The IOC's 'Clean Venue' Policy

Dave21212 writes "Yes folks, the International Olympic Committee's 'Brand Protection Team' will be protecting against the threat of Advertising Terrorism at the games. According to an MSNBC article, the IOC's Karen Webb states 'Our role is to protect all of our sponsor categories and actively monitor ambush activity.' Restricted items include, flags, umbrellas, shirts, hats, and bags with trademarks of rival sponsors. Unofficial brands can be confiscated and with only Coke allowed on Olympic grounds, this brings new meaning to The Pepsi Challenge!"

Comments

Re:Refreshing Coke

[tarquin_fim_bim]

Insightful? Is that because there isn't an unintelligible selection?

Anyway while I'm here.
For the latest REAL News For Nerds - checkout The Register. It's way better than /.

Is that the kind of thing we're talking about?

Re:Bottles without labels?

[CrowScape]

What are you doing complaining about how off topic this is? You specifically brought these charges up. Don't expect to post something and not be challenged.

Whilst the Germans possibly formulated their bioethics arguments properly, the US ban on stem cell research...

FOUL ON THE PLAY! There is no ban on stem cell research in the US. Since Bush has taken office there has only been "steps forward" for the scientific community on this issue, none backwards.

While the main reason was most likely oil...

Someone really has to explain this to me. We've had ample opportunity to get loads and loads of cheap Iraqi oil for twelve years. We could have let Saddam take over Kuwait and taken him up on his offer to be America's gas station, or we could have gone the French and Russian route and made under the table deals with Saddam, or we could have moved to lessen the sanctions or at least not oppose attempts to do so. It would have been a lot better than the current situation of having our troops guard thousands of miles of oil infrastructure from terrorist attacks to just get the Iraqi economy going in order to get some oil which OPEC could counter by taking the same ammount off the market without breaking a sweat. No, it seems at every turn the US chose the path of most resistance to get Iraqi oil, if that was the goal.

a significant and unstated part of the Bush administration's reasoning was to shift the power balance in the Middle East, and that is something the Church has been wanting to do for quite a while.

Coincidentally, a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East is also something that people who really are interested in exterminating terrorism have been wanting to do as well. They may argue with the method, sure, but I find it hard to believe that the secular portion of American society doesn't want democracy (and thus, a shift in the balance of power) in the Middle East.

That's complete rubbish and incomrehensible to boot. The Church and other religious (and quasi-religious) organisations tend to grow in power over time,

Just like how the Catholic Church went from Holy Roman Empire to only being able to issue statements and hope other governments listen. Nope, doesn't work, sorry.

Public pro-abstinence statements, arguing against contraception.

Now whose spouting complete rubbish? If the George W. Bush making a pro-abstinence statement is government-sanctioned religious propaganda, so is it government-sanctioned religious propaganda when I say "Jesus Saves." The First Amendment protects everyone equally. You don't just give up all your freedoms when you're elected to office. These aren't laws, there is no legal requirement for you to abide by them, nor is there a federal mandate to "spread the word".

Support, funding and promotion of "faith-based initiatives"

Again, denial of funds to charitable organizations due to their religious affiliation is a law RESPECTING the establishment of religion. Granted, so are tax exemptions to churches based upon the sole fact that they are government recognized churches. If an individual or an organization can justify itself participating in a government program or being exempted from government responsibilities without referencing religion, then under the First Amendment the federal government should not be able to deny it. If it must reference religion, then the federal government should deny it.