View Full Version : 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 (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/28/critics_bring_down_gay_ad/)
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.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-28-05, 01:52 PM
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.
Monkeypunch
07-28-05, 03:37 PM
I'm glad there's not going to be a lawsuit from this, but Clear Channel did cave to some real twats.
Agreed. :yup:
Pyro Tramp
07-28-05, 03:43 PM
I don't fancy starting an argument but i don't see any problem with the billboard being removed, except for breach of contract.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-28-05, 04:09 PM
It's that it was removed in response to a hate group, masquerading as activists.
Caitlyn
07-28-05, 04:31 PM
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.
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2005/05/18/1116410274_3903.jpg
SamsoniteDelilah
07-28-05, 04:41 PM
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.
Sexy Celebrity
07-28-05, 10:39 PM
I just did a bit of research on this group, and that is all they are... a hate group.
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2005/05/18/1116410274_3903.jpg
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):
http://article8.org/docs/news_events/banner_0705/bb-1.jpg
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.
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...
blibblobblib
07-29-05, 12:33 PM
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.
Totally agree Sammy. Good point!
My only true complaint is that they are wrapped in an American Flag.Why?
Why?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.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-29-05, 01:39 PM
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.
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???
SamsoniteDelilah
07-29-05, 02:03 PM
:D yeah... Oprah has a show.. where she discusses one topic per show. Y'know? ;)
Piddzilla
07-30-05, 12:18 AM
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!
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? :nope: 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.
Sexy Celebrity
07-30-05, 01:06 AM
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? :nope: 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.
Well, it's not like I'm saying Dracula needs to be up there on the gay.com billboard - although I'm sure it would be a half naked Dracula who somehow survived getting a tan. But why not use something this Article 8 Alliance can't call "pornographic"? Something without the "come together" slogan. I ask on behalf of the whole gay phenomenon in nature... the whole reality that being homosexual means you simply love someone of the same sex as yourself. Not this, "Heyyyyy.. being gay is all about SEX and nudity and talking dirty." It's really obvious to me why Article 8 Alliance said gay.com was a pornographic website based off that billboard. And why does the American flag have to be wrapped around those two men? That does seem rather antagonistic. Afterall, men from other countries are part of gay.com. It isn't all the United States.
Plus, I am bothered by stereotypes. I'm bothered by what they can do to people - giving them complexes, turning people into clones, etc. I know it's all very rampant and hard to stop... but I offer my opinion in hopes for a better future.
Piddzilla
07-30-05, 08:08 AM
Well, it's not like I'm saying Dracula needs to be up there on the gay.com billboard - although I'm sure it would be a half naked Dracula who somehow survived getting a tan. But why not use something this Article 8 Alliance can't call "pornographic"? Something without the "come together" slogan. I ask on behalf of the whole gay phenomenon in nature... the whole reality that being homosexual means you simply love someone of the same sex as yourself. Not this, "Heyyyyy.. being gay is all about SEX and nudity and talking dirty." It's really obvious to me why Article 8 Alliance said gay.com was a pornographic website based off that billboard. And why does the American flag have to be wrapped around those two men? That does seem rather antagonistic. Afterall, men from other countries are part of gay.com. It isn't all the United States.
I don't think that billboard is about sex and nudity and talking dirty, to be honest. I don't think it's pornographic at all and I don't think it differs from ads for Internet communities with a more "traditionally heterosexual" profile. I really think you seem to be mistaking this ad for being an ad for the entire gay community, which it's not (if it was I would agree with you). It's an ad for gay.com and I don't think it's misleading or out of line. At the same time I can understand that you get tired of being treated as a minority that is different from the rest of society and that this ad mostly focuses on sexuality and that it's annoying that that's the part of it all that gets attention in media. But that's probably because that's what anti gay movements like this 8 Alliance wants us to focus on. They want the gay community to appear as perverse and as only thinking about sex. At the same time, I would still find it difficult to make an ad for gay.com totally without focusing on sexuality since that's basically, as far as I've understood it, the only thing about gay people that is different from straight people. And the flag, I mean, isn't the site mostly frequented by americans? To answer your question about why the flag is in there. I guess it could be a statement, like saying that gay men are also proud americans or that America belongs to ALL americans. I don't know...
Plus, I am bothered by stereotypes. I'm bothered by what they can do to people - giving them complexes, turning people into clones, etc. I know it's all very rampant and hard to stop... but I offer my opinion in hopes for a better future.
