|
On June 02 2011 02:17 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:37 nozh wrote:
pull the ad, apologize publicly, problem solved. I couldn't disagree more. Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch ? Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit? Company makes ad. Someone asks them to take it down. Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?" Lawsuit made. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. Actually, since Naomi Campbell is a "public figure", it doesn't matter whether they meant her or not. She doesn't have the same protections as "anonymous" people, as a "public figure". Regardless, all this arguing about what you can and can't say is getting so ridiculous, it's going to have the opposite effect. People won't care about these sensitivities before long.
They already don't care about it. That's why these discussions happen.
Someone says "should we give a damn"
Someone else replies "we should shouldn't we?"
A third party says "Doesn't really matter anyway, lets just ignore it"
If people cared, discussion wouldn't happen because they all agree anyway. The fact is that most people don't care and worse--don't want to care. They don't want to think about it, they don't want to be part of it because its hard and insulting and weird to deal with. People would rather be apathetic and just let the shit sort itself.
Which is okay--I'm perfectly okay with people doing that so long as they know they're doing it.
|
First, they didn't use her last name. I can't imagine how she expects to prove beyond doubt this is specifically directed at her, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Second, in the bottom right of the ad it talks about the chocolate being pampered, it's comparing them as Divas and their royal treatment not because of color.
Third, Naomi is clearly mentally unstable IMO. She's been charged with assault more times than I have, and I'm an Irish guy who likes to drink and fight (shocking I know).
+ Show Spoiler +
From her page on WIKI
"Between 1998 and 2008, Campbell was accused ten times of committing acts of violence against employees, associates, and, in one instance, police officers. In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to assaulting her personal assistant Georgina Galanis with a cell phone. Campbell paid Galanis an undisclosed sum and agreed to attend anger management classes; her record was cleared in exchange for her expressing remorse.[40][41]
By 2006, eight other employees and associates had come forward with claims of abuse: secretary Vanessa Frisbee claimed she was physically assaulted by Campbell, housekeeper Millicent Burton claimed Campbell had slapped, kicked, and scratched her, assistant Simone Craig claimed Campbell held her hostage and threw a phone at her, housekeeper Ana Scolavino claimed Campbell threw a BlackBerry personal organiser at her, maid Gaby Gibson claimed Campbell hit her and called her names, and assistant Amanda Brack claimed Campbell slapped and beat her with a BlackBerry.[13][41][42] Campbell's drug therapist claimed Campbell scratched her face during a counselling session.[41] Actress Yvonne Sciò claimed Campbell left her "covered in blood" after an altercation at a Rome hotel.[41] Sciò said, "She punched me in the face. She was like Mike Tyson."[41] In 2005, Campbell was photographed wearing a Chip and Pepper T-shirt that read "Naomi Hit Me...and I Loved It".[13]
In 2007, Campbell pleaded guilty in New York to assaulting her former housekeeper Ana Scolavino.[8][13] She was sentenced to pay Scolavino's medical expenses, attend an anger management program, and perform five days of community service with New York's sanitation department.[13] She attended her community service wearing designer outfits, including fedoras, furs, and—upon completion of her sentence—a silver sequined Dolce & Gabbana gown.[7][13] Campbell detailed her community service experience in a W feature titled "The Naomi Diaries", in which she wrote, "I keep on sweeping. I'm getting very protective of my pile of rubbish—kind of the way I feel about my Hermès handbag."[13] That same year, Campbell settled the lawsuits brought by actress Yvonne Sciò and her former assistant Amanda Brack.[43][13] She spoofed herself in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial, directed by Zach Braff, which showed her breaking her heel while gardening and throwing it through a window.[13]
In 2008, Campbell pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport in London.[8] She had spat at the officers following an argument about her lost luggage.[13] Campbell was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and fined $4,600.[8] She was banned for life from British Airways.[7] In 2009, Campbell settled the lawsuit brought by her former maid Gaby Gibson.[44]"
So comparing a black persons skin color to chocolate is racist and bad, beating people however? Yeah, that's acceptable.
