'USA Next' Misappropriated Couples' Image for Anti-Gay Ad Campaign

[truthpusher]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050228005768&newsLang=en

(Ad running on the American Spectator site.)

February 28, 2005 11:13 AM US Eastern Timezone
---------------------------------------
'USA Next' Misappropriated Couples' Image for Anti-Gay Ad Campaign; Couple: Image Stolen for Campaign Against AARP
---------------------------------------
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 28, 2005--Conservative front organization USA Next was accused today of illegally using a gay couple's wedding photo in an anti-gay ad campaign supporting President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.

The couple in the photo, Richard M. Raymen and Steven P. Hansen of Portland, Oregon, have come forward through an attorney to demand that USA Next stop using their image, and that the organization publicly apologize for using their image in a homophobic and libelous way. The demand, contained in a letter sent today to USA Next Chairman and CEO Charles Jarvis, references the couples' right to seek damages for the misappropriation of their image.

(snip)

"In 2004, our clients allowed their picture to be taken at their public celebration, as couples getting married do every day," Christopher Wolf, a partner in the Washington, DC office of the New York-based law firm Proskauer Rose LLP and counsel for Raymen and Hansen. "They did not volunteer to be models for a 2005 right-wing hate campaign, and never would have consented to having their images plastered in an ad of any kind, much less the one USA Next chose to run. USA Next has violated the law and must take responsibility for the consequences. Tort law is quite clear that USA Next acted illegally."

"The USA Next ad communicates the false message that gay marriages generally, and our clients specifically, are the antithesis of supporting American troops during wartime," said Wolf. "Gay marriage, and our clients' ceremony, have nothing to do with support of the troops. Our clients are patriotic Americans who strongly support our service members."

complete story here: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050228005768&newsLang=en

[Fenris]

1. Heh heh heh.

That's not surprising.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

58. so don't fucking look

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DRoseDARs]

63. Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Grow up, will ya? n/t

:eyes:

[northzax]

65. ok, as long as your promise to post a warning

before I have to look at your avatar. The use of illegal drugs to offensive to me and has cost me the lives of several family members, please post a warning, in the subject of every post, that you advocate objectionable and illegal activity in your post.

and I'll post a warning before you have to see a married couple kissing. deal?

[GiovanniC]

68. While He's At It, An Excessive Stupidity Warning Would Also Be Nice

[northzax]

69. well sure, but asking for that will get

us into trouble with our little grey masters.

[TommyO]

77. UGH, bigotry is alive even here!

It's amazing that there are people here at DU who will call two men kissing gross - gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans-gendered people are just that - people with the same desires for human contact as anybody else.

If you don't want to kiss another man, that's fine, nobody is forcing it on you.

[ze_dscherman]

2. Let's hope they sue AARP big time

... and get the money, too.

[BR_Parkway]

3. This wasn't an AARP ad, it was USA Next (Swift Liars) trying to smear

AARP because they didn't buy into ShrubCo memo that social security is part of the "axis of evil" and much be eliminated, freedom is on the march and all that.

[truthpusher]

4. Sarcasm right? nt

[Pirate Smile]

5. One of the men, Ricky, was posting on Daily Kos about this last

week when it happened. I just tried to find it but couldn't. I will search for it again.

[truthpusher]

32. They also posted on DU when it first happened - here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=7720&mesg_id=7720&page=

[barden]

6. Hi

This has nothing to do with the outrageous AARP ad, but dealing with gay issues, and myself being a first time poster, I decided to place it here.

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/28/42231c4448af1

[truthpusher]

7. Thanks I will post this as a stand alone story so more people can see it.

Oh yeah, and welcome!

[fleabert]

10. Welcome to DU!

:donut:

[meganmonkey]

14. Please note - this is NOT an AARP ad

Read the original post again....

[barden]

24. oopsy

it's early, and i mistyped, haha I am fully aware it is not an ad from AARP. my blunder.

[wicket]

19. welcome to DU!

[genieroze]

56. As far as the link is concerned, what do people expect when the

President basically endorses discrimination against gays? You always get bigoted nut bags, but when the President is a gay basher and a bigot, they feel justified in their bigotry.

