>Like Flameduck said, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply
>to PRETEND WARS!!!
Nobody ever claimed it did. The issue is whether the symbol should remain exclusively a red cross symbol. The reference to the geneva conventions, is simply a way of clarifying that the symbol is exclusive to the red cross.
>The whole point of protecting the Red Cross symbol is to
>make sure that it isn't being exploited in war (i.e. paint
>your convoy filled with troops and weapons with Red
>Crosses to make sure they are not attacked).
No, it is equally about protecting the symbol against use by others not affiliated with red cross. If the symbol is protected against abuse, then it will still carry a meaning when it is used in war.
If using it was a free for all, then the symbol would carry no meaning at all, or rather everyone would associate different meanings to it and it would thus be useless. The symbol must remain 'exclusive' in order for everyone to know what it means.
>I would argue that it would even be OK to depict people
>misusing the Red Cross as fiction... as long as the
>depiction is clearly understood to be fiction.
How can you be sure that it is clearly understood? People generally don't see things in the same light, and something which for you is clear, is propably unclear to everyone else.
Andy
>to PRETEND WARS!!!
Nobody ever claimed it did. The issue is whether the symbol should remain exclusively a red cross symbol. The reference to the geneva conventions, is simply a way of clarifying that the symbol is exclusive to the red cross.
>The whole point of protecting the Red Cross symbol is to
>make sure that it isn't being exploited in war (i.e. paint
>your convoy filled with troops and weapons with Red
>Crosses to make sure they are not attacked).
No, it is equally about protecting the symbol against use by others not affiliated with red cross. If the symbol is protected against abuse, then it will still carry a meaning when it is used in war.
If using it was a free for all, then the symbol would carry no meaning at all, or rather everyone would associate different meanings to it and it would thus be useless. The symbol must remain 'exclusive' in order for everyone to know what it means.
>I would argue that it would even be OK to depict people
>misusing the Red Cross as fiction... as long as the
>depiction is clearly understood to be fiction.
How can you be sure that it is clearly understood? People generally don't see things in the same light, and something which for you is clear, is propably unclear to everyone else.
Andy