News Oct 25, 2012 at 4:00 am

Groups Use Courts to Force Buses to Run Controversial Ads

Comments

1
Why is this a problem? So what, free speech offends people, get over it. We either uphold the First Amendment or don't. What I find offensive is the idea we're so unsophisticated politically that we'll get the vapors if someone takes out an ad that is at odds with what we believe. Every day I'm bombarded with sexist, ageist advertising, mindless political ads, etc. I've survived and I'm sure PDX will survive this ad as well.
2
Nonplussed, I think the answer to your question is that "free speech" is not a perfectly defined term, and that reasonable people can disagree about its meaning. Most people would agree that the right to "free speech" includes the right to say or write whatever you want. However, some people (including myself) believe that the right to "free speech" does not include the right to force someone else to carry your message. If Trimet wants to exclude political ads, then it should be able to do so.

Also, to your statement that "we either uphold the First Amendment or don't": There has never been a time in the history of the United States, when the First Amendment was thought to protect all speech in all cases. That has not been the case for even a second. Instead, we have imposed all kinds of restrictions on speech and the ways that speech is disseminated. And most of those restrictions enjoy wide public support. In fact, I would be surprised to find any person who thought that no such restrictions were ever justified. Your binary view of the Amendment has no historical precedent, and it is overly simplistic.
3
As Heinlein wrote: "The human race divides itself politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." This will be interesting here, if more people comment, to see how that divide shapes itself. I'm also curious to see any discrepancies between the ideology the comments reflect and the side of this divide the comments' authors believe themselves to be on.
4
Katherine: Regardless of who wrote it, the quote you provide is a needlessly simplistic view of the political choices faced by people in the real world. Beyond being unhelpful, it reflects a world-view that is poisonous to actual debate and the exchange of ideas. When you insist on false dichotomies, you get fist-fights where you could've had a discussion.
5
Oh brother, I'm not arguing that you have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, I'm saying if TriMet wants to exclude ads, fine, but it's a publicly funded entity so if it's going to accept political ads, then go with the First Amendment and cut the crap. The responses to this are precisely what I'm talking about -- PDX is crawling with perpetually offended people who apparently skipped constitution class. What if the ad read, "A women's right to choose is sacred," and that offended prolifers who think abortion is murder? Would you take the prolifers' side and preserve their fine sensibilities from being offended? I highly doubt it. C'mon, you're accusing me of simplifying when I'm just clarifying it. Living in a pluralistic democracy means you're going to be offended from time to time. And lots of bad ideas enjoyed widespread public support, that's not even an argument. It's precisely because free speech is so often under attack by the majority that it needs to be vigorously defended.
6
Nonplussed, I very much agree with this statement: "if TriMet wants to exclude ads, fine, but it's a publicly funded entity so if it's going to accept political ads, then go with the First Amendment and cut the crap." You are exactly right on that point. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that Trimet is not allowed to categorically exclude political ads. So, when you write, "if it's going to accept political ads," you are missing the point. That is not the choice that Trimet faces. According to the above article, Trimet used to have a commercial-ads-only policy, but the state courts invalidated that policy. So, under that court's interpretation of the law, if Trimet accepts any advertising for anything at all, then they must also accept political advertising. That is what is at issue, and that is what this article is about. I couldn't care less about the message, and I resent your implication that I would change my views depending on political viewpoint of the ad in question.

My point is, and was, this: if a public entity (like Trimet) wants to categorically exclude *all* political ads, that does not violate anyone's right to free speech. No one has a right to force public entities to carry political messages.
7
Nonplussed, I would also like to add that you began by asking, "why is this a problem?" and I'm sorry that my response was not clear. Let me try again:

This is a problem because a public entity would like to avoid being seen to take sides in a political fight that has nothing to do with its mission, but it is being forced to be a billboard by both sides, and that should not happen. This is also a problem because of what it means for other public entities. For example, City Hall has a coke machine; the front of that machine is a giant ad; according to the court's ruling, now that the City has accepted an ad in City Hall, it must also accept political ads in City Hall. That is a problem.
8
So i'm assuming that "Nonplussed" is your typical clueless entitled willfully naive White man, who's not really effected by any particular thing, no? You know, the same sort of person who just doesn't get why racial/racist profiling is "such a big deal".
9
So how long till the busses with the -word- "savage" will be graffitied?