[Jamastiene]

8. Gee, and I wish I could just

get a lawyer to help me get some simple basic equal rights in the workplace and at college. I wish they hadn't skipped a few generations in getting gay rights and had kept up with getting the hate crimes bill to include sexual orientation nationwide. I still hope they sue them all the way to the SCOTUS.

[Jon8503]

9. Sue Them Bigj-Time; just goes to show how lowdown these

people are. No feelings, no consideration just full of hate.

[Terran]

11. Those guys need to sue USA Next's pants off!

Seems like a pretty good basis for a libel suit, no?

[Inland]

12. LOL! You kow what the righties will have to do!

Hire two male actors and pay them to kiss each other! Homosexuality funded and subsidized by the right wing!

[Orsino]

28. A former journalist has suddenly become available...

...though his hourly rate may be a bit steep for a modeling agency.

[Inland]

33. There you go!

[Orsino]

75. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!

...or compost.

[northzax]

13. it's actually unclear, legally what their standing is

while I like anything that brings more attention to these schmucks (the USANext ones) under the premise that cockroaches don't like light), I'm not sure about the fair use rights USANext could have concerning this image.

Once your image is taken by a news organisation, it pretty much becomes the property of the photographer (or his/her syndicator) And the organisation is a non-profit so I don't think you have a right to a slice of the revenue. I wonder if the syndicator of the photo was asked for permission to use it?

They can't sue for defamation, they got married in public and somehow I doubt this image is costing them a livelihood.

So while I encourage the shining of light on cockroaches, I don't think these gentlemen have much of a reason to sue for damages.

[Eric J in MN]

15. You have a good point.

The idea of ANY lawsuit against a slimy organization may seem pleasant, but Fair Use is an important concept.

We wouldn't like to be sued under similar circumstances for an ad supporting Social Security as it is.

[GiovanniC]

18. If I Took a Picture of You

And put it on a billboard ad touting the "success" of President Bush, would you have a right to sue me?

[northzax]

20. if I was engaged in a public event?

yup.

[GiovanniC]

22. So What You're Saying Is That I Can Take Your Picture In Public

And use it for an advertisement without your consent, to promote an idea that you find morally detestable.

Awesome.

I didn't know that.

The next time I'm out and about, I will take a picture of you and put it up on a giant billboard that says, "CRUSHING THE SKULLS OF PUPPIES IS FUN!"

[northzax]

31. if you find a picture of me crushing the skulls of puppies

you go right ahead.

this is why, by the way you should be careful what you do in public, it can come back to haunt you.

Hell, even if you allow a photo to be taken of you in private you forfeit some right to privacy.

[GiovanniC]

35. The Photo of the Men Kissing

Was on an anti-AARP ad. Can you prove that those two men are anti-AARP?

I can take a photo of you just outside and put it next to the words "GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER" on a billboard, and according to you that would be completely fine, right?

[northzax]

40. irrelevant.

it doesn't say whether they support AARP or not. It says that AARP supports them.

by the way, the implication, if anything, was that the people in the image support the AARP, not the other way round. If you take a picture of me in the public domain you may put it on a billboard saying "George W Bush is the greatest president ever" yes, you may. I then have the right to mock you mercilessly for needing to use such a strawman. such a billboard would not cause me any damages, in the legal sense.

[GiovanniC]

43. How About the "White Power" Example

I used below?

I would truly like to know what the limits are for what I can do with your picture and how much I am allowed to use it to further causes that you find repugnant. If it's all fair game, then as I've said, I can think of a lot of really evil things I can do to some detestable people.

[KDLarsen]

I think Nestle just learned the opposite..

.. they used a photo without permission for the Taster's Choice brand - and was slammed with a 10 million dollar fine.

[northzax]

66. not a fine, a judgement, actually

and in that case, it was used for commercial purposes without his consent or compensation. It is customary for people who are in commercial advertising to be compensated for the use of their image. NESTLE did not do that.

completely different cup of coffee.

[arcos]

72. a lot of people get paid for their work in political ads too...

Not all of them are volunteers... Professional actors, voices, animators, all get paid.

Ideas are sold as products, and thus this is a commercial advertisement too. If shouldn't be any different to what Nestle did.

[northzax]

73. then every time the DNC

uses footage of George Bush in a commercial, they pay him royalties and have to ask permission?

is that really what you are suggesting?

I seem to recall that DU uses a picture of Bush for fundraising purposes, do they have to ask his permission and pay him a cut?

