<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Nestle flexes its muscles at Miami water utility]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Russ</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/hot-water1/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:05:07 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/hot-water1/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I guess it does.</strong></p><p>These guys never seem to learn. This offensive seeking to privatize public discourse, by rendering brand names and even product types sacrosanct, is nothing new. </p><p>
But as we saw with the McLibel case and the veggie libel law flap with Oprah, the moment cases like this surface on the media radar it's a PR disaster for the corporate thugs.</p><p>
What should be needless to say, at least in America (though not in Britain, where mcdonald's technically "won" the Mclibel case) we have the 1st amendment. But these kinds of laws and lawsuits are an attempted end-run around that. And with all the right-wing judges who have been planted like explosive charges over the last 25+ years, the goons can sometimes make legal if not PR headway.</p><p>
Right now in NJ we have an outrageous case, where the trial court and the initial review court have upheld a municipal law which allows businesses to display any kind of inflated thing, but which forbids any "disruptive" inflations being used as political speech. (In this case, a union was fined for putting up a giant inflated rat at a protest. They're appealing, of course.)</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I guess it does.</strong></p><p>These guys never seem to learn. This offensive seeking to privatize public discourse, by rendering brand names and even product types sacrosanct, is nothing new. </p><p>
But as we saw with the McLibel case and the veggie libel law flap with Oprah, the moment cases like this surface on the media radar it's a PR disaster for the corporate thugs.</p><p>
What should be needless to say, at least in America (though not in Britain, where mcdonald's technically "won" the Mclibel case) we have the 1st amendment. But these kinds of laws and lawsuits are an attempted end-run around that. And with all the right-wing judges who have been planted like explosive charges over the last 25+ years, the goons can sometimes make legal if not PR headway.</p><p>
Right now in NJ we have an outrageous case, where the trial court and the initial review court have upheld a municipal law which allows businesses to display any kind of inflated thing, but which forbids any "disruptive" inflations being used as political speech. (In this case, a union was fined for putting up a giant inflated rat at a protest. They're appealing, of course.)</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by Erik Hoffner</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/hot-water1/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:38:55 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/hot-water1/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>nice<p>Right, doubt that this Nestle lot (whose dealings in Colombia rank among the lowest) thinks they'll win customers. It's just about fighting the precedent of advertising the virtues of tap water. Wouldn't want helpful consumer choice info getting out into the public, now, would we?<p>
Erik

<p><a href="http://www.orionsociety.org/ogn" rel="nofollow">The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, &amp; more
</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>nice<p>Right, doubt that this Nestle lot (whose dealings in Colombia rank among the lowest) thinks they'll win customers. It's just about fighting the precedent of advertising the virtues of tap water. Wouldn't want helpful consumer choice info getting out into the public, now, would we?<p>
Erik

<p><a href="http://www.orionsociety.org/ogn" rel="nofollow">The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, &amp; more
</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Tasermons Partner</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/hot-water1/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:53:28 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/hot-water1/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Quote:</strong></p><p>With the ads ending a five-week run last month and no plans to revive it, the county considers the legal issues moot.</p><p>
Go ahead and let Nestle waste their money.</p><p>
It'll only draw more attention to the issue and get more people to realize what a rip-off bottled water can be.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Quote:</strong></p><p>With the ads ending a five-week run last month and no plans to revive it, the county considers the legal issues moot.</p><p>
Go ahead and let Nestle waste their money.</p><p>
It'll only draw more attention to the issue and get more people to realize what a rip-off bottled water can be.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>