3 ms·

I love a good freedom of speech rant as much as anyone else, but I think the reaction here is completely overblown. The idea is not, of course, to remove poster

I love a good freedom of speech rant as much as anyone else, but I think the reaction here is completely overblown. The idea is not, of course, to remove posters from inside walls of people's homes. It is to remove advertising on the outside of those homes, and presumably the only reason the police would go inside is to effect the removal of that advertising upon the owner's refusal or absence. Advertising on houses and buildings is not a matter of free speech; it is a matter of neighbourhood amenity and dominated by local by-laws. I am not allowed to put huge advertising posters on my balcony right now, of course. To do so would enrich me while depriving my neighbours, be an eyesore, push down property values, etc. I can't play super loud music at 3am, either, which doesn't really seem like a breach of my right to free speech either. My guess is that the planning committee in London thinks that during the Olympics certain people might consider the fines they get for illegal advertising insufficient to deter the act, so they're temporarily allowing the cops to tear them down, and if that requires property access, fine. Probably accompanied by a temporary regulation adjusting the aforementioned advertising controls. Free speech? Give me a break. Either you consider all anti-eyesore visual appearance regulations to be "against free speech", or you are probably able to concede that a temporary upgrade of enforcement is pretty reasonable considering the stakes.

Silhouette 17y ago
Given that to many locals, the entire Olympics is causing vast amounts of disruption, inconvenience, eyesores and so on, I have absolutely no sympathy if the organisers of the Olympics don't like people putting up whatever the hell they want on their own property for the duration of the games. If you don't like it, go hold your Games somewhere where the people do not have such freedoms, and see how much advertising revenue you can bring in there.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  Bah. I'm sure if you held a fair vote over the whole affected population, a clear majority would favour the games going ahead. There will always be some who are inconvenienced but that's just a fact of life. It's a numbers game - the greatest good for the greatest number. And the simple fact is that the appearance of your home, especially regarding commercial advertising, is and always has been regulated by local government. Why would anyone think the rules have suddenly changed, just when the media of the world is focussed on the area? There's legitimate criticism and then there's just whining. For me, the attitude you're describing falls pretty squarely into the second column. The Powers That Be have decided that the Olympics will be great for London, a decision with which I tend to agree, so stiff upper lip, eh?
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    > I'm sure if you held a fair vote over the whole affected population, a clear majority would favour the games going ahead. Why are you sure of that? It seems like every time another country wins an Olympic bid, the vocal local voices are those who don't want it at all, not those who are welcoming it with open arms for the benefits it will bring. Maybe that's because those who live in the typically downtrodden regions chosen for Olympic "regeneration" are frequently displaced afterwards, as more wealthy folk move into the newly updated area post-Olympics. > It's a numbers game - the greatest good for the greatest number. Sure, and in surveys, nearly everyone wants a reduction to 20mph speed limits by the parks their kids play in, yet when observed, the majority will happily drive at well over that speed through residential neighbourhoods other than their own. > And the simple fact is that the appearance of your home, especially regarding commercial advertising, is and always has been regulated by local government. You're playing games. There is no law, under normal circumstances, that prevents me from putting a poster in my window advertising a product or making a political statement. > Why would anyone think the rules have suddenly changed, just when the media of the world is focussed on the area? Because the rules have suddenly changed. Indeed, IIRC it is now a condition of winning an Olympic bid, imposed by the IOC, that the appropriate government take steps to prevent ambush marketing, including legislation if necessary. Yes, you read that right: an external, commercial organisation is dictating to an elected government what laws it must pass. > The Powers That Be have decided that the Olympics will be great for London, a decision with which I tend to agree, so stiff upper lip, eh? Our Powers That Be don't exactly have a great track record of doing things that will be great for London, or anywhere else, just lately -- unless you count bailing out those who pursued failing business models.

Silhouette 17y ago

Given that to many locals, the entire Olympics is causing vast amounts of disruption, inconvenience, eyesores and so on, I have absolutely no sympathy if the organisers of the Olympics don't like people putting up whatever the hell they want on their own property for the duration of the games. If you don't like it, go hold your Games somewhere where the people do not have such freedoms, and see how much advertising revenue you can bring in there.

sailormoon 17y ago
Bah. I'm sure if you held a fair vote over the whole affected population, a clear majority would favour the games going ahead. There will always be some who are inconvenienced but that's just a fact of life. It's a numbers game - the greatest good for the greatest number. And the simple fact is that the appearance of your home, especially regarding commercial advertising, is and always has been regulated by local government. Why would anyone think the rules have suddenly changed, just when the media of the world is focussed on the area? There's legitimate criticism and then there's just whining. For me, the attitude you're describing falls pretty squarely into the second column. The Powers That Be have decided that the Olympics will be great for London, a decision with which I tend to agree, so stiff upper lip, eh?
- Silhouette 17y ago
  > I'm sure if you held a fair vote over the whole affected population, a clear majority would favour the games going ahead. Why are you sure of that? It seems like every time another country wins an Olympic bid, the vocal local voices are those who don't want it at all, not those who are welcoming it with open arms for the benefits it will bring. Maybe that's because those who live in the typically downtrodden regions chosen for Olympic "regeneration" are frequently displaced afterwards, as more wealthy folk move into the newly updated area post-Olympics. > It's a numbers game - the greatest good for the greatest number. Sure, and in surveys, nearly everyone wants a reduction to 20mph speed limits by the parks their kids play in, yet when observed, the majority will happily drive at well over that speed through residential neighbourhoods other than their own. > And the simple fact is that the appearance of your home, especially regarding commercial advertising, is and always has been regulated by local government. You're playing games. There is no law, under normal circumstances, that prevents me from putting a poster in my window advertising a product or making a political statement. > Why would anyone think the rules have suddenly changed, just when the media of the world is focussed on the area? Because the rules have suddenly changed. Indeed, IIRC it is now a condition of winning an Olympic bid, imposed by the IOC, that the appropriate government take steps to prevent ambush marketing, including legislation if necessary. Yes, you read that right: an external, commercial organisation is dictating to an elected government what laws it must pass. > The Powers That Be have decided that the Olympics will be great for London, a decision with which I tend to agree, so stiff upper lip, eh? Our Powers That Be don't exactly have a great track record of doing things that will be great for London, or anywhere else, just lately -- unless you count bailing out those who pursued failing business models.