Atheist Billboard Taken Down

[DeSwiss]

Atheist billboard taken down

Contextual Criticism
Posted by Jacob
Wednesday, November 26, 2008



The Freedom from Religion Foundation erected the above billboard in Rancho Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County, California. It was supposed to be in place through January. A bunch of christianist wingnuts, fearful that their jealous little god would be offended, complained and whined and cried and finally the General Outdoor Advertising sign company took it down. The administrator of the First Baptist Church of Rancho Cucamonga, Judy Rooze, was very happy. She thought the sign was "unsettling." She said, "I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far. It's very jarring."

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, was not happy that the General Outdoor sign company broke their contract, even if they did promise to refund the money that the foundation paid for the sign. Gaylor said that the sign's inspiration came from John Lennon's song, "Imagine." It was intended to provoke discussion and also to recruit new members for the foundation. Gaylor thought this kind of censorship was inappropriate, that religious viewpoints are aired all the time but atheists and agnostics are shut out of the marketplace. "There should be some balance," she said.

Gaylor's right and Rooze is wrong. Whether you agree with the Freedom from Religion Foundation or not is irrelevant. This IS a matter of free speech. Just because a billboard offends some religious people should have no bearing on the matter at all. Freedom of speech means the freedom to offend. And those wingnuts who complained and whined and cried should be very careful. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so they say. If the Freedom from Religion Foundation cannot put up their billboard, than billboards promoting religion must be dissallowed also.

In fact, we've got a ton of them in the community where I live, consisting of pithy little "god" comments and a bible verse. Very unsettling. Very jarring. Take the damn things down, now! And, so far as Rancho Cucamonga goes, the Freedom from Religion Foundation should file suit immediately against General Outdoor Advertising for interfering with their right of free speech.

http://mythandhope.blogspot.com/2008/11/atheist-billboard-taken-down.html">LINK

- Actually, neither the woman quoted above, nor any of these yahoos who complained, nor the General Outdoor Advertising company people for that matter, understand what "free speech" means.

Freedom of speech is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech">freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. Its the same freedom which allows some people to advance the idea that a desert storm god from around 6,000 BC is the creator of the universe....
==============================================================================
DeSwiss


http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox




"Prayer is just a way of telling god that his divine plan for
you is flawed -- and shockingly stingy" ~ Betty Bowers

[quaker bill]

1. Freedom of speech

is not the same as access to the media. The Freedom of Speech provided under the Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT power to curtail speech. If Government had acted to prevent posting of the billboard or acted to have it removed once posted, a cause of action under the Ammendment would be fully realized. Under the set of facts presented, the only case one could successfully try on the merits would be a breach of contract suit. Under such an action FFRF could reasonably hope to recover their full costs and perhaps economic damages, but as they are likely a non-profit org, economic damages would define as nil. They are being offered a full refund, further litigation would be a waste of their time and funds.

Now if they want the square the issue up, they should purchase a billboard and then post the message and similar themes permanently. If Government then acts to curtail their speech on (non-obscene) content, a seemingly solid freedom of speech case would be at hand.

[Hissyspit]

2. Your point is taken, but they are not talking about the specifics of the legal definition of freedom

and it's relationship to governance. They are talking about the CONCEPT of freedom of speech, as it relates to how people should behave and treat each other and what expectations we should have of each other, whether in relationship to the governmental or the non-governmental. They are talking about people not giving lip service to the concept and not talking out of their asses.

Sure, a billboard could always be bought, but is it in the interest of the public good to close off access to certain messages simply due to a lack of access to media. Media can be closed out to suppress voices.

[DeSwiss]

4. "They are talking about people not giving lip service to the concept..."

Precisely.

As in the words of Judy Rooze:

Judy Rooze, was very happy. She thought the sign was "unsettling." She said, "I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far. It's very jarring."

- Yes Judy, democracy can be jarring. For some people anyway. But the point is when it isn't "jarring," it's because everyone is only allowed to say the same things....

[quaker bill]

16. Recent events

on Wall street provide ample evidence that businesses are not required to act "in the interest of public good". The "fairness doctrine" was extended to broadcast media through a condition on their license to use the "public airwaves". The notion was that since they were using our property (the airwaves), we got to dictate the terms of their use. The concept could perhaps be extended to billboards by the local government which permits them. Such a rule or ordinance would be subject to 4th ammendment challenge as a confiscatory taking of private property without compensation and might be overturned on constitutional grounds.

The cleanest answer is to purchase a billboard and post your message. If the local gov't forces you to take it down, then you have the first ammendment and the 4th ammendment on your side. A good lawyer could then not only prevail for you, but possibly also collect monetary damages on the "taking" of your private property by imposing unfair (arbitrary and capricious) restrictive regulations.