She doesn't deserve the attention and should be promptly ignored. By the way, there is no law that says you can't have racist advertising (as far as I know) that would probably interfere with the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech.
|
On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:37 nozh wrote:
pull the ad, apologize publicly, problem solved. I couldn't disagree more. Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch ? Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit? Company makes ad. Someone asks them to take it down. Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?" Lawsuit made. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
|
On June 02 2011 02:24 Reborn8u wrote:First, they didn't use her last name. I can't imagine how she expects to prove beyond doubt this is specifically directed at her, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Second, in the bottom right of the ad it talks about the chocolate being pampered, it's comparing them as Divas and their royal treatment not because of color. Third, Naomi is clearly mentally unstable IMO. She's been charged with assault more times than I have, and I'm an Irish guy who likes to drink and fight (shocking I know). + Show Spoiler +
From her page on WIKI
"Between 1998 and 2008, Campbell was accused ten times of committing acts of violence against employees, associates, and, in one instance, police officers. In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to assaulting her personal assistant Georgina Galanis with a cell phone. Campbell paid Galanis an undisclosed sum and agreed to attend anger management classes; her record was cleared in exchange for her expressing remorse.[40][41]
By 2006, eight other employees and associates had come forward with claims of abuse: secretary Vanessa Frisbee claimed she was physically assaulted by Campbell, housekeeper Millicent Burton claimed Campbell had slapped, kicked, and scratched her, assistant Simone Craig claimed Campbell held her hostage and threw a phone at her, housekeeper Ana Scolavino claimed Campbell threw a BlackBerry personal organiser at her, maid Gaby Gibson claimed Campbell hit her and called her names, and assistant Amanda Brack claimed Campbell slapped and beat her with a BlackBerry.[13][41][42] Campbell's drug therapist claimed Campbell scratched her face during a counselling session.[41] Actress Yvonne Sciò claimed Campbell left her "covered in blood" after an altercation at a Rome hotel.[41] Sciò said, "She punched me in the face. She was like Mike Tyson."[41] In 2005, Campbell was photographed wearing a Chip and Pepper T-shirt that read "Naomi Hit Me...and I Loved It".[13]
In 2007, Campbell pleaded guilty in New York to assaulting her former housekeeper Ana Scolavino.[8][13] She was sentenced to pay Scolavino's medical expenses, attend an anger management program, and perform five days of community service with New York's sanitation department.[13] She attended her community service wearing designer outfits, including fedoras, furs, and—upon completion of her sentence—a silver sequined Dolce & Gabbana gown.[7][13] Campbell detailed her community service experience in a W feature titled "The Naomi Diaries", in which she wrote, "I keep on sweeping. I'm getting very protective of my pile of rubbish—kind of the way I feel about my Hermès handbag."[13] That same year, Campbell settled the lawsuits brought by actress Yvonne Sciò and her former assistant Amanda Brack.[43][13] She spoofed herself in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial, directed by Zach Braff, which showed her breaking her heel while gardening and throwing it through a window.[13]
In 2008, Campbell pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport in London.[8] She had spat at the officers following an argument about her lost luggage.[13] Campbell was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and fined $4,600.[8] She was banned for life from British Airways.[7] In 2009, Campbell settled the lawsuit brought by her former maid Gaby Gibson.[44]"
So comparing a black persons skin color to chocolate is racist and bad, beating people however? Yeah, that's acceptable.
She doesn't deserve the attention and should be promptly ignored.
I agree with your opinion of Naomi's character.
But what your suggesting is that if someone not Naomi sued who was more reputable (lets say martin luther king for shits and giggles) then this lawsuit would be "more legit" just because you like the accuser more. Shouldn't the main thinking be "is this lawsuit legit no matter who does the accusing?"
|
On June 01 2011 20:21 Kickboxer wrote:
Isn't she that pompous bitch who abused some saleslady over special privileges and shit? As far as I am concerned she can go eat a chainsaw.
User was warned for this post
More like a bucket of KFC...
