Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Violation of First Amendment rights?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:43 PM

*Please try to keep it civil so it can be discussed here*


Sure the subject matter is controversial but isn't this exactly what the First Amendment is there for?


ACLU sues King County, wants Israel 'war crime' bus ads to run

The ACLU of Washington filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against King County over the decision to cancel a bus ad that alleges Israeli war crimes.


The ACLU of Washington, representing a group that purchased a bus ad alleging Israeli war crimes, sued King County Wednesday over its decision to cancel the ad before it appeared.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court claims that King County violated the group's First Amendment rights and asks the court to order the county to run the ad for four weeks on the sides of 12 buses, as Metro and its ad agency originally agreed to do.

Metro's initial acceptance of the ad from the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign prompted an onslaught of complaints by e-mail and phone, and three other organizations said they planned to run counter-ads portraying Israel as a victim of Palestinian terrorism.

Metro and County Executive Dow Constantine initially said the ad was consistent with county ad standards and that it would violate the sponsor's free-speech rights to cancel it.

The ad, which never appeared on Metro buses, showed children looking at a bomb-damaged building in Gaza and these words: "Israeli war crimes


http://seattletimes...._adsuit20m.html

#2 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:51 PM

"...Metro and County Executive Dow Constantine initially said the ad was consistent with county ad standards and that it would violate the sponsor's free-speech rights to cancel it...."

So, if Im understanding this one correctly, the metro is claiming the ad would incite criminal behaviour. Therefore, the ad isnt to be run?

It seems that metro has the right to deflect the ad under business related strain. If the folks wanted to put the ad in their own front lawn and were told they could not, that might be different. :dunno:

#3 nikkiblue

nikkiblue
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,707 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:51 PM

I think the bus company has a right to display any ad's they want to. therefore, no.

#4 SunshineDrummer

SunshineDrummer

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 12,109 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:53 PM

I think the bus company has a right to display any ad's they want to. therefore, no.



Even though they are already on record saying:

"Metro and County Executive Dow Constantine initially said the ad was consistent with county ad standards and that it would violate the sponsor's free-speech rights to cancel it."


:huh:
Sure souds like caving to pressure to me.

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:54 PM

and then again, it seems that they have a thing for running "controversial" ads on their buses.

#6 nikkiblue

nikkiblue
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,707 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:55 PM

Even though they are already on record saying:

"Metro and County Executive Dow Constantine initially said the ad was consistent with county ad standards and that it would violate the sponsor's free-speech rights to cancel it."


:huh:
Sure souds like caving to pressure to me.


it is, but its still not a violation to refuse to run the ad.

#7 SunshineDrummer

SunshineDrummer

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 12,109 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:00 PM

it is, but its still not a violation to refuse to run the ad.


Why? Because you or someone else doesn't like what it says? Too bad. That's the funny thing about freedom of speech, it doesn't just apply to what you (that's the general "you") think is important. It also applies to the stuff that gets your blood boiling. ;)

#8 insolent cur

insolent cur

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 196 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:00 PM

anyone who has ever ridden on a bus in jerusalem can appreciate the irony.

#9 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:02 PM

If the buses are run by a government (city or county) then:
This is a good reason that advertising should not be allowed on government
property or administered by a government. It leads to the government having
to decide which ads we see and which we don't.

With the reality that ads are put on government property - I think they should
be able to reject ads based on certain criteria, such as:
* It's likely to lead to vandalism of government property.
* It's controversial or political (such as candidate or issue ads)

If the buses are run by a private company:
They should be able to carry or not carry any ad, so long as it
doesn't violate laws, such as indecency laws.


Nigher of these violates "Free Speech".
The people/groups taking out the ads are allowed to put there message
out in any way open to them. They are allowed to picket on street corners
or put out leaflets or hold meetings. That is free speech.

#10 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:03 PM

anyone who has ever ridden on a bus in jerusalem can appreciate the irony.


I have not, and I'm curious what you mean. :huh:

#11 BHB

BHB
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,897 posts
  • LocationLong Beach, NY

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:05 PM

Posted Image

#12 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:06 PM

anyone who has ever ridden on a bus in jerusalem can appreciate the irony.


