Het Neoliberale Geloof 417

Adbusters wins right to sue broadcasters over TV ads
April 6, 2009 at 8:59 PM EDT

VANCOUVER — After almost 15 years of legal struggle, Kalle Lasn,
editor-in-chief of Vancouver-based Adbusters magazine, finally has
something to celebrate. On Friday, the B.C. Court of Appeal issued a ruling
that allows Adbusters Media Foundation to pursue legal action against the
CBC and CanWest Global for refusing to screen its anti-consumerist
television ads.

“This is the first victory we've had in 15 years, and it feels incredibly
sweet,” Mr. Lasn said in a telephone interview. “The court has
basically given us permission to go after media corporations and hold them
up for scrutiny. The case is wide open again. It feels like a
vindication.”

Adbusters' legal counsel, Mark Underhill, said that the significance of the
case lies in whether private broadcasters given a license to operate by
Parliament have the right to determine who gets to speak on the public
airwaves.

“We are arguing that Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act says that the
broadcasting system is public,” he said. “It's not just about
Adbusters' rights, it's about the rights of the people to hear Adbusters
and others who might have alternative viewpoints in a public space.”

The case is still months, if not years, away from being heard in court, Mr.
Underhill said. “We are essentially at the very beginning. It has taken
all this time to be able to start from scratch.”

Adbusters launched a legal challenge after the CBC pulled its anti-car
television ad, Autosaurus, from its automotive show Driver's Seat. The ad
ran once in February, 1993, but was withdrawn after complaints from other
sponsors – mostly car companies.

In November, 1995, the B.C. Supreme Court rejected Adbusters' argument that
this infringed on the foundation's right to freedom of expression, ruling
that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to the Crown
corporation.

In 2004, Mr. Lasn hired prominent civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby and
launched another suit in Ontario, arguing that CBC, CanWest Global, Bell
Globemedia and CHUM had each refused to run ads created by Adbusters.
Telephone transcripts included in the legal filing showed television
executives anticipated a negative response from major advertisers over the
ads. During the same period, several of the same ads were screened without
issue on CNN.

The action hit a wall when Adbusters was ordered to dismiss Mr. Ruby
because of a conflict of interest (he was working on a different CanWest
case). Strapped for cash (Mr. Lasn estimates the case has cost $200,000 so
far), and needing to find another lawyer, Adbusters transferred the case to
B.C. and continued – this time citing CBC, CanWest Global and the
Attorney-General of Canada as defendants.

In February, 2008, the B.C. Supreme Court under Mr. Justice William Ehrcke
rejected Adbusters' claim that refusing to air the ads was a violation of
the right to freedom of expression. The charter, he said, citing the
previous ruling on CBC, did not apply to private corporations.

That decision was overturned on Friday, when the B.C. Court of Appeal
unanimously rejected the original ruling that the charter did not apply to
the CBC, and in consequence, overturned the decision to throw out the case
against CanWest Global.

A spokesperson for the CBC, Jeff Keay, said that the corporation will
review the ruling before determining its next course of action.

CanWest Global declined to comment.'
Zie:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090406.wads0406/BNStory
/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview