It appears that Elmo is past tickling and moving on to busting a cap in the head of toddlers who mess with him. A family has an interesting complaint against Fisher-Price: Elmo says he want to kill their son, James — as clearly shown on this video.
The Bowman family are Elmo saturated due to the love of their son, James, for the character from Sesame Street. So it was a no-brainer that he had to have the newest “Elmo Knows You Name “doll. He does indeed. The doll can clearly be heard in this video saying “Kill James.”
Fisher-Price has remained silent. A few possible responses are obvious, however.
First, the company could take the “offense is the best defense” strategy and say that they really did want to kill James. Under this approach, they could argue that James is a stalker (as demonstrated by his obsession with Elmo) and the doll was acting in self-defense.
Second, they could argue the “rogue employee defense” (after establishing that Elmo is an employee). Given Elmo’s odd behavior and maniacal laugh, he fits the model of an unbalanced employee who defies all training and supervision. This
“going postal” defense could rely on witnesses such as the Grouch and others to establish his history of problems.
Third, the company could argue a post-trauma reaction that was manifested in Elmo’s threats against James. Anyone who saw the Fire in Hooper’s store episode can attest to the fact that he was clearly traumatized and required intervention. Under this “post-traumatic defense,” the company could claim that it had no clear indications of instability and indeed has acted promptly after the fire to bring Elmo to the firehouse. In the episode, Elmo appears “reconciled” to his trauma — never indicating a ticking bomb within the tickling doll.
Finally, the company could just give them back their money and suggest Tickle Me Elmo as a better option for young James.
They better choose one of these options quickly before the number of the day is the 30 — for the percent charged by the contingency lawyers closing in on Sesame Street.
For the video, click here
From the outset, Elmo was always self-obsessed and rather nihilistic. Consider his “Elmo’s Song,” which is something right out of Sling Blade.
This is the song
La la la la
Elmo’s song.
La la la la,
La la la la,
Elmo’s song.
La la la
La la la la, la
La la la
La la la la, la
He loves to sing,
La la la la,
Elmo’s song.
La la la la,
La la la la,
Elmo’s song.
He wrote the music.
He wrote the words.
That’s Elmo’s song.
…don’t tase me, bro’ 🙂
Fooled me…
kidding… 😉
I have been researching this myself and apparently this is an expanding niche within the Child Psychology field – the profiling of dolls,action-figures, and robots AND the children who play with them.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-3840.1994.2704_183.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jpcu
Ethical Analysis and Recommended Action in Response to the Dangers Associated With Youth Consumerism
Author: Juli B. Kramer a
Affiliation: a Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Denver.
DOI: 10.1207/s15327019eb1604_2
Published in: journal Ethics & Behavior, Volume 16, Issue 4 January 2006 , pages 291 – 303
Abstract
Research shows that a culture of consumerism and materialism has a dramatic and negative impact on children’s physical and psychological health. Psychologists have a duty to act to reverse this trend. Information on why and how to act is the key. This article explores the use of psychology to improve the effectiveness of advertising to youth and details the harm suffered by children as a result of some of this advertising. A discussion of ethical considerations related to specific guiding principles and ethical standards of the 2002 American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code frames why action is imperative. Actions for psychologists to take in applying the 2002 APA Ethics Code are suggested herein.
*****
# Peter Clarke. (2007) A measure for Christmas spirit. Journal of Consumer Marketing 24:1, 8
CrossRef
# Carole S. Slotterback. (2006) Terrorism, altruism, and patriotism: An examination of children’s letters to Santa Claus, 1998–2002. Current Psychology 25:2, 144
CrossRef
# Juli B. Kramer. (2006) Ethical Analysis and Recommended Action in Response to the Dangers Associated With Youth Consumerism. Ethics & Behavior 16:4, 291
CrossRef
# Gwen Bachmann Achenreiner, Deborah Roedder John. (2003) The Meaning of Brand Names to Children: A Developmental Investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13:3, 205
CrossRef
# Aron O’Cass, Peter Clarke. (2002) Dear Santa, do you have my brand? A study of the brand requests, awareness and request styles at Christmas time. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 2:1, 37
CrossRef
If I had sent my Elmo to one of Bush’s rallies AND it had been wearing a “Dump Bush” button AND it was accosted by the Secret Service” AND it said “Dont Tase Me Bro”! but was tased anyway.
THEN is there a federal issue here?
I believe that tickling would fall under section (c) of Article 3 “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”, but also under Section (a) of the same “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”. Both of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Tickle Me Elmo could be at greater risk under the “excited utterance exception” to the hearsay rule. All utterances during tickling would be excited. Of course, whether tickling is a form of coercion is an entirely different matter.
Words fail.
Question: Do Tickle Me Elmos have free speech rights? Is Doll/Robot Speech perhaps a new growing field of scholarship?