IVAN LILLEY Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Yes look again, by getting it stopped! and whilst you are at it look again at how the apologists squirm about to make excuses and justifications for the removal of the ad. hmmm, a fair point.....still. only a director with a death wish would do the same ad in muslim form, as you well know. what does that do to freedom of speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 you should get a victim tattoo I strongly suspect you don't know the difference between humour and being offensive. hey its probably my lack of grammer/ english. You're spelling isn't too great either! It's 'grammar' btw. The thread title is misleading. The ad wasn't banned, it was withdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVAN LILLEY Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I strongly suspect you don't know the difference between humour and being offensive. You're spelling isn't too great either! It's 'grammar' btw. The thread title is misleading. The ad wasn't banned, it was withdrawn. you really cant answer me can you:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 you really cant answer me can you:roll: Don't you just hate it when people make statements like that ? like theres a point riding on it ? Sometimes the point is too outlandish or not a poiniant one, or the answer is so obvious it does not need further comment. I don't know if your own point is valid or not as I cant at this time be bothered to see if there is one at this time, but I see this kind of question all to oftern and the question itself is ussually pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVAN LILLEY Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Don't you just hate it when people make statements like that ? like theres a point riding on it ? Sometimes the point is too outlandish or not a poiniant one, or the answer is so obvious it does not need further comment. I don't know if your own point is valid or not as I cant at this time be bothered to see if there is one at this time, but I see this kind of question all to oftern and the question itself is ussually pointless. to true, off to bed, big day today, been interesting, good night:| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 to true, off to bed, big day today, been interesting, good night:|Good Night feller. Or woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Explain it all away. ahh isn't that nice? All is well with the world because it wasn't banned but pulled but still no complaint about freedom of expression this or freedom of expression that, except Jimmy, who would have done but didn't for other reasons Actually upon reflection I'm inclined to completely agree with milquetoast1, I was misled by the OP. There is no complaint to be had about freedom of expression, they were not denied it. They had the freedom to make that advert, people had the freedom to complain, and they had the freedom to react to the complaints by pulling the commercial because not doing so might damage their profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Think it's simply 'bad marketing'. Generally the feeling of people has to be considered too-adverts can sometimes make or break a company. I guess the last thing Hyundai would have wanted is a 'BOYCOTT HYUNDAI CARS' campaign-as most people do that naturally so any further sales dip will be devastating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tab1 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 ......................double post..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tab1 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Actually upon reflection I'm inclined to completely agree with milquetoast1, I was misled by the OP. There is no complaint to be had about freedom of expression, they were not denied it. They had the freedom to make that advert, people had the freedom to complain, and they had the freedom to react to the complaints by pulling the commercial because not doing so might damage their profits. That is what I wanted to see, a logical acceptance that anybody upset at what they perceive an insult have a right to complain and the perpetrator to then respond by considering the feelings of the complainant. I used the foaming at the mouth term not for the ad makers but for the wagon jumpers who make it their own little war to defend the freedom to insult because it fits in with their respective prejudices. This understandibly of course, was a commercial decisson as should have been a commercial decissions of the Danish Government to make the right noises regarding other issues to safeguard their Mid East export market. They instead screamed about freedom of expression whilst claiming that the insulted should not have the freedom to complain of being insulted, and the rest is history.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.