Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Busted by Youtube
The SMH reports three train vandals were caught because of the clips they uploaded to youtube. Talk about stupid.
DJ's McLibel moment
The David Jones department store chain were furious when the Australia Institute cited their advertisements as examples of "corporate paedophilia". So they've decided to sue. I can't help but think this is a big mistake for DJs.
The first thing to come to mind is the parallel with the McLibel case. While DJs isn't as big as Maccas and the Australia Institute as small as a pair of penniless activists, it's still very much a David and Goliath fight. We have a tendency to side with small guy.
Another parallel to the McLibel case is the case will give the original report far more circulation than it would have otherwise had. If DJs had left it alone, it would be forgotten by now. As it is, there's currently 32 current hits in Google News and there will more as the story circulates.
To really tick those of us who have some sympathy for free speech, David Jones has decided to use the Trade Practices Act. Misusing the TPA has been tried before; The Australian Wool Industry is having trouble to using it against PETA at the moment. It strikes me, and I'm sure a lot others, as an abuse of a law designed to protect consumers.
In my view the worst mistake is the risk that the definition of "corporate paedophila" might be tested in court. While DJs might well be innocent of this, there's a lot of marketers who aren't. As a parent I'm often disturbed by marketing aimed at pubescent kids.
The topic raised is important and deserves debate. Many marketers are at the least pushing the bounds of good taste and the sexualisation of children is an issue that worries many of us. It would be terribly wrong if that debate was chilled by a case like this.
AT every turn, it appears this decision to sue is a "what were you thinking" moment. While DJs might prevail in court, they've dealt themselves a lose-lose hand. All they can hope for is the Australia institute quietly withdraws the article and settles.
The first thing to come to mind is the parallel with the McLibel case. While DJs isn't as big as Maccas and the Australia Institute as small as a pair of penniless activists, it's still very much a David and Goliath fight. We have a tendency to side with small guy.
Another parallel to the McLibel case is the case will give the original report far more circulation than it would have otherwise had. If DJs had left it alone, it would be forgotten by now. As it is, there's currently 32 current hits in Google News and there will more as the story circulates.
To really tick those of us who have some sympathy for free speech, David Jones has decided to use the Trade Practices Act. Misusing the TPA has been tried before; The Australian Wool Industry is having trouble to using it against PETA at the moment. It strikes me, and I'm sure a lot others, as an abuse of a law designed to protect consumers.
In my view the worst mistake is the risk that the definition of "corporate paedophila" might be tested in court. While DJs might well be innocent of this, there's a lot of marketers who aren't. As a parent I'm often disturbed by marketing aimed at pubescent kids.
The topic raised is important and deserves debate. Many marketers are at the least pushing the bounds of good taste and the sexualisation of children is an issue that worries many of us. It would be terribly wrong if that debate was chilled by a case like this.
AT every turn, it appears this decision to sue is a "what were you thinking" moment. While DJs might prevail in court, they've dealt themselves a lose-lose hand. All they can hope for is the Australia institute quietly withdraws the article and settles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)