Activist Group brings down billboard...

Here is Boston, Clear channel has been pressured into removing an ad for Gay.com, a gay online dating service (no pron seems to actually be on the site, as claimed). Article 8 Alliance, a small activist group out of Waltham, MA, has demanded the ad be taken down, with clear channel relenting almost immediatelt. I wanted to post the article, and get some thoughts on the matter from you folks...

Billboard Battle

Is this a violation of rights? A decency issue?

__________________

No, it is not a violation of rights. Nobody has the right to a billboard.

Clear Channel is a business, and if they have concluded that an ad is going to cause enough controversy to harm them, they have every right to remove it, assuming their client is compensated for anything they've paid for that they did not get, and assuming there is nothing particularly binding in the contract. That may not make it fair, nice, or reasonable of them, but it's up to them what ads they display, and why.

Forcing them to keep the ad up against their will; that would be a violation of rights.

I concur, as you probably already knew. I wanted to get some other folks opinions on this. From what I am reading, apparently the website could sue Clear Channel for breach of contract, but is choosing not to. They state they will continue to work with clear channel with some other advertising methods, as well. This sort of thing came up with the Moveon.org ad around superbowl time, and all the same people came to the plate crying about it around the Boston area. They just don't seem to understand that a business has the right to use it's advertising space as it sees fit. A lot of the folks around here start crying rights violation before they even get the whole story. Meanwhile, I am sure Clear Channel's competition will have the ad up tomorrow on one of their boards...

Thanks for the reply (like I didn't know your answer already)...


ARG, my thread title got janked up, it should read the same as this post title...Can ya make that fix for me?

We're so predictable.

Thread title edited.

No one has a right to a billboard, that's an easy one.
But they do have the right to free speech and freedom of expression. The thing is, it wasn't the government who curtailed the billboard's usage, it was an activist group. If we were to take out "gay" and put in "black", I think you can see where this activist group falls under the heading of Screeching Jackarses. Put up a billboard advertising Jew.com with some jewish folks wrapped in a flag and the "activist group" who writes to complain aren't going to be so smug.

I'm glad there's not going to be a lawsuit from this, but Clear Channel did cave to some real twats.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Agreed.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

I don't fancy starting an argument but i don't see any problem with the billboard being removed, except for breach of contract.

__________________

It's that it was removed in response to a hate group, masquerading as activists.

I just did a bit of research on this group, and that is all they are... a hate group.

__________________

I wrote to Clear Channel this morning and suggested they should have people of higher integrity fielding communications from the public. I'm sure they'll dismiss it as I'm not in the Boston community, but it made me feel a little better to throw my 2 cents at them.

Ewww.

Here is a picture of that billboard, taken from the hate group's OWN WEBSITE! (hopefully you guys won't want it removed from this post, I have seen WORSE pictures on this site - and they're usually posted by me):



Now, my personal peeve about it - and I'm this way about a lot of gay advertising and such - is why do the guys have to be the sexy type and be shirtless or naked (or shirtless and apparently naked, but wrapped in an American flag, in this case)? I KNOW THAT SOUNDS UNBELIEVEABLE FOR A GAY MAN WHO CALLS HIMSELF "SEXY CELEBRITY"... but I like irony... but, really, why not have a dressed man on the billboard, two nice looking guys - nice looking because they're smiling and in clothes? Yes, I'm sure ARTICLE 8 ALLIANCE! would complain about it still, but this is just my suggestion for furthering the acceptance of homosexuals - ACTUALLY INCLUDING AVERAGE, NORMAL ONES!

I just now noticed that the sign says "Come Together". Dude, that is so lightweight and feathery pornographic to me. It has a naughtier meaning, don't ya know?

It's upsetting that they listened to a bunch of cheap drag queens in judge outfits, holding signs that say "MARSHALL NOT IMPARTIAL!!".

My only true complaint is that they are wrapped in an American Flag.

It kind of makes me sick...and that feeling has nothing to do with two guys together.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Pyro, I fixed my horrendous typo post...thanks for the heads up. My spelling is actually quite excellent, it's my typing that is dismal...

Totally agree Sammy. Good point!
Why?

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

I don't mind the expression of homosexuality, but I'm not sure I want the flag in any ad that isn't directly patriotic.

Personally, I kinda wish people (anyone) wouldn't wrap themselves in the flag, or have clothing made to look like the flag... it seems kinda cheesy to me. But that's a whole other Oprah.

a whole other Oprah???

yeah... Oprah has a show.. where she discusses one topic per show. Y'know?

Simply because that wouldn't be gay enough. It's advertising = stereotyping. What's the public's image of homosexuality? Two dressed men, smiling, standing a couple of inches away from each other? That would be an ad for, I don't know, Rolex. If you're promoting a site called gay.com you want to have men in your ad that no one will mistake for being absolutely nothing but gay, right? This ad does that.

I think the ad is kind of cool with the flag and all. Of course that channel whatever its name was doesn't violate any rights by taking it down. It does, however, display a chicken attitude by doing so.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.