irresponsible for the company to have done this without permits (thereby notifying the city of where these devices were) it's also fairly rediculous to try pursuing anything other than the normal fines for such a misdemeanor...
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
My husband told me about the story before I read a paper or saw the news.
I was apalled that the young men were being treated so harshly.
Then I saw pictures of them, and heard their "funny" report.
I did not find them funny. I found them arrogant and disrespectful. Even if it was a total accident, they frightened a lot of people.
This does not change the fact that I believe the whole situation was blown out of proportion. It does change my opinion of these men. Their behavior made me cringe.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:It was a LIGHTBRITE. It was a bunch of LED lights with batteries. That's it. How do you confuse that with a bomb?
Bombs can look like any damn thing their makers want them to, Alt. They don't even have to be all that big. There would be plenty of room to hide a bomb in a litebrite, and still have it function as an actual litebrite as well.
So, a bomb could be in a watermelon, perhaps? But my grocery store maliciously planted a large number of those in a high-traffic area! Arrest whoever is responsible! Throw the book at them!
If a bomb can look like anything, then we should obviously arrest everyone who puts things that look like anything in places where we might be frightened by them!
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: I did not find them funny. I found them arrogant and disrespectful. Even if it was a total accident, they frightened a lot of people.
They likely acted that way because they were pissed that they were being treated like terrorists, so they got their "revenge" by poking fun at the city.
Was it a mature way to act? No, but not all that hard to understand.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
To me it seemed like they felt the whole thing was so entirely silly (that anyone would mistake their litebrite ads for bombs) that they decided to just continue acting silly about the whole thing and maybe it would all go away. When we take people's ridiculous paranoia seriously, we just make more of a mountain out of what is just a small bump, i.e. someone's embarrassing mistake.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I did not find them funny. I found them arrogant and disrespectful. Even if it was a total accident, they frightened a lot of people.
I saw them as trying to tweak the people who were co-conspirators in frightening a lot of people: The Media (TM). Probably the city of Boston also.
(Not serious, but not quite joking either.)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Some facts that seem to be overlooked here:
One: Early in the morning, a bomb threat was called in, and a hoax pipe bomb found.
Two: These devices are not lit up during the day, when they were found.
Three: The first one found was on a support girder under 93 northbound... one of the major arteries in the city.
Four: 5 1/2 hours after the city started responding to the potential threat, an email was apparently sent by the marketing company telling employees not to alert the city of boston that these devices were advertisements.
Five: Three hours after this, the city received the first notification from the marketing agency that the devices were not bombs.
Six: Just because the first one, two, three, or seventeen weird looking objects you find are not bombs, does not mean the eighteenth won't be.
The city responded in a perfectly rational way, given the way the incident developed during the day. The marketing agency utilized the cities response to further market their product, by requiring their employees not to contact the city of boston as to what the devices were.
Given that the marketing agency allowed the emergency response to continue for several hours after they knew that the police were responding to their devices, I don't see how a just settlement ends WITHOUT aqua teen hunger force off the air, and the marketing agency still extent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Frankly I hope that the FederalCommunicationsCommission pulls TurnerBroadcasting's license. And that the Boston District Attorney files the harshest criminal charges possible against everybody who approved of or participated in the advertising campaign.
Hopefully you've mellowed this position somewhat!
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
It was their press conference, they can do whatever they want with it. It doesn't make them immature, either. I, for one, was very happy when they told that snooty reporter to stay on topic.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"It was their press conference, they can do whatever they want with it. It doesn't make them immature"
I never said immature. I said arrogant. Arrogance crosses all age lines.
If they go to court for this, they will not have the media to play their scene for, just a judge and jury, and I hope they take the situation more seriously.
Dag, or other lawyers, can they be prosecuted for trespassing, even if they were "ordered" by their employer to do so? Or does the employer have an out, saying, "We told them to put the devices up, we did not tell them where?"
These young men can make their jokes, but it might turn out that the joke is on them, and I doubt their display will help them if it comes to that.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
At first I found these two to be completely irresponsible. Part of that is my already predisposed dislike of Cartoon Network's night programming and Turner Broadcasting. Then, I learned the truth.
They found a lot of Nightbrights with pictures of a cartoon character on them. They were sitting around for two weeks with no one noticing. What that means is two things. First, what they did as a stunt was rather bothersome, but not of the terrorist level. Second, if this was a serious terrorist attempt, Boston at least has proven it can't really protect anyone. The bombs could have gone off (if that is what they were) in two days or less.
I no longer see these two in the same light as I at first did. They are still idiots, but their contempt for the media is a breath of fresh air. Most of the comments I have read on blogs are very supportive of the "hair" news conference. Basically, it comes down to news reporters are arrogant and these two stripped the media's self-proclaimed importance. I also learned something else, if the majority of responses I have seen from "regular" people is correct. The way to make the media look bad and gain sympathy is not to get all defensive or try to play by their rules, but simply make fun of them.
My guess is that they will be much more serious at the trial (if they talk at all instead of just the lawyers). What they did do is basically say "I am not going to be put on trial by the media. That is not their business. If they want to use me, I am going to use them." The lesson? Treat the media with hormorous scorn and they go away.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The joke is already on them, and they know it. They had to get bailed out on jail because we had a spontaneous societal realization that some people are intent at being jumpy in a "post 9/11 world" and will radio in a lite-brite as a bomb threat.
So, they roll with the punches.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, or other lawyers, can they be prosecuted for trespassing, even if they were "ordered" by their employer to do so? Or does the employer have an out, saying, "We told them to put the devices up, we did not tell them where?"
In a general sense, being told to trespass by your employer would not be a defense. However, depending on the mental element (intent/knowledge), a reasonable belief that the employer had permission to do this would be a defense. This is called a mistake of fact defense, and is available for many offenses.
Inducing someone to commit a crime generally results in criminal liability for that crime, although the details vary from state to state. So if I tell an employee to commit a crime, I would likely be guilty of that crime once it's committed. In most states, I think this would be true even if the employee has the mistake of fact defense.
Liken it to a supervisor in a hospital telling a nurse that a hypodermic has medicine that has been prescribed for a patient. If the supervisor instead put cyanide in the hypodermic, then the nurse would be guilty of nothing (assuming it was reasonable for her to believe the supervisor - this would depend on standards of care in the medical field), yet the supervisor would be guilty of murder.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The only possible defense -- not for the advertisers, but for people consider Lite-Brites dangerous -- is now available.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)