I never have, but I'm familiar enough to see the ironing in it. :funny1:

#13 nikkiblue

nikkiblue
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,707 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:06 PM

If the buses are run by a government (city or county) then:
This is a good reason that advertising should not be allowed on government
property or administered by a government. It leads to the government having
to decide which ads we see and which we don't.

With the reality that ads are put on government property - I think they should
be able to reject ads based on certain criteria, such as:
* It's likely to lead to vandalism of government property.
* It's controversial or political (such as candidate or issue ads)

If the buses are run by a private company:
They should be able to carry or not carry any ad, so long as it
doesn't violate laws, such as indecency laws.


Nigher of these violates "Free Speech".
The people/groups taking out the ads are allowed to put there message
out in any way open to them. They are allowed to picket on street corners
or put out leaflets or hold meetings. That is free speech.


i forget the busses are run by the gov't. That complicates my opinion. :scratches head:

#14 nikkiblue

nikkiblue
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,707 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:07 PM

Posted Image


your board is brown? How did you get a brown one?

#15 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:07 PM

I have not, and I'm curious what you mean. :huh:

There was a time, not to long ago, terrorists would bomb buses in Israel

#16 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:08 PM

If the buses are run by a government (city or county) then:
This is a good reason that advertising should not be allowed on government
property or administered by a government. It leads to the government having
to decide which ads we see and which we don't.

With the reality that ads are put on government property - I think they should
be able to reject ads based on certain criteria, such as:
* It's likely to lead to vandalism of government property.
* It's controversial or political (such as candidate or issue ads)


If the buses are run by a private company:
They should be able to carry or not carry any ad, so long as it
doesn't violate laws, such as indecency laws.


Nigher of these violates "Free Speech".
The people/groups taking out the ads are allowed to put there message
out in any way open to them. They are allowed to picket on street corners
or put out leaflets or hold meetings. That is free speech.


All of this but especially what is in red.

#17 BHB

BHB
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,897 posts
  • LocationLong Beach, NY

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:09 PM

your board is brown? How did you get a brown one?


That's a screenshot from like 2008 I think.

I've been harassing Dan and Joe for that long about political threads I think. go me! :Phishfolk:

#18 nikkiblue

nikkiblue
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,707 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:10 PM

That's a screenshot from like 2008 I think.

I've been harassing Dan and Joe for that long about political threads I think. go me! :Phishfolk:


7 yrs & they stil don't listen?

Harass'd fail. :funny1:

#19 nikkiblue

nikkiblue
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,707 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:11 PM

7 yrs & they stil don't listen?

Harass'd fail. :funny1:


oh..my bad.... 2 yrs. my quick reading skills interpreted it as 2003. lol.

#20 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:13 PM

No one is stopping anyone’s free speech. They are rejecting an advertisement. Big difference. The people have every right to go outside and scream their message all they want.

#21 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:16 PM

[quote name='halfstar']No one is stopping anyone

#22 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:20 PM

^ Right. An in so, I think Dow Constantine opened mouth and inserted foot here. While it meets the rules, if people are going to turn Seattle into Jerusalem, I think it's fair to revoke the ad. i mean, do we really need to incite violence over something that isnt going to make any difference on the reality of the situation between Israel and Palestine?

:dunno:

Put the signs on yer lawns and call it a day, folks.

#23 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:21 PM

I don't think the first amendment covers advertisements. Regardless of what they say, the first amendment does not cover this.

/thread.

#24 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:23 PM

So should we then start banning all ads that someone might not like?

#25 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:25 PM

I don't think municipalities should run political ads at all.

#26 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:25 PM

You can choose to run whatever ads you want. Advertisements aren't free speech.

#27 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,285 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:27 PM

Moved, prudence and discretion exercised.

#28 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:27 PM

You can choose to run whatever ads you want. Advertisements aren't free speech.


I think the problem here is this is a government entity not a private company. When they first accepted the ad they should have thought to themselves what would we do if the KKK wanted to take out and ad.

#29 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:28 PM

Moved, prudence and discretion exercised.


penis

#30 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:32 PM

Moved, prudence and discretion exercised.


A civil conversation about First Amendment rights?

