scouts-l Mail Archive for July of 2000: Re: Bush Commercial
Steven Blary (sblary@BELLSOUTH.NET
Thu Jul 20 2000 - 16:36:06 CDT
both comments were mine. Again I haven't seen the ad but I don't believe
that every person in every ad has given express consent to be in the ad.
I've seen plenty of group shots of people taken in public places holding
various items such as magazines, soft drinks, newspapers, and various
products that are protected by copyright and trademarks.
my statement about possible greater protection of free speech in political
add vs commercial explotation of such items stems from the first admendment
right debate involving campain finance reform. I maybe right I maybe wrong,
but I don't see the big deal. as some one else pointed out they both kiss a
lot of babies and we see that in the ads does that mean that the babies
support the candidates?
I'm flattered that they look to us to give them the good image
From: Scouts-L Youth Group List [mailto:Scouts-L@LISTSERV.TCU.EDU]On
Behalf Of Mark Arend
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Bush Commercial
A couple of comments on these comments.
>I think BSA's policy on this only applies to BSA members. I haven't seen
>the ad so I can't comment on this specific ad, however I believe that
>political ads receive more first amendment protection than those of a
I'm sure that one of the lawyers on the List will correct me if I'm wrong
but I don't think the First Ammendment enters into it. The First
Ammendment refers to prohibiting government restrictions on free speech.
It says nothing about one private entity (the Bush campaign)using an image
relating to another private entity (the BSA).
Someone else said:
>why the adversion to the exposure?
Because the implication might be that the BSA is supporting or endorsing
Mark W. Arend, Scoutmaster Outside of a dog a book is
Troop 736 Man's best friend. Inside
Beaver Dam, Wisc. of a dog it's too dark