[arcos]

74. George Bush is a politician...

And obviously politicians are exceptions because they are directly involved in the political process.

[northzax]

76. oh obviously

we're a democracy, no? and therefore all citizens are directly involved in the political process.

[arcos]

78. not in the spotlight...

and certainly not to appear in ads without their consent.

[northzax]

79. the photo is in the public domain for criticism and fair use

I assume they also threatened to wsue the Portland Tribune which published it in the first place (since they certainly are in the making money business?)

you can't pick and choose who uses your image once it has been published. They don't own it, the law is clear that photographers own their images once the subject conesnts to being photgraphed.

the wedding took place in City hall with newspaper phtographers present. I can't see what you don't think that's the spotlight? Did they approach the news photographers, while they were on public property and say "please don't photograph our wedding, this is a private event? if not, it's public. Fair use is an important legal concept that must be protected, even when it's distasteful. THe point is that the advertisement, however tasteless, did not misrepresent the position of the couple, right? I mean they are, in fact, in favour of gay marriage, I guess, since they got married. It's not fun, it's not something I wish on anyone, and I feel for the couple involved, but legally, they don't have a leg to stand on, from my knowledge of the law. They cannot claim libel (since it was published in the local paper without a suit) and they have no damages beyond emotional ones, which are not recoverable in a court of law.

can you explain what was, in fact, misleading about this ad in reference to that photo in particular? they are married, right? and that is them, right? so where's the slander? where does USANext do anything that adversely affects this couple? certainly it is not implying that the couple agrees with USANext, on the contrary, it implies they DISAGREE with the ad.

Take a primer of fair use: Here's one from link:http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/start.html?pg=13|Wired] and here is http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html">17 U.S.C. § 107 <compliments of Cornell Law Review> This usage certainly falls within the legal guideline of fair use of the photo.

some other citations for you:
Don E. Tomlinson and Christopher R. Harris, Free-Lance Photojournalism in a Digital World: Copyright, Lanham Act and Droit Moral Considerations Plus a Sui Generis Solution, 45 FED. COMM. L.J. 1, 29 (December, 1992).


Maureen A. O'Rourke, Proprietary Rights in Digital Data, 41 FED. B. NEWS & J. 511 (1994)

Jonathan A. Franklin, Digital Image Reproduction, Distribution and Protection: Legal Remedies and Industry wide Alternatives, 10 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 347 (1994)

and a discussion of why the photographer, not the subject, owns an image:
http://www.photofocus.com/showarchive.php?aid=63&cid=7

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00054/006920/title/Subject/topic/Intellectual%20Property_Copyrights/filename/intellectualproperty_2_4544

so if anyone can complain (and I don't think they can) it is the syndicator for the photograph who sold it to the Trib in the first place.

ugly, in piss-poor taste, but legal.

[msongs]

23. seems like you might be missing the point here...........

to use that photo as a photo, in a factual way (look, here are 2 men kissing), may be one thing, if you have permission to use the photo. But to use it in an editorial way that creates a false and misleading understanding, is another issue entirely.
Let's say I have a nice picture of you standing outside your house. If I paste you into a KKK rally in such a way that it looks like you are a klan member, or paste you into the middle of an pro S&M group at a pride parade, you might have a different view of use of your image. Or perhaps I paste your pic into an ad that claims Jewish/Zionists are murdering thousands of muslim babies and that your group (you have been associated with the group because I am using your image) needs to be stopped in its tracks.....
etc

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[GiovanniC]

26. Exactly

This is the only thing that has prevented me from going to Freeper rallies and then putting their pictures on the sides of buses that say, "We anally rape babies".

[northzax]

30. how exactly, were these men damaged

legally, by the use of this photo?

It was not used for commercial purposes (like the famous taster's Choice one) It was not a manufactured photo, and it represented exactly what it appeared to represent, the marriage of those two men. right? There was nothing misleading about those men in particular, since they did, in point of fact, get married. And did it in a public place.

You cannot use my image to imply that I am a holocaust denier. But you can use my image to imply that I despise President Bush. Cause it's the truth, see?

You can take a picture of a freeper at a rally and put it on a billboard saying "these are the people who support President Bush" cause it's true.

Likewise, USANext could take a photo of me and say "this is what ACLU members look like." cause it's true. I have no action against them (the ACLU might, but I haven't been damaged.

