3 ms·

But it's a catch-22 situation. They would have to incriminate themselves to file a lawsuit. Or if they make the argument that they weren't responsible for the p

by timdorr 17y ago

But it's a catch-22 situation. They would have to incriminate themselves to file a lawsuit. Or if they make the argument that they weren't responsible for the poster being put up, the local government can make the same claim. "I didn't see who put it up there, so it's not my responsibility". Part of it's brilliance is how easily defensible it is.

viraptor 17y ago
Not sure about "easily defensible". If the city doesn't do it legally (as in police can quickly verify who is doing that), then: 1. Person A puts up a lot of posters in an obviously illegal area where other posters are quickly "cancelled". 2. "Completely unrelated" person B waits for the person adding the "cancelled" stickers, notifies the police about suspected behaviour. For more fun mentions "strange equipement" and "patroling the area for a long time". Bonus points for doing that near/on a government building. Making it risky for other people to put the "cancelled" stickers would force the city to either stop this, or make it legal and well known. Edit: I assumed it was US - not sure how easy it is to scare police in Belgium with suspected "terrorism".