Yes, that is true. But that is nothing exclusive for gay people or for so called minorities for that matter. Everybody is stereotyped and especially in ads and commercials. Kids, parents, athletes, doctors, nurses, mechanics, grandparents, musicians, dogs. When making an ad you're always looking for the "typical" something. And when making an ad for gay.com, what is the typical gay man? When you think about it, what it all comes down to in the end, which you really cannot say is stereotyping, is that the typical gay man is a man that likes other men. I think it would be far more stereotyping to have a (fully dressed) hairdresser and a fashion designer smiling at each other up there on the billboard. More fun but more stereotyping.
Thursday Next
07-30-05, 09:33 AM
It's a dating company, of course they aren't going to have average looking people on their advert. It is exactly the same for straight dating agencies. People want to think they can date attractive people through the company, it's an image.
I think the whole thing is a bit of fuss about nothing since they only had one day left to run and apparently the ad had been up for weeks with no protest. I do think that Clear Channel need to be a bit more careful before caving to an orchestrated campaign by a hate group in future, though.
What puzzled me was people saying they didn't like it because of the flag. Do people find their own flag offensive? It seems to crop up quite a lot in American advertising. Perhaps when people say that, they mean they don't like the flag being associated with gay people.
SamsoniteDelilah
07-30-05, 06:15 PM
Perhaps when people say that, they mean they don't like the flag being associated with gay people.
In the case of some people, you are right. Certainly though, that isn't the only reason for objection.
I don't like anybody co-opting the flag in order to promote their own special interest. A very diverse group of people make up America. It is wrong, in my view, for any small group to use the flag in their advertizing, because the suggestion in so doing is that theirs is "the american way".
Also, taking the flag out of the context of ads, I feel it cheapens the flag when it is used as a clothing design. Ballcaps, teeshirts, bikinis... it's taking an important symbol of a set of ideals and turning it into a commodity.
Urban Cowboy
07-30-05, 10:16 PM
What are we enve talking about this for? This whole situation seems like a win for all parties involved. Article 8 Alliance Gets to brag about how powerful it is an boost its ranks, Gay.com get an ad running for weeks pulled one day early and ends up getting more pub out of the whole deal than they could have wished for, Clear Channel avoids the wrath of the Focus on the Family's of the world and is still able to maintain what seems to be a positive relationship with an advertiser. What is the downside for any of the groups involved? Everyone wins.
Piddzilla
07-31-05, 06:39 AM
What are we enve talking about this for? This whole situation seems like a win for all parties involved. Article 8 Alliance Gets to brag about how powerful it is an boost its ranks, Gay.com get an ad running for weeks pulled one day early and ends up getting more pub out of the whole deal than they could have wished for, Clear Channel avoids the wrath of the Focus on the Family's of the world and is still able to maintain what seems to be a positive relationship with an advertiser. What is the downside for any of the groups involved? Everyone wins.
Someone has to lose something for us to talk about it?
Urban Cowboy
07-31-05, 01:00 PM
Someone has to lose something for us to talk about it?
Well in this case I would say so. Otherwise the conversation will just become; "I do like hate groups." Or will become "Homosexuality is/isn't wrong." And tif that is what the point of starting the tread was, wqe could have saved a few post and gotten to the point.
Piddzilla
07-31-05, 04:12 PM
Well, I would say the discussion is being held on a higher level than that. For my own part I find the discussion I've been having with Sexy is really interesting. We're probably discussing it because it needs to be discussed or we feel like WE need to discuss it. I think there are other things on this board being discussed that are far more irrelevant. Like that thing about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie or the relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.
Sexy Celebrity
07-31-05, 04:27 PM
Hmm... Pidd, I don't really have anything else to say. Your last post made me see the whole thing a bit differently. You're right.
Sexy Celebrity
07-31-05, 04:34 PM
It's a dating company, of course they aren't going to have average looking people on their advert. It is exactly the same for straight dating agencies. People want to think they can date attractive people through the company, it's an image.
True... putting someone like Bruce Vilanch on the gay.com billboard would NOT attract customers.
I think the whole thing is a bit of fuss about nothing since they only had one day left to run and apparently the ad had been up for weeks with no protest. I do think that Clear Channel need to be a bit more careful before caving to an orchestrated campaign by a hate group in future, though.
They only had one day left and it had been up for weeks? Doesn't sound that bad at all...
What puzzled me was people saying they didn't like it because of the flag. Do people find their own flag offensive? It seems to crop up quite a lot in American advertising. Perhaps when people say that, they mean they don't like the flag being associated with gay people.
Correct. These people fantasize about a totally impossible America, where differences don't exist.