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 02 2011 02:27 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:24 Reborn8u wrote:First, they didn't use her last name. I can't imagine how she expects to prove beyond doubt this is specifically directed at her, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Second, in the bottom right of the ad it talks about the chocolate being pampered, it's comparing them as Divas and their royal treatment not because of color. Third, Naomi is clearly mentally unstable IMO. She's been charged with assault more times than I have, and I'm an Irish guy who likes to drink and fight (shocking I know). + Show Spoiler +
From her page on WIKI
"Between 1998 and 2008, Campbell was accused ten times of committing acts of violence against employees, associates, and, in one instance, police officers. In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to assaulting her personal assistant Georgina Galanis with a cell phone. Campbell paid Galanis an undisclosed sum and agreed to attend anger management classes; her record was cleared in exchange for her expressing remorse.[40][41]
By 2006, eight other employees and associates had come forward with claims of abuse: secretary Vanessa Frisbee claimed she was physically assaulted by Campbell, housekeeper Millicent Burton claimed Campbell had slapped, kicked, and scratched her, assistant Simone Craig claimed Campbell held her hostage and threw a phone at her, housekeeper Ana Scolavino claimed Campbell threw a BlackBerry personal organiser at her, maid Gaby Gibson claimed Campbell hit her and called her names, and assistant Amanda Brack claimed Campbell slapped and beat her with a BlackBerry.[13][41][42] Campbell's drug therapist claimed Campbell scratched her face during a counselling session.[41] Actress Yvonne Sciò claimed Campbell left her "covered in blood" after an altercation at a Rome hotel.[41] Sciò said, "She punched me in the face. She was like Mike Tyson."[41] In 2005, Campbell was photographed wearing a Chip and Pepper T-shirt that read "Naomi Hit Me...and I Loved It".[13]
In 2007, Campbell pleaded guilty in New York to assaulting her former housekeeper Ana Scolavino.[8][13] She was sentenced to pay Scolavino's medical expenses, attend an anger management program, and perform five days of community service with New York's sanitation department.[13] She attended her community service wearing designer outfits, including fedoras, furs, and—upon completion of her sentence—a silver sequined Dolce & Gabbana gown.[7][13] Campbell detailed her community service experience in a W feature titled "The Naomi Diaries", in which she wrote, "I keep on sweeping. I'm getting very protective of my pile of rubbish—kind of the way I feel about my Hermès handbag."[13] That same year, Campbell settled the lawsuits brought by actress Yvonne Sciò and her former assistant Amanda Brack.[43][13] She spoofed herself in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial, directed by Zach Braff, which showed her breaking her heel while gardening and throwing it through a window.[13]
In 2008, Campbell pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport in London.[8] She had spat at the officers following an argument about her lost luggage.[13] Campbell was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and fined $4,600.[8] She was banned for life from British Airways.[7] In 2009, Campbell settled the lawsuit brought by her former maid Gaby Gibson.[44]"
So comparing a black persons skin color to chocolate is racist and bad, beating people however? Yeah, that's acceptable.
She doesn't deserve the attention and should be promptly ignored. I agree with your opinion of Naomi's character. But what your suggesting is that if someone not Naomi sued who was more reputable (lets say martin luther king for shits and giggles) then this lawsuit would be "more legit" just because you like the accuser more. Shouldn't the main thinking be "is this lawsuit legit no matter who does the accusing?"
Let me clarify, I brought that up because I feel it shows that the lawsuit wasn't brought up by a rational person. So it's less likely to have any merit. It's not about liking someone more, it's about the integrity of the person. She probably just had a temper tantrum when she saw it and decided to sue. The lawyers may or may not have tried to talk her out of it, but they probably couldn't care less if it succeeds or not, they get paid regardless. Unfortunately, she will probably end up getting a settlement from them just to stop the bad publicity. Which to me is a small step from "blackmail" a term she probably thinks is racist too.
|
On June 02 2011 02:22 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:17 Kaitlin wrote:
Actually, since Naomi Campbell is a "public figure", it doesn't matter whether they meant her or not. She doesn't have the same protections as "anonymous" people, as a "public figure".