You cannot take a picture of a freeper in his living room and do the same thing. (First your camera would break. And I'm not sure freepers can be recorded on film, but technical problems aside...) there he was engaged in a private activity and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Getting married in the middle of a media circus, at the county clerk's office, I think you forgo some expectation of privacy.

In order to be actionable, you have to prove that:

a) something in this photo was dishonest or retouched, that it represents something materially different that what the caption implies.
b) that the parties were somehow damaged, financially, by the use of this image
c) that the person who used the image knew (a) and had a reasonable expectation that (b) would occur.

[cally]

25. Are we sure it was a news organization photo?

Let's say I attend a wedding and take pictures. It's a public event and everyone knows I'm taking pictures. I don't believe I have the right to sell them. I think the concept of fair use would preclude using the photos for other than the intended purpose. I'm not a lawyer but they may have a case since they are not public figures.

[northzax]

34. yes, we're sure. but

re your wedding arguement. Legally, just because there are people somewhere, like a wedding, doesn't make it a public event. If I wasn't invited, you can have me removed, assuming you have the right to exclusivity (renting the hall, getting a permit for the park, etc) this wedding took place at city hall, in front of the media (at least this kiss did, don't know about the wedding itself) and therefore there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

And yes, you can in fact, sell a photo you take at a place where photos are allowed. People do it all the time, especially the papparazzi. it's tasteless, but then so is socks with sandals, and we don't ban that. it sucks, but it works out the best for everyone in the end.

[GiovanniC]

36. Can Someone Take a Photo of You at Your Wedding

And buy a full page spread in the New York Times with your face that says, "White Power - Together, We Can End the Scourge of Minorities"?

I'm just curious what the limitations of usage are under your ethical standards.

[northzax]

39. it's not my ethical standards.

it is the legal standard that matters. In case it wasn't clear enough before, this ad was in incredibly poor taste and makes the publishers of the ad look ridiculous. that's my 'ethical' opinion. But as to the legal standards of fair use, in order to claim you wanted privacy, you have to claim it every time someone uses that image without your consent.

And if my wedding is a media event, if it is newsworthy enough for the media to cover it, then it enters the public domain just enough to be fair use for criticism.

What was dishonest about this image again? what was incorrect about it? were these two gentlemen NOT getting married in that picture? were they not kissing? Does the AARP oppose gay marriage? I don't think they have a position on this issue, but they did oppose the Ohio law on other grounds. So AARP might complain, and the people in the image may request that USANext cease and desist using it to fundraise, if they so wish. But it doesn't mean they have to.

What makes this case different than my mythical wedding is that this one was a public event. it was on city property, when the people involved KNEW THE MEDIA WAS TAKING THEIR PICTURE. voila, public domain, fair use includes criticism and public education.

And you know what? anyone can take anything you write on this board, and, without altering it in any way, attribute it to you on another board or a 30 second spot in the middle of the Simpsons, as long as they are not using it for commercial purposes. Fair use, it makes academia possible.

[GiovanniC]

42. And What I Am Saying, And You're Purposely Ignoring

Is not the fact that this photo was taken in public (no shit), but that it was used for an advertisement against what they stood for. So again, I will ask, and I'm being completely serious here... Can I take a photograph of you in public, and put that photograph of you, unaltered, in the New York Times in a full page ad spread that says something to the effect of, "WHITE POWER! It's time to reclaim this nation for white men! Join your local KKK today!"?

That ad would fit all the standards that you claim is necessary for it to be fair use. It's a photograph of you, in public, unaltered, in an advertisement that does not seek profit. So I ask, is this a fair usage of your image? Can I seek to associate your face with the Klan? I seriously want to know, because if that's all legally cool, then I've found a great way to make life a living hell for anyone who ever pisses me off.

[northzax]

44. what you're ignoring is that your point is irrelevant

no, you cannot take a photo of and use it to imply that I support that horrid agenda.

You can, however, take a photo of two people getting married and imply that they support the right of themselves to get married.

Now, how could the KKK use a photo of me? they could take a photo of me with my arm around a black friend and say "this is what happens when the ACLU overthrows segregation!" cause it's true.

