Biblical Billboard, or Hate Speech?

Great Debates
1

Interesting article in today’s* Times* (cut down for legal reasons, of course):

THE REV. KRISTOPHER OKWEDY and the New York Civil Liberties Union have so little in common that they would probably have a hard time agreeing on a lunch order. But they share at least one idea. Both believe in their right to use billboards to say what they feel needs saying. The problem is that, in delivering their messages, both have run afoul of the authorities, raising serious questions about how far the government may go to monitor speech, including speech that many find objectionable.

First up is Mr. Okwedy, born in Nigeria and pastor of Keyword Ministries, a Christian church on Staten Island devoted to what it calls traditional biblical values. Among those values is a belief that homosexuality is sinful. To bring that point home, Mr. Okwedy bought space on two Staten Island billboards in 2000, filling them with different translations of the same biblical verse, Leviticus 18:22. The King James version says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” There was no call to harm gays, just the quotation from the Bible — a passage that is, as the minister acknowledges, offensive to many in this city. “Even if people don’t like what I said,” Mr. Okwedy said the other day, “I have the right to say it.”

Among the unconvinced is Guy V. Molinari, who in 2000 was the Staten Island borough president. Days after the Leviticus signs went up, Mr. Molinari faxed a letter to the billboard company, PNE Media of Union, N.J. “This message,” he said, “conveys an atmosphere of intolerance which is not welcome in our borough.” He added, “PNE Media owns a number of billboards on Staten Island and derives substantial economic benefits from them.” Lo and behold, PNE announced within hours that the billboards were gone. Interesting how these things work.

. . . this fundamental question has already been framed: Is New York, for all its vaunted liberalism, often intolerant of views that do not conform to generally accepted wisdom? Michael DePrimo, Mr. Okwedy’s lawyer, believes so. He is with the American Family Association, a nonprofit organization in Tupelo, Miss., that says it “stands for traditional family values.”

2

More background info can be found at religioustolerance.org This has been an ongoing issue since 2000.

3

As long as the message on a billboard isn’t calling for anyone to be hurt, I say let them put it up.

If there is a huge public outrage over it, then the company owning the billboard can pull the message. But, I don’t want the state telling folks what they can and cannot say.

4

Tough situation. While I agree first and foremost that this pinhead-hiding-behind-religion has a right to his billboard, I’m concerned that some people will view his message as an invitation to harm gay folks. I suppose that’s the chance you have to take in our society, but it’s still pretty scary.

I think it’s wrong to remove the billboards just because some guy with political clout told them he didn’t like the message. Pretty damn wimpy if you ask me.

I dunno…I think billboard asshole wins this one. And Mr. Molinari and his brass-knuckle tactics should be ashamed of himself.

5

I don’t think the Mr. Molinari should have threatened the billboard company with economic harm. I think that’s using the governments power to prohibit a class of speech, and I consider it censorship.

If the billboard company had refused Rev. Okwedy (whom I don’t agree with on the matter of homosexuality) without an act of government coercion, it would be an entirely different matter.

6

I think they should let the billboard stand . . . And someone should rent another one nearby with a bible quote approving of slavery, child murder or women “not speaking.” Hoist him with his own petard.

7

They could put up another billboard with biblical sayings of “tolerance” and “acceptance”… unless these do not exist in the bible…

8

Just to be clear, Molinari sent his letter on borough letterhead? If he didn’t, there’s no issue at all: the government wasn’t involved.

If it were on letterhead, it’s more complicated, but I’ll probably side with the asshole on this one: the government shouldn’t even use economic pressure to influence political messages. Molinari should have sent his letter on the letterhead of a private NGO.

Daniel

9

How about “Love thy neighbor as thyself”?

Surely he could put up a sign that says “Thou shalt no commit adultery” and no one would say he is encouraging the bashing of adulterers. The sign gets to stay, people get to boycott the church or whatever, and they get to put signs with counter arguments.

My favorite: “Well, at least there’s nothing in there about a woman lying with another woman being an abomination!”

10

Molinari is well-known as a local pol (the Molinaris are the Staten Island political-family equivelant of the Kennedys or Bushes); even if he wrote his letter on a blank piece of white paper, it’s pretty clear that he’s communicating a threat of state action if the billboard company doesn’t comply with his wishes. He’s basically saying “you guys have a lot of billboards here on Staten Island; it’d be a shame if something happened next time your permits were up for renewal.”

Whether the state is involved or not is determined by the substance of the situation, not on meaningless things like the use or nonuse of letterhead.

11

Speech is free, so are the consequences. He’s not going to be arrested for the statement, but that’s as far as the protection goes. If some politico decides to hint that the billboard business should use some common sense in what they post, otherwise they may risk the relationship they have with the locals, I don’t see a problem. If it were ordered down it would be a different thing.

12

Eve:

Fraid so. Liberals are no more tolerant of diversity of viewpoint than conservatives…possibly even less so.

13

I’m curious . . . If a gay man was found beaten to death a la Matthew Shepherd right under that billboard, would Mr. Okwedy be held partially responsible, legally?

14

Wow, that’s not how i read it at all. I read it as a threat of an organized boycott if the billboard wasn’t removed, and (if it were on borough letterhead a threat that the government would participate in the boycott, not purchasing any public service ads on billboard space.

I make no claims that my interpretation is correct, though. How you read it adds a new wrinkle.

Daniel

15

Say Bob’s Billboard Company in NutScratch, Alabama puts up a “Diversity: It’s a good thing” billboard with rainbows and pictures of various couples…some straight, some gay.

Is it ok with you if a politico in NutScratch would “hint that the billboard business should use some common sense in what they post, otherwise they may risk the relationship they have with the locals”?

16

Put me in the “let it stay up even though it’s annoying as hell” category. If nothing else, at least it’s provoked a bit of public discourse.

Mind you, I think it would be great if the next billboard down was for a gay support group.

17

beagledave, of COURSE that’s okay with me. In fact, it’s a tactic that conservatives use all the time on national media: they do letter-writing campaigns to (for example) TV shows telling them that they’ll organize boycotts of the show and of the show’s advertisers unless the shows tone down the Godless Sex Jokes and the like.

That’s their right under the first amendment: they tell the commercial media what’ll sell to them, and the commercial media decides what to do about it.

The only difference in this case may be that a government body was piping up, and I don’t think a government body has the right to do that.

Daniel

18

**

<snip>

Uh…what?

Are you ok with this specific type of response that did involve local government?

19

uh what yourself, beagledave. As I said before, the only reason why I DON’T think it may be okay in this case is because a government body may have been involved.

Daniel

20

Your first sentence in your reply was **“Of course it’s ok with me”. **

You then start mentioning other examples that have nothing to do with the specific point I was making about the actions of “politicos”.

Only THEN do you mention the problems with involving government.

I guess I’m wondering why you did that?