[DeSwiss]

3. I agree with your last point...

...they should indeed buy a billboard and make it permanent. However I disagree with your interpretation concerning a "right to access" to the media. Because they shouldn't have to buy a billboard, just to exercise their right of expression/speech.

As with the cases of the freedom riders of the 60s, companies who benefit from the public largess must offer their goods and services to everyone without discrimination. The whole point of billboards is to make use of the time people are in their cars going from once place to another. So I must assume that the billboard companies then benefit from the roads, the bridges, the lighting, the storm-water runoff and the other municipal services -- and which are in-part paid for by atheist taxpayers. So to disallow atheists the right to purchase the services of General Outdoor Advertising Company on the basis of their non-belief being too controversial, is discriminatory. And therefore, illegal.



on edit: If it were a Muslim mosque that wanted to advertise, or say a new branch of the Church of Satan, should the advertising company refuse to allow them the use of their services because those would also be "too controversial" for the Christians to stomach? You cannot have a Constitutional government that has laws which require equal treatment, with caveats in them that negate those laws when it upsets Christian sensibilities.

We are not a Christian nation nor a theocracy. At least not yet....

[quaker bill]

17. I have no problem with the content

I have no problem with their right to post it. I only question whether a billboard company can be forced to run it. The first ammendment certainly allows one to run a public forum on freedom from religion issues, and it allows one to invite all the press to it. It does not require the press to attend and report on it, and it does not require the newspaper to print it on page one above the fold.

I think it is rather a stretch legally to extend the concepts of fair housing and accomodation regulations to a posting on billboard. One could attempt to try it in a court, but I expect one would lose early and hard. In housing the damage to the community and the individual were direct and immediate with little alternate remedy but to overturn the practice. There are many venues to speak freely, to now include the internet. Many non-confiscatory remedies exist that would allow the group to get its message out, so I don't think the case would hold up at trial. In general, if you (the plaintiff) have not exhausted the "practical remedies" available to you short of civil litigation, you will likely not prevail at trial.

One would not need to go to muslims or satanists, Quakers were good with posting "war is not the answer" when much of the country supported it.

Government apparently referred all the complaints they received to the billboard owner. Government apparently did not act to have the message removed. No one has alleged that government used the power of law to have the posting removed based on content. If they did, a first ammendment case would be ripe for trial.

I do not believe that there is a law that requires equal access to billboards. If the group wants a trial to figure this out, the courts are available. Anyone can sue anyone else over just about any grievance. It is their money and they can spend it as they desire. I am nearly certain that they will lose and that the money would be better spent acquiring a billboard. Now if the owner refused to sell them a billboard only because he knew that they would post "offensive" messages, an interesting case might well be at hand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. However, it seems the government was involved:

RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An organization that advocates the separation of church and state filed a lawsuit Wednesday claiming that the city and Redevelopment Director Linda Daniels violated the group's free-speech rights.

The suit, filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation in U.S. District Court in Riverside, claims the city interfered and contributed to the removal of a billboard at Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard that had the message "Imagine No Religion."
...
According to Daniels, a member of her staff called General Outdoor on Nov. 19 and said the city had received 90 calls of complaint against the billboard.

The sign came down the following day.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the city should not have conveyed the complaints to the sign company.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11084316

[cosmik debris]

5. I see this as a freedom of the press issue.

There is an old saying about freedom of the press.

It is the only constitutional right reserved for a specific group of people--those who own presses.

In this case the owners of the billboard are the people with the rights. It is their press. They have the right not to publish that billboard if they want to exercise that right.

Of course, I think they are major league assholes, but that's not unconstitutional.

[DeSwiss]

9. I hadn't quite thought of it this way...

...but its an interesting point.

I see them both as competitive advertising businesses. They offer their spaces for hire for a specific time frame so that those using their services can grab the attention of potential "customers."

As long as what they're trying to "sell" isn't illegal, and the advertisement itself does not present a danger to the public nor violate anyone else's rights, then no one should be denied the right to rent the space just because their advertisements are objected to by those who disagree with what they're "selling."

[cosmik debris]

11. The right to rent advertising space may be hard to find

in law or the Constitution. But there may be a cause of action under civil rights legislation.

[quaker bill]

19. I doubt it.

only because there are many available venues for speech. Housing and fair accomodations was another matter and the alternate remedies were far more limited.

[cosmik debris]

20. It was my thinking

That companies involved in interstate commerce must provide equal access without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin....blah blah blah.

I was thinking of Greyhound Bus waiting rooms and Woolworth's lunch counters.

But, as you can see, that perspective is somewhat dated.