USANext could not use this photo to imply that the people in it are HIV positive, for instance, unless they had reason to believe it was true. they couldn't use it claiming that one of the men was a pedophile, unless that was true (I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE EITHER OF THESE IS TRUE, I SIMPLY MADE UP A WORST CASE SCENARIO.)

see? difference.

Say that this was an advertisement from a magazine, and that one of the people was an actor. Or the best man. And they implied he was gay. Then he could complain (if being called gay is an insult) but that's not what happened. Indeed, the photo is 100% accurate. they are, in fact, two men, right? and they did, in fact, get married, right? The ad says that this group, the AARP, supports their right to do exactly what they did, get married. They can't claim it was a secret, it was in the Trib.

You cannot misrepresent someone's position deliberatly. That is why your klan ad doesn't work with me. I do not, and have never, endorsed any position I know of that the Klan has taken. And even if I did (god forbid) I would then deplore their methods. So there is no way you can associate me with the Klan in anything but a negative way.

Does that make sense? seriously, does that tell you where the bright line is? if not ask again and I'll try to explain it better.

[GiovanniC]

52. Forget the AARP Ad For a Moment

I'm more curious about your points on fair usage of photographs in political advertisements. This isn't anything against you at all, I'm just curious about this and I find these legal rules to be very unfair if they are as you say they are. I'm curious about the following hypothetical, which I think has used all the elements to make it "fair" while at the same time I don't believe it is fair at all:

Say I work for the Klan and I want to make an ad campaign against the NAACP. I want to create an ad that shows white people, suggesting that white people are far superior to black people. I want to use a photo of you that I took in public and use it in my advertisement.

It will just be a very tasteful full-page ad talking about how much black people suck and how they should all go back to Africa and the NAACP discriminates against white people like you. It will feature that photograph of you, just kind of because I like your Aryan features. The ad will very kindly represent you as one of the chosen people from the Master Race.

I want to know, from a legal standpoint, can I do that? I won't specifically say that you approved the message (although the combination of your photograph and my words might IMPLY that). It will be a photograph that I obtained of you while you were in public. I won't make any profit from the advertisement. Is this acceptable under the law as you understand it? I'm honestly very curious about this point.

[northzax]

54. it is more questionable, frankly

If I can convince a jury that the advertisement directly implied, to a reasonable person, that I supported the text of the ad, and that it damaged me in some way (I would have to demonstrate the exact opposite to be true, the burdern of proof is on me) then it is actionable.

Look at it this way, to get away from the white power thing.

George Bush cannot use me in an ad that says "northzax supports George Bush's Social Security Plan" since that is demonstrably not true and I can prove it. That is a lie.

He can, however, use me in an ad that says "the Democratic Party is opposed to Social Security reform." I am, in fact, a democratic party member and donor. I am posting this on a board called "democratic underground" obviously I am associated with the Democratic Party. and I oppose reform. So they aren't slandering me, they are, in fact, telling the truth about me.

They could, in fact, say "if you don't support George Bush, people like this are going to be in charge." not quite true, but it's not quite untrue either.

[GiovanniC]

57. I Guess What I'm Trying to Say Is

That simply using a photograph in an advertisement is neutral, even if the ad itself isn't. If I just use a photograph of you without mentioning you, it implies that you agree with the ad even if you find it detestable.

In the example I gave, it fits all the rules but your black friends might end up shunning you if they think you supported that message (though theoretically they would know better than that). It doesn't say specifically, "Northzax hates black people". If just says, "We hate black people" and has a photo of you.

If Bush made an ad that said, "Lots of people support George W. Bush's domestic and foreign policy plans", and included photographs of you and several other people, that implies that you are one of those people even though it doesn't specifically state that. And the statement itself is true, for reasons we cannot explain. So the ad doesn't lie, but it misrepresents you. I personally would be pissed if my picture was put up on a billboard as if I was a Bush supporter. Are you saying that it is completely okay in the eyes of the law for them to do that, and there's nothing that anyone can do about it?

[northzax]

61. no, because it's a misrepresentation

of my views. It's probably not actionable, since it would be hard to prove that any damage was done to me. it's a fine line, and I'm sorry I'm not doing a good job of explaining it. But, basically, if you say I believe or do something that I demonstrably do not, it's wrong. If you say I believe or do something that I demonstrably do, then you're fine.

[isit2008yet]

16. I hope USA Next gets their comeuppance from these

guys.

