Can you be prosecuted for a Lite Brite?

Question

In 10 big cities around the country, a publicity stunt for the Adult Swim cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger force, consisting of putting up LED lights similar to Lite Brites showing characters from the show around the city, was carried out. 9 cities did nothing about it, or quietly took them down. Boston, however, considered them a bomb hoax and are planning on prosecuting the people who put them up, Cartoon Network, and Turner Broadcasting. They are also considering a civil suit because it cost them a lot of money to blow up (needlessly) all the "devices". Here's a more complete version of the story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/boston.bombscare/index.html

My question is, if they have a halfway reasonable judge, could they possibly win this crap?

To all the people saying that they caused havoc and whatnot; I'd TOTALLY agree with you.... if any reasonable person could possibly mistake them for bombs. These things did NOT look like bombs. Only TV bombs even have lights, let alone friggin CARTOON CHARACTERS. A bomb does not want to draw attention to itself.

Then there's the fact that even once they KNEW they were harmless, they continued to spend your money and block traffic and everything getting rid of the rest. If the people who placed them hadn't intended to take them down after the stunt, then I could understand charging them for the money it costs to take them down, but a bomb hoax? And blaming them for Boston's stupidity? Unbelievable.

Answer 1

I'm kind of confused. So, what you're saying is, that people were offended by cartoon characters and used some lame excuse as "bomb threat" for a light display?

Ignorance never ceases to shock me.

What's next, are they going to assume every Christmas nativity set is some biological device hidden in baby Jesus's crib? I mean, really, does anyone else see the idiocy behind this theory? I guess all Christmas displays in Boston should be illegal as well under this policy.

How sad, that the ridiculousness has come to these extremes. I guess that's what we get for living in The United States of the Offended.

Afterthought edit:

If this were about 9-11, where is the line drawn between paranoia and realism? Did anyone even grow up in the 80's here? Well, let me tell you a little something about the cold war and toys during that time. We were paranoid, with reason, even more so in the Cold war. They had bomb drills in elementary schools for goodness sakes. But, not once did I ever have my Lite Brite taken from me and assessed as a "bomb threat."

If we continue to live our lives in fear, it's not really living.

Answer 2

I believe they could totaly be prosecuted, but more on the end of defacing public or private property by putting up the items with out permission rather than the bomb threat angle. I cant see that one making it through a trial intact in this instance. I can see it being attempted though.. you can "prosecute" on any damn thing you want if you are a DA, and DA's typically charge and prosecute on larger more serious charges, as a bargaining chip to a plea bargain in almost everything. Logically & legally this should be a simple misdemeanor defacing property case.. which is just a fine in most instances.

Answer 3

Before answering the question, I would have to ask what individual(s) determined that the advertisement "looked like a bomb", and who was responsible for validating such an assessment? I would be so embarassed and ashamed for the reaction by the city, that if I lived in Boston, I would have to move away from there. By the way...all the 9/11 planes DID fly out of Boston, so I don't think paranoia is now the way to try and cover for that major screw-up.

Answer 4

Apparently you can be prosecuted for using a Lite Brite. It makes me so mad that America has made it okay for people to be stupid.

Answer 5

Yes, they can be prosecuted and convicted. I live in Boston. Because they put these things up without any notice to the authorities, the city knew nothing about them. When they discovered them, they took the appropriate actions - for this day and age - and treated these "suspicious" devices with the utmost caution. This caused tremendous havok in Boston, closing roads and highways, and tying up police and emergency services. Millions of tax dollars, some of them mine, were spent on this event.

If these guys broke a law, they should be prosecuted. And if Turner has any backbone, they will pay for these guys' defense and reimburse the city for all the costs.

I don't think the city overreacted. In fact, I like what they did. It makes me feel safer knowing that they were hitting on all cylinders once these things were discovered.

Answer 6

I still enjoy my Lite Brite. Used to hate sitting on those pegs. They were sharp.

Answer 7

I agree with Steven D

....I live just north of Boston and believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest for the havoc they caused. All they had to do was call and say, "hey, we want to do this to promote our show, okay" If they had been denied, they wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) have gone through with it. If they had been approved, the roads and harbor wouldn't have been shut down and the city wouldn't have been in panic.

Remember, 9/11 all the planes originated from Boston's Logan Airport

Answer 8

With our current state of the nation, they may be fined. Turner broadcasting and the Cartoon Network should actually know better and should have gotten permits from the cities that they wanted to do this in.

Yes, they should be allowed to advertise and use silly stunts, but not without getting the appropriate permits. It would be just the same as any street vendor would have to do...like a hot dog stand, rental of sign space and so on. In most states you can not just put advertising where ever you want, but have to obtain permits and inform the city, or apply to the city to find out if or not you may use that space.

Hope this answered your question. :)

Answer 9

what cracks me up is they continue to use the word hoax... THIS WAS NOT A HOAX ! a phone call with a fake bomb threat is a hoax. Putting up a sign that you intend to DISPLAY a show or item.... is not a hoax it is an ad.

Does that mean the next movie poster for a action movie that has a explosion on it can be considered a "hoax" can I call the cops because I see an explosion or a guy with a gun at the local movie theater ?

Answer 10

The lawyers in the case would have to prove (or disprove) that the men in question intended to show malice, or in other words were deliberately duplicate a bomb. I doubt this will go very far, but in todays post 9-11 world, who knows, I have been surprised before. I think judging by the placement and descriptions of the items, that it may have been intended to look like explosives, and they wanted the publicity, because everyone now knows about cartoon network and their show. Its the Janet Jackson Super Bowl boob thing all over again..."No, we didn't mean it....er....really we didn't want it all over CNN, ABC and NBC, it was totally innocent" get my drift? :)