#31 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,285 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:34 PM

Yes, and really there should be know reason it can only be carried on elsewhere, now is there?

#32 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:34 PM

I think the problem here is this is a government entity not a private company. When they first accepted the ad they should have thought to themselves what would we do if the KKK wanted to take out and ad.


Apparently controversial ads is their shtick. It obviously came to a head with this one. Probably lots of complaints and maybe even some threats. I bet they will think twice about this stuff from now on. It's way to easy to piss someone off these days.

#33 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:35 PM

Moved, prudence and discretion exercised.


Thanks, ms. TEO. You know how much I love things in their respective place. :wink:

#34 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,285 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:37 PM

:funny1: Yes, I am sweeping the porch.

#35 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:45 PM

Yes, and really there should be know reason it can only be carried on elsewhere, now is there?

Yes, there is a reason, this place gets little to no traffic and everything dies here.

What there was, was no reason why it SHOULD have been moved.

Unless you're going to move all other threads, this isn't much different from what we we're discussing.

#36 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 03:47 PM

Apparently controversial ads is their shtick.


Then they deserve what they're getting.

#37 BHB

BHB
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,897 posts
  • LocationLong Beach, NY

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:02 PM

oh..my bad.... 2 yrs. my quick reading skills interpreted it as 2003. lol.


no, your reading skills are fine. I originally had it as 2003.... :lol: ...but then I saw there was a year posted on one of the forums.

It feels much longer than 3 years... and the fact that this thread was moved after I posted just made me feel very empowered.

<- assistant regional vibeguide

#38 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:17 PM

<- assistant regional vibeguide


Posted Image

#39 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,285 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:21 PM

Perhaps if we move more stuff regularly, then the appropriate forums would get more traffic. Hmmm...
Then again, I have a job.

#40 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,285 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:31 PM

For those with short term memory issues, we had a thread in the past about such bus banners.

#41 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,153 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:37 PM

Jesus hates babies! :clapping:

Can ya really blame him?

#42 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:46 PM

Jesus hates babies! :clapping:

Can ya really blame him?


Jews for Jesus? :undecided:

#43 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,153 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:50 PM

Jews for Jesus? :undecided:


When we see "Jews for Mohammed" is when I get really fucking confused.

#44 insolent cur

insolent cur

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 196 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 05:52 PM

anyone who has ever ridden on a bus in jerusalem can appreciate the irony.


I have not, and I'm curious what you mean. :huh:


There was a time, not to long ago, terrorists would bomb buses in Israel

exactly.

#45 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 04:26 PM

eerie :shocked:

Smoke Fills Sky As Bus Burns At Metro Base

http://www.kirotv.co...830/detail.html

#46 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 04:27 PM

Thanks, ms. TEO. You know how much I love things in their respective place. :wink:


What a suck up :funny1:

Cabana boy'd

#47 Mr_Pat

Mr_Pat

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 7,012 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 04:58 PM

[B]*

Sure the subject matter is controversial but isn't this exactly what the First Amendment is there for?




Well the 1st Amendment is there to protect you from the Government....
:coffee:

#48 Mr_Pat

Mr_Pat

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 7,012 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 05:01 PM

and then again, it seems that they have a thing for running "controversial" ads on their buses.


Any advertising is good advertising.... look at that show skins on mtv and look at that controversy...

#49 Mr_Pat

Mr_Pat

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 7,012 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 05:05 PM

They originally accepted the ad, agreed it met their standards and that it would violate First Amendment rights if they DIDN'T allow it.

It appears to be a case of people complaining about it and/or threats that led to them changing their position.


They are trying to run a business and most likely dont want to even deal with that bullshit at hand....

#50 Mr_Pat

Mr_Pat

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 7,012 posts

Posted 22 January 2011 - 05:15 PM

Yes, there is a reason, this place gets little to no traffic and everything dies here.

What there was, was no reason why it SHOULD have been moved.

Unless you're going to move all other threads, this isn't much different from what we we're discussing.


This board is not participially for your political discussions. This message board is for The Gathering of The Vibes music festival held at the end of July. The admins ie VibeGuides have reserved the right to admin this board as we feel best serves The Vibes to promote peace, friendship, music, gatherings and other key values we have come to accept as the community norm....