Did they, by any chance, adopt the time-honored strategy of jurisdiction shopping to find a location where truth is not a defense? If so, they might win purely on the basis of the allegations being bad for their reputation. If they tried in a place with actually non-sucky libel law, game over man, game over.
Yes, Japan – its justice system is a nightmare of systematic underfunding, incompetence and insanity, such that international legal experts establish their careers by explaining the fractal dimensions of its weirdness.
I would protest Prada, but I don’t think I have ever touched a Praduct in my life so nothing changes.
This is what happens when a business is immune to any degree of media opprobrium or public disgust.
Because we should count on public disgust to keep businesses in check, not courts of law.
“Rina Bovrisse” doesn’t look like a native japanese name … and after reading Tokyo Vice by Jake Adelstein (a BB recommendation btw) I got the impression that a foreigner generally doesn’t have a realistic chance of getting a fair treatment in the japanese justice system (similar to african-american citizens in the US).
Well yes, actually. I mean, If you grant that public disgust, if not equals, at least approaches societal consensus of what is appropriate, then actually doing something inappropriate, should be considered inappropriate.
In the same way that you should stop at a stop sign, not have a cop stop you every time you get to a stop sign.
Damnit. Maybe we could get fake Praducts and be seen wearing them. That’ll teach 'em.
This seems like a good place to post a funny fashion story. In college, I had a friend whose mom worked for Issac Mizrahi’s fashion house. As a teen, she attended some fashion shows with her mom, who was obviously a kickass seamstress. To one show, she wore a favorite skirt, which her mom had fashioned from a tablecloth. So, in response to the inevitable “Who are you wearing” question, she responded, “tablecloth.”
Societal consensus of what is appropriate is different from law for a reason. If 95% of sociey hates homosexuals / Jews / Communists / cat owners / …, that shouldn’t stop companies from selling to them as if it were a law. That’s why I don’t want to rely on social opprobrium to guide companies. The real problem here is the court’s decision and the laws that allowed it, not the lack of public outcry.
Unfortunately, social opprobrium tends to shape laws. Hence the mess in Russia with “gay propaganda”. The judges are as ruled by bias as anybody else.
I’m ok with teh gays, kikes, and commies. But cat owners? Fuck those guys. Seriously. Fuck 'em.
According to what I read, Bovrisse is her (former?) husband’s last name.
There are items we have to purchase from companies we don’t like in order to survive make a living etc… Clothing is not one of those items. We have choice. At this point no one can purchase Prada products and claim they support women’s rights.
How is that written in the company manual. Female employees are expected to tolerate sexual harassment to a point? what is the point? How does the judge rule. We find you where not harassed enough.
Is how truly screwed up japan is as far as the courts and laws supporting businesses?
A female judge no less.
I get your point, I just mean to say, that if a corporation engages in behavior that its customers would not tolerate, then the outcome is obvious. And If a corporation exists to get money from customers, then it doesn’t make sense that said corporation should do such things.
My last point. Laws are not made arbitrarily, they get made to reign in “extreme antisocial behavior”, nobody stops you from being a jerk to me, just don’t punch me in the face cause you don’t like it.
In this sense, self policing behavior is preferable to laws limiting what is appropriate based on what? The possibility that I could do something wrong? That seems to me like thought crime.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.