[quaker bill]

21. I don't think

your perspective on the matter is more dated than the law itself. However Federal jurisdiction in these matters perhaps extends beyond the commerce clause. That being said, I am pretty sure the law does not extend to rental of advertising space.

I do environmental regulation for a living and while not a lawyer, I employ them and have lunch with small groups of liberal leaning lawyers regularly as a course of business. Given the fact pattern here, I do not find a viable civil rights case in the offing. Food, housing, and transportation are different matters than billboard space.

Now if they bought the billboard and the government acted in the manner of prior restraint on free speech or post-facto restriction of speech, they would have a case worthy of SCOTUS consideration. But then, most governments have lawyers and would be informed enough not set themselves up for a fall in this way. They instead would zone billboards out of the area as a "community enhancement" in a manner that took in more than just the one offending board. This way the mission is accomplished while avoiding the constitutional question.

[quaker bill]

18. Exactly

competing rights would be at trial. You can be a major league a**hole and still have your rights. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The group needs to buy a billboard.

[Orrex]

6. These religious zealots were within their rights to cry like babies about it

And if the General Outdoor Advertising sign company chose to take down a sign that it owns, then that's its business. Of course, if Gaylor contracted for the sign through January, there may be compensation to be settled. Atheists are likewise free to howl and scream about the infinite number of religious billboards out there, too, and if those respective companies take down the signs, so much the better.

This isn't a matter of free speech but a matter of (cowardly) corporate decision-making.

Yes of course it's bullshit that religious assholes like these get everything they want every time they want it. Personally, I'd outlaw the whole enterprise as destructive to human liberty and critical thought, but maybe that's just me.

[cosmik debris]

7. Don't you understand?

The poor Christians were being persecuted by a billboard. They had to remove it in the name of justice and religious freedom.

:sarcasm:

[Orrex]

12. Well, as long as they had a good reason

:eyes:

[moobu2]

8. If these religionists were secure in their beliefs

They wouldn’t care anything about this billboard. The simple fact is, is that there’s no such thing as a god, other than in the believers imagination, so when these people see or hear this truth, they cant handle it, they get agitated, hostile even violent at times.

[DeSwiss]

10. Which is exactly the point -- they aren't "secure" in their beliefs.

In fact I'm not sure most religionists even know what it is that they do believe. Other than what they've had hammered into them since childhood. It is pretty obvious to me, that few if any of their followers have ever researched their religions. If they had, anyone with a conscience would come away aghast at its perfidy. And so a constant re-telling of their "version" of their stories becomes necessary in order to keep them coming back. And such support is critical if religion is to survive.

But facts don't require support. They're just there whether you want them to be or not. Fantasy on the other hand, requires constant and frequent reinforcement. Because everything outside of the fairly tale constantly eats away at its validity.

Up until recently, religionists have had a clear field and no one has publicly challenged their stories, nor what others wanted to believe in. So long as they minded their own business and left everyone else alone. But the Religious-Right's invoking themselves into our public life has caused many to now say: "ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT!!!"

- So I say -- "ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT!!!"

[and-justice-for-all]

14. There's a religious board up here...

I think I will call and bitch about it Monday.

"Freedom from Religion Foundation should file suit immediately against General Outdoor Advertising for interfering with their right of free speech." INFUCKINGDEED!!

[DeSwiss]

15. Is this the sign?

[and-justice-for-all]

22. hahaha!!!!

Don't they know there is a Porn shop near by that they are offending?! how dare they!! just rude I say, RUDE!

[moobu2]

23. There’s a hideous christian blood worshiping death cult billboard near where I live

with blood dripping from these huge iron spikes with a huge empty bloody wooden cross and some crazy ass slogan, I cant remember. I think they’re Baptists. It’s extremely offensive to me. Who do I call to have that thing removed? Nobody.

[mikelewis]

24. The free speech argument does not apply to a private business selling outdoor advertisements.

This is not a public service offered by the state or private company enacting decisions directed by the state but a private business that can legally make business decisions based upon things that they believe could negatively affect their business. This organization is free to post their signs just not on private property owned by this particular company.

With that said... I must say that I really like that sign and find nothing offensive or shocking about it at all... in fact I'm pretty sure Jesus would like it very much. Lennon's song Imagine epitomizes my personal view of Christianity and the message of Christ and I think that the reaction and removal of this sign by this company is understandably cowardly and shamefully wise.

[laconicsax]

25. Best line ever:

“One small free-thought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored.”

-FFRF co-president Gaylor

[SidneyCarton]

26. Agreed.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, an Atheist's right to profess their non-belief neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm. Therefore, I find the outrage over the billboard to be asenine.