Comments on: Says a Lot, Doesn’t It?

By: Jacob Perry

Jacob Perry — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:26:06 +0000

You people need to develop a sense of humor, holy crap.

Abdul, since we are both “liars” for posting this hilarious piece of satire (as Paul correctly pointed out), than I’m proud to be in your company.

By: Rico

Rico — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 04:51:24 +0000

Are you seriously asking how many ‘clueless’ Americans there are? Didn’t the American public just choose Barack Obama as our president?
This is nothing like the Hustler case. That case was about Falwell’s emotional distress caused by the ad in Hustler. Also, it was far more clear that the Hustler cartoon was satire.

By: pascal

pascal — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:46:40 +0000

Unlike our national media I think it is fair to say the consensus here is that the UAW does not make crappy cars nor do the managers of the various auto companies. Those of us with some age can recall rustbuckets not even getting to 50,000 miles. That said, in my view they still cost too much. The labor saving capital utilized in auto plants has no other use and a better system would have used more labor compensated fairly. The result of a bad system is overpriced cars.

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:26:43 +0000

Rico,

How many people do you think would look at that ad and really, truly believe it was an actual ad put out by the big 3? Only someone who was extremely clueless. No, the person didn’t put a big label “SATIRE” on it but from the content alone anyone with half a brain would know it’s a joke.

When you’re talking about the issue of “emotional damages” you’re talking about the damage phase. You don’t even get to the damage phase, because there is no legally actionable wrong which you first have to have.. This is a lot like the Hustler case in that they both concerned satirical work.

By: Taxpayer 834512

Taxpayer 834512 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:14:42 +0000

If we don’t ever say, “No”, to anything, and spend billions and trillions to try to assure soft landings for everything and everybody, how much longer can this go on? As Matt Tulley recently quoted from an email to him about Pacer ownership, “Aren’t they supposed to be free enterprise?”

By: Rico

Rico — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:24:23 +0000

Sorry, Think Again. I believe I forgot a few commas.

By: Rico

Rico — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:25:35 +0000

I’m no lawyer Paul, but I think the conditions required for a case of libel could be proved. In the first place, the ad is not ‘clearly’ satire. It is done very professionally and uses the companies’ actual logos, while portraying the ad as their actual position. Second, at such a time when the national scorn of the Auto industry has reached new heights, it wouldn’t be difficult to show malicious intent. Third, at a time of unprecedented financial crisis facing the auto industry it wouldn’t be difficult to demonstrate the invariable financial damage caused by the ad.

First Amendment satire cases heard by he Supreme Court (Hustler v Falwell) all dealt with emotional distress issues involving embarrassed celebrities. I don’t believe this case would be viewed the same. But what the hell do I know?

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:03:31 +0000

Rico,

Satire, which the ad clearly is, is protected by the First Amendment. It is evident from the content that this isn’t an actual ad from the Ford, GM, Chrysler, so no intent to mislead either.

The ad is no different thatn SNL mocking the Big Three or some other company on its show.

The ad is certainly not libelous. It’s also funny as hell. I wish whoever created it was given credit.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 06:03:23 +0000

Ford FTW. I always liked Ford, but my Ranger sucked. They will be my first visit next time.

By: Anonymous Nobody

Anonymous Nobody — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:49:30 +0000

Ford is NOT taking the money. Cuz da Feds ask too many questions.

And remember – Chrysler is now owned by bankers, not automotive people. Need I say more.