Rawstory.com ran this headline:
Group: Anti-AARP ad was to 'test' bloggers
Claims that ad equating AARP with gay marriage was to anger blogs.
...doing some quick back pedaling because no one is going to buy into their lame ass attack on AARP. I read their next attack was going to be on AARP's support for gun control...gofigure.

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. YES!!!! As a matter of fact, it's the Pentagon's anti-gay policy

that actually UNDERMINES military preparedness, a fact which not only is predictable but now has been fully documented in a GAO study to be released next month:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x7944
Title: "Now there are numbers: Pentagon anti-gay policy forced out skilled troops"

It is critically important that we REFRAME THE LANGUAGE of the national discourse on gay rights. Let's make preaching gay-hatred for political gain not only ineffective, but backfire in the faces of these lying criminals! The contrast between the gentle love in the wedding photo and the hideous hatemongering of these hypocrites could not be more striking.

Recommended - this is an important update in the story of this young couple and their clash with the cartel forces.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Dost thou sin? Let me count the ways ...

Thou Shalt Not Steal.

Thou Shalt Bear No False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.

This I say to you: That you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself, and that you shall love God completely.

Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you also do unto me.

--p!

[troubleinwinter]

Some information on this thread:

The news organization did NOT give permission to steal the photo!

Read the whole thread, RickyMonet is a DUer, and it is a photo of his wedding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=7720&mesg_id=7720&page=

[hiley]

27. here is link to one of Ricky Monet's diaries

at dkos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/133231/402

A little backwards of me but here is the original post of the series.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/22/223243/437

[Cocoa]

29. even better if we could find that soldier

if we could track him down, and he happened to be a dem, or at least against privitization...

[Ian David]

37. ...having their image stolen... suggesting that you're un-American

"We never signed up to be Harry and Louise for a hate-mongering group," Raymen said, referring to the fictional couple used in television commercials to scuttle then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's health care proposal. "USA Next is illegally using our photo to portray us as a threat to American values. How would any citizen like having their image stolen and broadcast for the purpose of tarring our troops and suggesting that you're un-American?"


These people below are satanic terrorist-sympathizers who want to destroy America:



(The one all the way on the right is almost certainly gay, too).

Anyone here enjoy photoshop?

More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=7720&mesg_id=7881

[northzax]

41. you understand, right

that is USANext is actionable, then so are you after this post. Kinda ridiculous, no?

[Ian David]

45. Yeah, but I have no money.

[northzax]

46. but DU does

or at least a nice hot tub or two.

[Ian David]

48. Pretty sure they're shielded from almost anything I'm stupid enough to say

Besides, I was engaging in satire and hyperbole anyway.

[northzax]

55. oh, well if it was satire and hyperbole, you're fine.

quick! someone call homeland Security, we have unlicensed sarcasm and illegal hyperbole! :)

[chomskysright]

38. forwarded to AARP: [e-mail]

[GOPBasher]

47. Bunch of assholes.

Ya know, for theocratic right wing Rapturist Christians, these assholes sure have a hard time obeying the commandment against lying.

[makhno]

49. This is damn sick

What does

1. supporting the troops have to do with gay marriage?
   
2. supporting gay marriage have to do with supporting Social Security?
   
3. the AARP have to do with either gay marriage or supporting the troops?
   

The retarded collage cannot make sense but in the sickest freeper mind.

I'm surprised it's only the two guys in the picture talking to their lawyers. The AARP should sue these limp-dicked bastards as well.

[Ian David]

62. The AARP opposed an anti-gay amendment

Ohio Gay Marriage Supporters Gain Powerful Ally
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: October 4, 2004 8:19 pm ET

(Columbus, Ohio) The American Association of Retired People has announced its opposition to a proposed amendment to the Ohio state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

The AARP which has some 35 million members nationwide said that if the amendment is accepted it "will have unfair and injurious consequences for many older adults."

“State Issue One would deny property ownership rights, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well being of unmarried older couples," AARP Ohio said in a statement.

More:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/100404ohioOld.htm


Also, there was an ordinance in Cincinatti that said, "You can't pass a law banning discrimination against gays."

A group called Citizens to Restore Fairness launched a successful initiative to repeal that law.

