Microsoft Promotions Turn Up in USPS Offices 496
Several readers, like this Anonymous Coward, have written with links to a letter from Cliff Crouch on macintouch.com. "I stumbled across this letter submitted to a web site I frequent. Apparently Microsoft has promotional displays with free WindowsXP promotional software in U.S. Post Offices."
I pick choice #1 (Score:3, Informative)
You're simply naive. Last time I checked advertising was legal, even for Microsoft.
- adam
Re:Here's the reason (Score:2, Informative)
-Q
Re:No... (Score:2, Informative)
Although... Joe Schmoe can do a lot of his keeping-in-touch with email, while the massers are pretty stuck. Especially if anti-spam laws take off.
Re:Though people will probably disagree (Score:3, Informative)
United States Postal Service
The Post Office Department was transformed into the United States Postal Service, an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States. The mission of the Postal Service remained the same, as stated in Title 39 of the U.S. Code: "The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities."
Re:OK, here's the question. . . (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Here's the reason (Score:3, Informative)
Cant Get It Off (Score:2, Informative)
Re:First Anthrax now XP (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I'm firing up the burner (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In Other News... (Score:2, Informative)
That's not quite true. Stamps have certainly not been used as a commercial advertisement medium (i.e. to sell a product, a real product). If there have been cases -- of which I've never heard -- then they are few and far between. You confuse commercial advertisement with awareness/recongition (women's causes, Madonna), national/patriotic endeavours (space exploration). The other messages fall in those categories, as well as artistic, historical, geographical, animal and fauna, symbols, and so on - but none of these have anything to do with a commercial product or service.
The Postal Service has never been "just" a business - otherwise it would have sunk long ago - it is a semi-private government service (it's the same here in Canada as in the U.S.). That's quite different, and if you don't understand this then you don't really understand what business is (not to mention the nature of capitalism).
As far the Microsoft ads goes, I don't know how it is in the states, but in Canada we don't have ads from major corporations, except in the rare cases when there are joint projects with the Postal Service. But plain ads, and from as big a company as Microsoft? No. I have to say, ads in a government service for a company (and not just any company, THE company) which the government is suing in Federal court? That does sound quite absurd, even for the U.S., famous for not doing things the same way as anyone else...
The USPS *does* represent the government (Score:4, Informative)
The post office is the sole official physical presence of the U.S. federal government countrywide.
Where do you go to "register" for the Selective Service (the draft)? The post office.
Where do you go to get federal tax forms? The post office is required to supply them.
Sure, some municipalities may have an FBI or ATF branch office, or even a Secret Service office, but the USPS is the main federal presence in EVERY town. It is the face of the US Government for most.
Re:not only that (Score:3, Informative)
So I assume that you don't consider rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court to be "official government documents"...
"The [First] Amendment's purpose... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Re:not only that (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, I know this is an offtopic rabbit trail...
The other replies are correct in saying that it is nowhere in the constitution. The phrase was coined by the 17th century Baptist leader Roger Williams, and used by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802 (11 years after the First Amendment was ratified).
The U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution's meaning, first utilized the phrase in the 1878 case of Reynolds v. United States, stating that Jefferson's term 'wall of separation between church and state' "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
Over the years the Court has developed and applied what has become known as the "Lemon Test" to decide Establishment Clause cases. The Lemon Test, codified in the Court's 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman, is a three-pronged inquiry:
1) Does the challenged legislation or activity have a legitimate secular purpose?;
2) Does the legislation or activity have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion? and
3) Does the legislation or activity excessively entangle government with religion?
Although individual Justices of the Court have, on various occasions, expressed dissatisfaction with this standard of review, the Lemon Test has not yet been replaced.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like government to me, warts and all.
Re:not only that (Score:3, Informative)
The full clause is:
Reasonable people from Jefferson on have interpreted that to mean two things: first, that the government cannot promote or support any religion, and second, as you say, that the government cannot ban or discriminate any religion. Like much of the Constitution, the First Amendment is a masterpiece of balance. Freedom of and freedom from religion are inseparable.
Any other interpretation is not only unreasonable, but ahistorical -- remember that the people who wrote the Constitution had rather graphic examples of the horrors of state-supported religion within living memory. These days, at least in the US, we've largely forgotten how dangerous it can be.
"Postal Ad Network" (Score:5, Informative)
-
Success Sells.
So it may get worse; there may be Microsoft ads on USPS trucks next.For over 200 years, the United States Postal Service is the brand that has been built on trust and service.
Now we're selling our unique space. Think of us as your Multi-channel Communications Service. Marketers can get the visibility and reach through the Postal Ad Network.
Place your big message on our trucks, collection boxes and even in our postal facilities. Or small space ads on our stamp packages and banner ads on our website.
There's opposition [commercialalert.org] to the USPS selling out like this.
Re:What are you smoking? (Score:3, Informative)
Technically, the USPS is a corporation wholly owned by the US government, but not actually part of it.
It's been this way since July 1, 1971 since the passage of the Postal Reorganization Act. Prior to then, the Postmaster General was a Presidential Cabinet level position (might come in handy if you ever make it onto the Millionaire show.)
Some other changes:
- Operational authority vested in a Board of Governors and Postal Service executive management, rather than in Congress.
-Authority to issue public bonds to finance postal buildings and mechanization.
-Direct collective bargaining between representatives of management and the unions.
-A new rate-setting procedure, built around an independent Postal Rate Commission.
(If you're really interested, check out a bit of history [usps.gov] on the USPS.)
Re:What are you smoking? (Score:2, Informative)
I believe the poster meant to say that while it is part of the government, and its employees are federal employees, the post office is an independent corporation. The government cut it loose in 1970. While it may be part of the government, no tax payer money goes to the USPS and the USPS runs itself as it sees fit. And this is why they can do whatever they want with Microsoft. For more info you might see history of usps [usps.gov].
Re:not only that (Score:3, Informative)
Governments frequently set up organisations to do things which are eseential for their territory (and it's economy) to operate effectivly. Even if they superficially appear to be businesses the rules they operate under may be different. e.g. not having to maximise profit for shareholders, exemptions from planning laws, etc.