| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> Even so, I think what may be happening here is that when you lie down with
> dogs, you wake up with fleas. Though BPS may be successfully treading a thin
> line, there are certainly those out there who are taking his work and have
> stepped way over it.
That's not an unreasonable interpretation, though one needs to be careful to
avoid baby-with-the-bathwater reasoning. Brendan can hardly be held
accountable for the actions of his audience, just as Martin Scorsese can't
be blamed for Hinckley's attempted assassination of Reagan. Assuming, for
the moment, that the Sunday Mail is legit, it must be stated that some of
the blurbs from the article are misleading:
> SICK images showing Lego characters committing rape, torture and murder have
> been found by police probing internet sex crimes.
And Bugs Bunny has been seen in women's clothing and kissing Elmer Fudd. As
Brendan has ably pointed out previously, he's only representing stories
found in the canonical text of the bible, so if he's going to be persecuted,
so should the publishers of that book.
> A Tory councillor in England is under investigation over allegations he
> downloaded child porn and had links to Brick Testament.
See the trickery? The councillor allegedly downloaded porn and allegedly
had links to Brick Testament; the two statements are juxtaposed to imply a
necessary corellation where none necessarily exists.
> As part of Operation Ore, police across the UK are hunting 7000 suspected
> paedo- philes who have accessed pay-per-view child porn websites. Many of
> those investigated have had links to Brick Testament.
I expect that many of those investigated have spoken English and have worn
shoes; do either of these facts relate to the crimes of which the
individuals are accused? Again, it's an assumption of causation based on
nothing other than the intent to perceive causation.
> I agree that it is a difficult situation, but I think that if BT is being used
> to promote such unhealthy values as expressed in the article, TLC has the
> right to step in and protect its brand where it sees fit.
It sounds like a freedom of expression issue to me, regardless of the
actions of a tiny (and disturbed) minority of the audience. Brendan claims
no endorsement by TLG, and presumably he acquired his bricks legally, so I
don't see why the manufacturer should have any input whatsoever. Brendan
may choose to act in a manner consistent with TLG's wishes, but that's
entirely his choice to make and should be free of threats (implied or
otherwise) of litigation.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
| (...) I'm not sure he actually praised the BT directly (in fact he mentioned that there are people who have a problem with it), but offered support for BPS's *creativity*. He said that TLC trusts its brand to its fans, "even BPS"-- that's not to say (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
