Story here.
:rolleyes: Just keep digging, guys. Haven’t you learned by now the folly of giving your critics free publicity?! And just when The Yes Men have a movie coming out, too! 
The Yes Men probably deserve it, but I don’t think the law suit will probably be all that successful.
Yea, this isn’t going to work at all. Commerce is going to look petty and The Yes Men are going to gain tremendous free publicity.
Moved from The BBQ Pit to Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
Wow, they don’t sound pretentious at all.
No, they don’t. (Pretenders are not necessarily pretentious.)
No, but calling yourself a “culture jamming activist”, and saying that you do “identity correction” when what you’re doing is pranking big companies is kind of pretentious.
Worse, it’s going to focus public attention on the content of the hoax in question – the CoC’s position on global warming.
And so?
For you on the Left… a bad thing, for the Chamber’s argument, and constituency, likely fine. You’re starting from a false premise, that CoC’s position is somehow scandalous or something they’re keeping secret. It is not (although certainly wrong, that is another question)
I’ve never heard of the Yes Men before and you need a subscription to read the full article. From the brief bit you can see without one I can see why they’re suing. Don’t they essentially have to sue to protect their trademark? (I’m tired and on pain pills so I very well could be missing something)
No, it’s no secret. OTOH, I don’t think it’s something they want identified with the USCoC in the public mind.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/10/20/the-yes-men.aspx The Yes Men have been doing this for a decade. They crime for the Chamber was Bicklbaum identified himself as a spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce and announced they had reversed their position on global warming.They would now do everything in their power to prevent global warming. That is the crime of the century.
For those without WSJ access:
Here’s a story about the Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against the Yes Men.
Here’s a roundup of the Yes Men’s latest prank:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/yes_men/
I should note that it is the national Chamber of Commerce that is suing. Your local CoC may have no formal relationship with the national organization and may even find them embarrassing. Ironically, the national CoC once claimed to have 3 million members. They had to trim their estimate down to 300,000 once they stopped including nonaffiliate members. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/14/chamber-membership/
I’m wondering how the phrase Chamber of Commerce can even have a trademark. I don’t see why Brainglutton or anybody else couldn’t appoint himself head of his residential chamber of commerce and start issuing press releases.
And?
You are starting from the position of an ideologue. First, I doubt that the US Chamber of Commerce cares very much about “public opinion” - it is I believe a membership organisation. Second, insofar as they are taking a public position against action on Global Warming, they clearly believe their argument - more attention to said argument is not “blow back” to them, you Leftists already hate them, so why the fuck should they care that you dislike them yet more?
There is no downside, looking at this from a rational perspective. They get free publicity that is most likely to be positive for them relative to their target membership base, and get to promote their views re Global Warming as well as attack people like you as being lying scum who tried to dupe the public. Win-win for them.
The fact you believe this is blow-backable seems actually fairly deluded.
(And note, I believe their position such as I understand it from a brief perusal of online materials, is wrong - none of the above is a defence as such of their position)
It can’t, but “United States Chamber of Commerce” can.
Heh. The USCoC is first and foremost a lobbying outfit. A lobbying outfit with a rather underdeveloped sense of humor, I might add.
Brainglutton: Thanks.
More news: The Electronic Frontier Foundation recalls that, “Parody is a well-established right, protected under copyright law and the First Amendment. Hopefully, the Chamber will reconsider its position and realize that such strong-arm tactics are inappropriate and counter-productive.”
Rolling Stone rolls its eyes at the hypocrisy:
Then again, over at TPM, a IP expert notes that the website’s purpose was to deceive, at least for a while. He opines that the lawsuit is not frivolous. Category: Muckraker - TPM – Talking Points Memo