Sexy Celebrity
07-31-05, 04:50 PM
I don't like anybody co-opting the flag in order to promote their own special interest. A very diverse group of people make up America. It is wrong, in my view, for any small group to use the flag in their advertizing, because the suggestion in so doing is that theirs is "the american way".
I think that's only if you believe it to be so. For me, flags are just artwork that you know is also the official flag of some country. Now, I don't know if you can always use the flag to promote anything because art like that should be copyrighted and such, but I assume the American flag acts very differently. Some things with the flag will suggest what they're saying is "The American Way", but if they're not suggesting it outright, why care to think that way? You might be wrong. I don't care what you do with the flag. Paint it on your breasts, if you like.
Also, taking the flag out of the context of ads, I feel it cheapens the flag when it is used as a clothing design. Ballcaps, teeshirts, bikinis... it's taking an important symbol of a set of ideals and turning it into a commodity.
I don't get it... I bought an American flag t-shirt after 9/11. How does that cheapen the flag? Now, thanks to technology, we can get the flag out there and be seen on anything. What's so bad about that? THAT HELPS THE FLAG LIVE ON! I think that if you don't put the flag on those kinds of things, more people would forget about America, stop being patriotic, stop caring... you are right that the official design for the United States is a SYMBOL... it's not just a flag anymore. It BEGAN as a flag. It could have begun as a thong... everywhere there would be thongs waving high up on poles outside schools. "I pledge allegiance to the thong..." every morning over the announcements. And if people started putting the thong's image on t-shirts and baseballs caps, you'd be like, "I wish they'd stop putting the thong on t-shirts and hats!"
Piddzilla
07-31-05, 06:19 PM
Hmm... Pidd, I don't really have anything else to say. Your last post made me see the whole thing a bit differently. You're right.
I can't be wrong all the time. :D
Urban Cowboy
07-31-05, 06:31 PM
I think there are other things on this board being discussed that are far more irrelevant. Like that thing about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie or the relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.
True, there are things on this board that are mindlessly irrelevant. That, however, doesn't make this discussion more relevant. But if it is a discussion you feel is needed, who am I to criticize?
For that I apologies.
SamsoniteDelilah
08-01-05, 04:35 PM
I think that's only if you believe it to be so. For me, flags are just artwork that you know is also the official flag of some country. Now, I don't know if you can always use the flag to promote anything because art like that should be copyrighted and such, but I assume the American flag acts very differently. Some things with the flag will suggest what they're saying is "The American Way", but if they're not suggesting it outright, why care to think that way? You might be wrong. I don't care what you do with the flag. Paint it on your breasts, if you like.
That's how symbolism works: people agree that something is going to represent something else. The flag represents the ideals of the country. If it didn't, people wouldn't use it, burn it, fight over it... or have a system of proper ways of handling it in place.
I don't get it... I bought an American flag t-shirt after 9/11. How does that cheapen the flag? Now, thanks to technology, we can get the flag out there and be seen on anything. What's so bad about that? THAT HELPS THE FLAG LIVE ON! I think that if you don't put the flag on those kinds of things, more people would forget about America, stop being patriotic, stop caring... you are right that the official design for the United States is a SYMBOL... it's not just a flag anymore. It BEGAN as a flag. It could have begun as a thong... everywhere there would be thongs waving high up on poles outside schools. "I pledge allegiance to the thong..." every morning over the announcements. And if people started putting the thong's image on t-shirts and baseballs caps, you'd be like, "I wish they'd stop putting the thong on t-shirts and hats!"
Pity it didn't, as the Far Right wouldn't be nearly so apt to use it as their symbol.
My basic point was that the flag represents all US people, and it's a country made up of diverse people. For one group to co-opt that symbol is wrong, because it goes counter to the basic tenets of americanism I've named. And to commercialize that symbol is disrespectful of it. It's a bit like the commercialization of holidays that were once an observance of nice things, that have become shopping melee's. I wouldn't call it the destruction of society, just an unfortunate and rather selfish misuse by those who sell it.
Thursday Next
08-06-05, 02:14 PM
I don't like anybody co-opting the flag in order to promote their own special interest. A very diverse group of people make up America. It is wrong, in my view, for any small group to use the flag in their advertizing, because the suggestion in so doing is that theirs is "the american way".
Good point. I find it interesting though, how the American flag is used a lot in advertising in the USA, it's not the same at all in the UK.
SamsoniteDelilah
08-06-05, 07:55 PM
Yeah, I think that's down to ours being a newer country. It's not been all that long ago that the US was trying to establish itself as a nation, and promotion a sense of national identity. It's something that, given US dominance on the world scene, we should probably veer away from, since it comes off rather prickish out of context.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.