Any guesses?
10
Dear Torgo, thanks for your clarifying commentary, and I think you make some good points. I'm not sure why you resent my point about the prolifer ad. It was just a rhetorical device. Which is sort of what I'm trying to say. I'm actually offended by starvation, injustice, that kind of thing. A lot of ads annoy me, but I'm not "offended," or "resentful," which always strikes me as sort of a self-centered way of reacting to the world. I use that word when someone insults a family member at funeral, not when I see an ad I disagree with. The Palestinians and Israelis have both engaged in uncivilized behavior, is this campaign really all that shocking to anyone who has actually researched the conflict? It just sounds to me that TriMet doesn't want to deal with the headache of this, and I think anyone who's educated knows carrying ads doesn't mean an entity like TriMet endorses something, it's just a way to pay the bills. And DamosA, given I've actually worked with impoverished people of color, struggled with poverty and the police myself and helped establish an African American community center, etc., I have a feeling I've been affected a little more than you have by life. I like your wolf picture, though.
11
" And DamosA, given I've actually worked with impoverished people of color, struggled with poverty and the police myself and helped establish an African American community center, etc., I have a feeling I've been affected a little more than you have by life. I like your wolf picture, though."


And let me guess: some of your BEST FRIENDS are Black too, eh?
12
Nonplussed - your thinking is correct, don't bother with idiots.
13
Heinlein was notoriously sexist and racist so that quote isn't really even worth a mention in this context. As it stands now, hate speech is protected in this country as "free speech". As Ms. Mirk has already pointed out, ads against Israel have been not been allowed thus showing the grand double standard.

Also, fuck racist imperialism.
14
Awfully sneaky of Trimet for sticking these racist ads on the side opposite the passenger entrance, btw. It's clear that Trimet is down with zionism as well.
15
Hmmm, as if God herself was smiling on me, I just saw two ads on Max trains decrying the diminishment of Palestinian land over the past several decades. See, when you fight free speech with more free speech, not censorship, you actually show you respect people's ability to draw their own conclusions. Go First Amendment!!
16
Sooo, by YOUR argument Nonplussed, it is perfectly acceptably to counter a "pro-Israel" ad with an ad that criticizes the Holocaust as a "Jewish fakery"???
17
To DamosA: Is it acceptable spiritually or historically? Of course not. But where do you draw the line in terms of free speech? If you're going to accept political ads without clearly drawn guidelines, you're going to run into all kinds of legal thickets. I have no problem with TriMet saying "No more political ads" but it's the courts forcing them to do this. Also, you're using an extreme example, but what about more subtle ones? I'm sure followers of Obama and Romney could find something truly offensive in various political ads, but that don't rise to the level of what you're talking about. I'm not saying free speech is pleasant, in fact, just the opposite -- it's often annoying, insulting, harsh, cruel, etc. But we made a choice as a nation to eschew censorship in favor of debate decades ago. Censorship has it upside -- people probably don't get pissed as much in a censored world at each other -- but they also have no way to voice grievances against the powers that be. I think free speech is worth the hassles. Maybe you don't. So be it.
18
I think this is a pretty SIMPLE matter here: Free Speech does not equal HATE speech. Free speech does not equal RACIST speech. These pro-zionist ads are deliberately RACIST. What part of this are YOU not getting?
19
Who defines what hate speech is? So what, the Israelis and the Palestinians each think the other is uncivilized, what else is new? And I hate to break it to you, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment anyway. And while we're on the subject, I've seen you post all kinds of hateful comments on here, particularly when it comes to anyone who might disagree with you. But somehow you're morally superior. Why don't you practice what you preach, er, wait, DON'T, which I realize is difficult, but we're all pulling for you to eventually grow up and learn how to debate without resorting to tired platitudes and cliches AND CAPITAL LETTERS!
20
Actually, once again, free speech in this country allows hate speech. We're not France or Germany (which both shut down racist garbage on the internet and in legal matters, remember what happened to John Galliano?).

Yes, these ads are racist and disgusting, but unfortunately no, things are not going to change.
21
The 1st Amendment really only protects those with power and privilege in this country. If you're expressing a dissenting opinion, prepare to get censored.
22
^FUCKING THANK YOU!!!!!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.