Solar Freakin Roadways

[russ]

Last I heard, the right to make fun of politicians was pretty fundamental to free speech rights under the first amendment.

We fought a war of independence in order to secure that right (among others) from the British. We also fought a cold war against a repressive communist empire which wanted to deny those rights to its citizens and others.

Maybe you missed that day of history class.

I have agreed making fun of public personalities is considered OK.

I do not see lying about companies to try to make them look bad is OK.

Your history class story is total BS.

[inetdog]

I have agreed making fun of public personalities is considered OK.

I do not see lying about companies to try to make them look bad is OK.

Admirable ethics Russ.
That distinction starts to become meaningless when the Supremes declare that a corporation is a person with a right to make unlimited political contributions. Next thing corporations will be holding public office and at that point will become fair game for lies and distortions.

There is also the slippery slope among lies, satire and parody, made more difficult when a lot of people do not get the joke.

[russ]

The "corporations are people" was in answer (at least in part) to the unions and similar groups one party used extensively that were and are allowed to do what they want with money. I don't see where that really comes into play.

The "comedians" of today are like the old "if you can't do then teach" - add to that, "if you are useless at everything else and have a smart mouth then be a comedian".

[pleppik]

I have agreed making fun of public personalities is considered OK.

I do not see lying about companies to try to make them look bad is OK.

Russ, this is a serious question for my own curiosity and not trying to escalate a flame war. I'm really interested as to why you draw that distinction.

Given that "lying about someone to try to make them look bad" is almost a definition of parody, why should that be OK for a public figure but not a corporation?

I don't really see much distinction between, for example, Saturday Night Live having Tina Fey pretend to be Sarah Palin and act ignorant, vs. Saturday Night Live running a fake commercial proclaiming the supposed virtues of pre-oiled shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico and proclaiming it was "Brought to you by BP."

Under our laws, either one is OK. Basically, as long as there's no fraud (deception for monetary gain), as long as the intent was parody it's generally allowed. Under our system, we don't require that it be good parody (imagine trying to litigate whether a joke was actually funny), or that everyone get the joke. In fact, some of the best parody is just barely plausible enough that some people think it's true, like Onion articles.

FWIW, the "National Report" and "Wyoming Institute of Technology" websites which kicked all this off are both fairly obvious parody sites (though not very good ones). Heck, the logo for "Wyoming Institute of Technology" is even the word "WIT" in giant letters.

[russ]

Russ, this is a serious question for my own curiosity and not trying to escalate a flame war. I'm really interested as to why you draw that distinction.

Given that "lying about someone to try to make them look bad" is almost a definition of parody, why should that be OK for a public figure but not a corporation?

Just so you are aware - I am American but I can't stand the PC BS - from both sides meaning the nanny state of the leftp (so called progressives) and the religious right plus teabaggers. I left for good in 1998 and have no desire to move back. Plenty wrong with politics here but at least they have yet to get so deep into one's personal space. Since '78 I have worked mainly in the 3rd world on steel making projects.

Companies spend money to make a name - hopefully a good name and some fool can come along telling tall lies to destroy it intentionally. The greens and left are very happy to do the damage with 100% intention of harm. WIT, to me, stands for lackwit.

A politician, celebrity intentionally place themselves in harms way - that is their business and how they make their money.

Parody site are just another part of the sickness of today's society. Like people whining that the American dream is dead. The American dream never meant you could follow in your father's footsteps at GM and live an easy life. To me it meant that if you worked hard enough, long enough and smartly you could do well.

[pleppik]

A politician, celebrity intentionally place themselves in harms way - that is their business and how they make their money.

Parody site are just another part of the sickness of today's society. Like people whining that the American dream is dead. The American dream never meant you could follow in your father's footsteps at GM and live an easy life. To me it meant that if you worked hard enough, long enough and smartly you could do well.

Well, I guess we simply have different perspectives then, and I can respect that.

In my view, parody and satire are part of the fine, and somewhat chaotic, tradition of American politics going back to before the Revolutionary War.

And I see no reason why a group of people should be immune to that just because they formed a corporation and try to make a profit.

[J.P.M.]

Well, I guess we simply have different perspectives then, and I can respect that.

In my view, parody and satire are part of the fine, and somewhat chaotic, tradition of American politics going back to before the Revolutionary War.

And I see no reason why a group of people should be immune to that just because they formed a corporation and try to make a profit.

And one other, off solar but different perspective : Parody and satire can be more productive when the public is informed, intelligent and aware. Parody and satire can be less productive, even counterproductive when the public is as intellectually lazy as we Americans seem to have devolved to.

[russ]

Well, I guess we simply have different perspectives then, and I can respect that.

In my view, parody and satire are part of the fine, and somewhat chaotic, tradition of American politics going back to before the Revolutionary War.

And I see no reason why a group of people should be immune to that just because they formed a corporation and try to make a profit.

About the companies - So it is fine that some group of people - individual or investors - is trying to build something with effort and money so another group of non producers or actually leaches comes along and distorts what the workers are doing just for fun or in an actual attempt to harm their effort - saying "it's my right to do any thing I want".

The attacks on companies didn't start back in the 1700's.

[pleppik]

The attacks on companies didn't start back in the 1700's.

The Boston Tea Party was a direct attack on ships owned by the East India Company, a privately-owned company. The British government wasn't directly involved, though obviously the East India Company both benefited from the British policy and was seen as symbolic of the policies the colonialists didn't like.

[russ]

The Boston Tea Party was a direct attack on ships owned by the East India Company, a privately-owned company. The British government wasn't directly involved, though obviously the East India Company both benefited from the British policy and was seen as symbolic of the policies the colonialists didn't like.

Talk about being confused - the Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with saying company X makes a dangerous product when in fact the person has no knowledge but is just chattering.

The Boston Tea Party was a revolt against the king and nothing more or less though they wouldn't like the statement.

The Boston Tea Party and the teabaggers of today have zero in common either for that matter.

[ButchDeal]

The Boston Tea Party was a direct attack on ships owned by the East India Company, a privately-owned company. The British government wasn't directly involved, though obviously the East India Company both benefited from the British policy and was seen as symbolic of the policies the colonialists didn't like.

The king was the largest stake holder in the East India trading Co. He and most of the other share holders were highly influential in the gov policies.

[J.P.M.]

The Boston Tea Party was a direct attack on ships owned by the East India Company, a privately-owned company. The British government wasn't directly involved, though obviously the East India Company both benefited from the British policy and was seen as symbolic of the policies the colonialists didn't like.

To say that the Boston Tea Party was a direct attack on ships owned by anyone is, IMO, a bit short sighted and analogous to saying the purpose of the D-Day invasion was to attack Normandy beaches. I think there was more behind both.

[pleppik]

To say that the Boston Tea Party was a direct attack on ships owned by anyone is, IMO, a bit short sighted and analogous to saying the purpose of the D-Day invasion was to attack Normandy beaches. I think there was more behind both.

I agree. I was simply trying to counter the strange claim that corporations have somehow been off-limits to attack until some recent time.

[megasolar-energy]

Off on a 4 week camping trip soon but few opportunities to charge my phone (Samsung Galaxy).
Anybody used a solar charger? OR, rather, anybody used an EFFECTIVE solar charger?
If so, tips on make, model and where to purchase gladly welcomed.
Thanks

[russ]

Off on a 4 week camping trip soon but few opportunities to charge my phone (Samsung Galaxy).
Anybody used a solar charger? OR, rather, anybody used an EFFECTIVE solar charger?
If so, tips on make, model and where to purchase gladly welcomed.
Thanks

With any luck PN Junction will be around soon - he is the porta power man here!