Regardless, all this arguing about what you can and can't say is getting so ridiculous, it's going to have the opposite effect. People won't care about these sensitivities before long. They already don't care about it. That's why these discussions happen. Someone says "should we give a damn" Someone else replies "we should shouldn't we?" A third party says "Doesn't really matter anyway, lets just ignore it" If people cared, discussion wouldn't happen because they all agree anyway. The fact is that most people don't care and worse--don't want to care. They don't want to think about it, they don't want to be part of it because its hard and insulting and weird to deal with. People would rather be apathetic and just let the shit sort itself. Which is okay--I'm perfectly okay with people doing that so long as they know they're doing it.
What I mean is, Joe Public, who is reasonable, and tries to be a good person, considering people's sensitivities eventually gets tired of all this. Someone who actually tried to be a sensitive person came to realize that no matter how sensitive he was, it wasn't good enough. Realizing that he can't ever be sensitive enough, he stops trying and no longer cares about the issue.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the U.S., you're not in violation of any laws just for "being" racist or making such comments. Only if you deny employment, or certain other specific situations, based on races, can you find yourself a problem.
So, the fight against racism, the mindset, is a "persuasive" cause, not a legal one, as you can't legislate racism out of people's minds. While Joe Public would have been much more supporting of the argument previously, he has become desensitized to it because of the ridiculousness of situations such as this. It's a loss for the fight against racism.
|
how is Naomi directly related to Naomi Campbell? I fail to see the direct connection.
idk who the hell naomi campbell is lol
|
On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:37 nozh wrote:
pull the ad, apologize publicly, problem solved. I couldn't disagree more. Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch ? Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit? Company makes ad. Someone asks them to take it down. Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?" Lawsuit made. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
|
On June 02 2011 02:32 PhiliBiRD wrote:
how is Naomi directly related to Naomi Campbell? I fail to see the direct connection.
idk who the hell naomi campbell is lol
Some public figures claim they are simply known by one name, such as Madonna, Cher, Paris. There was a recent Lindsay Lohan case in the news where an ad had a character named "Lindsay" and she claimed it was in reference to her.
|
Well, it's definitely racist to compare cambell and chocolate bar, a chocolate bar tastes good, doesn't whine about unnecessary shit and actually has value.
Perhaps some day all blacks/minoritioes realize that calling someone who says facts a racist is just going to bite them into ass. Not a single person should keep word "racist" in any value anymore. It's used from everything between torturing someone to not opening a door to black woman...
|
On June 01 2011 20:19 Jayme wrote:SO it's racist now to point out that someone has the same color skin as a chocolate bar? 
Racism, AFAIK, was defined as thinking someone better or worse due to their race. I might take chocolate bar as a compliment. But I wouldn't overreact and immediately assume that it was intentionally racist. She does bring up a point though. Chocolate bar is used in a derogatory quite often in many different urban communities.
Personally I think it's just a accident of the company and Naomi overreacting, perhaps even glad for an excuse to get angry at something.
|
On June 02 2011 02:35 Mammel wrote:
Well, it's definitely racist to compare cambell and chocolate bar, a chocolate bar tastes good, doesn't whine about unnecessary shit and actually has value.
Perhaps some day all blacks/minoritioes realize that calling someone who says facts a racist is just going to bite them into ass. Not a single person should keep word "racist" in any value anymore. It's used from everything between torturing someone to not opening a door to black woman...
I pretty much agree, but I just wanted to add that I've even heard of women being offended when men DO open doors for them ... What a world we live in.
|
On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:37 nozh wrote:
pull the ad, apologize publicly, problem solved. I couldn't disagree more. Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch ? Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit? Company makes ad. Someone asks them to take it down. Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?" Lawsuit made. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
|
On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
I couldn't disagree more. Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch ? Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit? Company makes ad. Someone asks them to take it down. Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?" Lawsuit made. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
|
On June 02 2011 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit?
Company makes ad.
Someone asks them to take it down.
Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?"
Lawsuit made. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is. Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
An hydralisk is a public figure right?
|
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that?
There are a million other references that could have been made.
|
One day, her husband will compare her legs to yummy chocolate bars and he will be sued for racist sexual harrassement.
|
I do think the ad is inappropriate. Regardless if it's 'racist' or not.
|
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote:
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that?
There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