The fundies tried to paint it as a law to legalize gay marriage, and targeted The AARP and Proctor&Gamble as "anti-marriage."
--

Anti-Gay Law Repealed In Cincinnati
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: November 3, 2004 10:30 am ET

(Cincinnati, Ohio) While voters across Ohio were joining the electorate in 10 other states in passing constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, Cincinnati was repealing a law that prevents the city from passing any legislation to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination passed Tuesday.

The Cincinnati charter amendment had been passed 10 years ago to tie the hands of city council from including gays and lesbians in the city's human rights law.

Citizens to Restore Fairness, a group formed to overturn the amendment, said it needed to be repealed because the current situation allows gays and lesbians to be discriminated against in employment and housing.

The conservative group that fought to have the original law passed, Equal Rights Not Special Rights Campaign, argued that the charter amendment protects Christians who oppose homosexuality.

More:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110304cinciChart.htm


See also:
Fundamentalists Vow To Bring Down Gay Friendly P&G
David Crary, Associated Press
Posted: October 26, 2004 5:01 pm ET
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/102604pgBoycott.htm

[Pinboy]

81. It was the Ohio branch, not the national AARP organization . . .

that opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment, according to a Newsweek report posted on another thread:

Seniors Draw Fire http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1270582&mesg_id=1270582

The relevant portion:

"The ad was justified, the group argued, because the Ohio branch of AARP had opposed an anti-gay-marriage referendum in the state. (The national body has taken no position on that or other cultural issues.)"

[Megahurtz]

50. "USA Next"are just ANOTHER

fucking disgrace to this country:puke: All of this hatemongering is getting so completely out of control with Bushitler in charge. I have never seen any other president in history do so much damage so fast! Bush and Co. really scare me:scared:They are turning things around so fast that it's hard for anyone to keep up with them.

[LynnTheDem]

51. And gee, the SGI webmaster just got charged under the Patriot Act

for copyright violations.

[Ian David]

59. SGI? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

64. StarGate website

Patriot Act Clauses Used against Webmaster of SG1 Fan Website

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3192372

[Ian David]

67. Damn, I'm reading that now.

Those DVDs he was selling through his site were licensed, right?

Not bootlegs?

It looks like they were even sold through Amazon.com ?

Why didn't they just tell Amazon to stop letting him sell their DVDs through them?

[LynnTheDem]

71. Lookit who's charging the SGI webmaster...rethug bush supporter

What is Amazon? rethug bush supporter.

With the rethugs, as always, it's who you blow.

[Guckert]

70. I thought that was Scott M. and Jeff Gannon in a W.H. press conference

[skids]

80. Apparently getting play on TV news.

...not the photography infringement, but the story about the ad apparently got a blip on the nightly news (ABC I think). So if it was really a "test of leftwing bloggers" like they claim, it was an expensive test for them in terms of political capitol. All those retired people watching the nightly news just got clued in.

[Ian David]

82. From The Art of War by Sun Tzu

From The Art of War by Sun Tzu

<snip>

Thus, one who is skilled at making the enemy move does so by creating a situation, according to which the enemy will act. He entices the enemy with something he is certain to want. He keeps the enemy on the move by holding out bait and then attacks him with picked troops.

How subtle and insubstantial, that the expert leaves no trace. How divinely mysterious, that he is inaudible. Thus, he is master of his enemy's fate. His offensive will be irresistible if he makes for his enemy's weak positions; he cannot be overtaken when he withdraws if he moves swiftly. When I wish to give battle, my enemy, even though protected by high walls and deep moats, cannot help but engage me, for I attack a position he must relieve. When I wish to avoid battle, I may defend myself simply be drawing a line on the ground; the enemy will be unable to attack me because I divert him from going where he wishes.

<snip>

Therefore, analyze the enemy's plans so that you will know his shortcomings as strong points. Agitate him in order to ascertain the pattern of his movement. Lure him out to reveal his dispositions and ascertain his position. Launch a probing attack in order to learn where his strength is abundant and where deficient. The ultimate in disposing one's troops is to conceal them without ascertainable shape. Then the most penetrating spies cannot pry nor can the wise lay plans against you. It is according to the situations that plans are laid for victory, but the multitude does not comprehend this. Although everyone can see the outward aspects, none understands how the victory is achieved. Therefore, when a victory is won, one's tactics are not repeated. One should always respond to circumstances in an infinite variety of ways.

More:
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html