h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This exhibit would take photographs of passers-by at
random
intervals and display both the photograph and an accusation
of a randomly chosen truly horrible crime on a large, high-
mounted screen. For example the photograph and the words
"this person killed a child with a blowtorch"
EDIT:
Fixed pedantry error in title.
[link]
|
| |
70s-era SNL used to do something similar to this with shots of random audience members before ad breaks. |
|
| |
I did this with animals once, getting hold of a series of stock photos of various creatures, and then blanking out their eyes with one of those black-censor-strips - and captioning these resultant photos with some randomly generated crime or other. My favorites usually turned out to be the ones with eyes on stalks such as snails and lobsters. |
|
| |
The screen should be mounted on your person, perhaps a T-shirt display. |
|
| |
So not an idea about car salesmen then? |
|
| |
Important distinctions: slander is spoken, libel is written. Therefore, this is an autolibeller. You could, however, avoid these petty and pedantic hairsplittings and call it instead the AutoDefamatator. |
|
| |
//libel is written// libel is published. I thought. |
|
| |
Depends on yr jurisdiction, but the key thing is that it is communicated to another person, rather than specifically published. But then, perhaps that is what in England (and England-derived legal systems) is meant by published. |
|
| |