Courts to Decide Whether TV Networks Must Allow "Buy Nothing Day" Ads

[The Bread Guy]

Hmmm, wonder how long it'll take to get this onto the CBC.ca web page?    To be fair, it WAS mentioned once...

This, from the Canadian Press:

Adbusters has a green light to take broadcasters to court for rejecting its anti-consumerism ads.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed a technical challenge and cleared the way for Adbusters to sue in the lower courts. The group, best known for its Buy Nothing Day, took legal action in 2004 against Global Television and the CBC.

Adbusters said the networks' refusal to carry ads against consumerism and obesity violates its right to free expression.

One of the so-called social marketing spots featured a burping pig superimposed on a map of North America.

Global moved to discredit the legal merit of the case and have it thrown out, but the high court dismissed its challenge.

If you don't know about the "Buy Nothing Day" campaign, check here.

 

[Shec]

In another weighty decision the Canada's top court's 9 judges voted 8 to 1 in favour of ordering in club house sandwiches for lunch.  In his dissenting opinion he who voted against favoured a soup and salad, citing already high cholesterol levels as the basis of his (doctor's) opinion.

It is interesting to note that whereas the 8 puisne judges toss quarters to make their decisions the Chief Justice flips a loonie.

 

[The Bread Guy]

To me, this is more of a comment about the networks, on the one hand, saying "we should be allowed to share information with our viewers" while, on the other hand, saying "we shouldn't have to share ALL information with our viewers."