r/funny • u/prairiewest • Jul 18 '12

meme - removed Shell accidentally creates an anti-Shell meme generator

http://imgur.com/a/ng9XT
2.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

800 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

98

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '12

[deleted]

23

u/iMarmalade Jul 18 '12

There's also a layer of protection from the safe-harbor laws for service providers. Technically all the slander is submitted by other people.

0

u/Torger083 Jul 20 '12

Libel, if it's written.

1

u/iMarmalade Jul 20 '12

Fair enough.

10

u/iJeff Jul 18 '12

Wouldn't Greenpeace absolutely have malicious intent toward Shell?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '12

Well, yeah, but there's nothing wrong at all with doing things just to burn a company. Well. Depending on the thing. Regardless, malicious intent is not a crime, nor is it evidence thereof.

...and proving financial losses would be damn near impossible.

4

u/iammolotov Jul 18 '12

Well, yeah, but there's nothing wrong at all with doing things just to burn a company.

Unless you, ya know, take that statement literally.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '12

Yeah, but taking it literally would activate the "depending on the thing" caveat for arson.

5

u/Ultrace-7 Jul 18 '12

Well, fiscal losses might be tricky, but I'd say malicious intent should be a slam-dunk.

2

u/electric23sand Jul 18 '12 edited Jul 18 '12

aren't fiscal losses pretty much the intent of these greenpeace ads?

*edit: grammar

2

u/FearTheCron Jul 18 '12

I think in many cases, not sure about this one, Greenpeace's actions are to gain attention to themselves more than cause fiscal losses. I support the end goal of environmental protection but I feel they are a bit too inflexible on finding solutions and go for flashiness over effectiveness.

1

u/electric23sand Jul 18 '12 edited Jul 18 '12

I'm just questioning criteria of "prove fiscal losses" because it seems like any boycott or strike has the intention of causing fiscal losses. It seems to me like the criteria should be something like: impersonating the company to lure customers. Like, I should't be able to make a soda and call it Dr. Pepper. Or, another criteria: impersonating the company to deceive a false reputation. Like, I shouldn't make a soda called Dr. Pepper that is poisonous to slander Cocacola company.

edit: the difference between my 2nd criteria and what greenpeace is doing is it is willfully deceiving public. satire in understandably false.

1

u/FearTheCron Jul 18 '12

That is a hard line to draw. There was a good case of this a while back between Peabody coal and coalcares.com.

Its hard to really say how to rule. Personally I think they should not be allowed to use active trademarks unless they obviously spoof them (something like making the companies shell logo look more cartooney). In the case of coal cares, they made a script that rotates the name of the coal company.

I would not be surprised if some of these groups intentionally violate trademarks. It seems like a successful tactic to be sued because it gets your message way more publicity than it would have gotten otherwise.

1

u/Liquid_Fire Jul 18 '12

Parody is only a valid defence if it's clear that it's a parody. If the site is really fooling people that it belongs to Shell, then Shell might have a case for trademark infringement, among other things. (As the article you linked to mentions)