J-Source

Adbusters vs CBC & Global

Adbusters, a guerilla-media, anti-consumerist, magazine-publishing alternate media entity, lost its bid to force Global and CBC television to air Adbuster commercials spoofing multinational corporations and the media, reported the Canadian Press. Adbusters tried to buy air time in 2003 for 10 ads critical of media, and when the ads were turned down it filed suit,…

Adbusters, a guerilla-media, anti-consumerist, magazine-publishing alternate media entity, lost its bid to force Global and CBC television to air Adbuster commercials spoofing multinational corporations and the media, reported the Canadian Press. Adbusters tried to buy air time in 2003 for 10 ads critical of media, and when the ads were turned down it filed suit, arguing that Global and CBC violated its right to freedom of expression. Justice William Ehrcke of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the charter doesn’t apply to private corporations. The Canadian Press story is here. The court ruling is here

With increasing control of our affairs by private corporations instead of public bodies, would freedom of expression be threatened by lack of charter protection, if indeed this ruling is interpreted correctly and holds up?

Adbusters, a guerilla-media, anti-consumerist, magazine-publishing alternate media entity, lost its bid to force Global and CBC television to air Adbuster commercials spoofing multinational corporations and the media, reported the Canadian Press. Adbusters tried to buy air time in 2003 for 10 ads critical of media, and when the ads were turned down it filed suit, arguing that Global and CBC violated its right to freedom of expression. Justice William Ehrcke of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the charter doesn’t apply to private corporations. The Canadian Press story is here. The court ruling is here

With increasing control of our affairs by private corporations instead of public bodies, would freedom of expression be threatened by lack of charter protection, if indeed this ruling is interpreted correctly and holds up?

[node:ad]