Re: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 - it sets the bar much higher.

KK


On 02/09/2010 20:46, "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The formulation should be conjunctive.

be highly offensive
AND unambiguously offensive
AND profoundly objectionable
AND without redeeming public value

Thanks,
Robin


On Sep 2, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:


Richard,
I like much of this suggestion.

Questions
1. Did this language come from any other source or is it your own Richard?
"be highly and unambiguously offensive, profoundly objectionable and without
redeeming public value will be rejected. "

2. Is the test intended to be AND or OR ?
ie
be highly offensive
AND unambiguously offensive
AND profoundly objectionable
AND without redeeming public value

or
be highly offensive
AND unambiguously offensive
OR profoundly objectionable
AND without redeeming public value

or
be highly offensive
AND unambiguously offensive
OR profoundly objectionable
OR without redeeming public value

3. What did you not like about the EUTM tested tests of
"directly against the basic norms of .. society".

"clear offensive impact on people of normal sensitivity".

Philip









IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx