D’oh!
My apologies, beagledave – I missed the word “politico” in your first post. Entirely my fault.
Daniel
No problem. 
Hey now, Leviticus 18:22 may not call for gay blood, but 18:22’s just a warm-up for Leviticus 20:12: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.” If that’s not incitement, what is?
Presumably Minister Meanspirit would have put up 20:12 if he’d thought he could get away with it. He’s a fundamentalist and might be expected to believe that what Leviticus says is law. And by advertising his bible verse, it seems clear that he’s suggesting his viewpoint to others.
Maybe next he can put up the verses in Leviticus regarding wearing mixed fibers in clothing next to a Gap, and the verses regarding shellfish next to a Red Lobster, and see how that goes over.
Religionists like him need to lined up and slapped.
“be”. “be” lined up and slapped. And their bibles should be taken away and put somewhere safe.
A billboard is a public display that affects the city’s quality of life, and as such cities have a little bit more say than they would with a more personal form of communication.
What if I wanted to post a billboard that saids “Staten Island hates tourists- go home!” or a giant picture of a zit or something. I think the city council can decide thats best not to display in their city.
So if the city council in NutScratch, Alabama thought that my previous example “negatively impacted upon the quality of life” in their town…you’d have no problem with them exerting pressure to remove the “Diversity” billboard?
Inappropriate for a public official, acting in his capacity as public official, to influence legal messages on billboards.
I don’t think, even given the name recognition Molinari apparently enjoys, that we can forbid him from acting as a private citizen. If he sent the letter on his personal stationery, and made clear he was speaking only as an individual, then I don’t have any problem with what was done.
If he sent the letter as borough president, it was inappropriate.
You know, I’m not sure. I’ve been thinking about this. I come from a town that doesn’t allow billboards, so the idea of regulating public displays like that is second nature to me. But towns regulate what kinds of businesses open shop. what kind of buildings get built and other things like that, so no, I don’t think regulating public displays is that out of line. I do have to think about this more however.
Even sven, I think the difference lies in the fact that it wasn’t an “official” regulation that brought the billboard down. The billboard was constructed within the guidelines that were already in place. It was the “under the table” threat, i.e., that particular official’s opinion, who carries enough clout to intimidate, that’s in question. I’m picturing a guy with a nose that points slightly to the left, wears a pinky ring, and wears a suit to a ballgame.
Well, if it’s not advocating violence, I’m afraid it sounds like it’s gonna stay up.
HOWEVER, I would definitely be supportive of a counter-billboard, which I think might work better.
Too late…they already took it down.
Moreover, this isn’t about regulating all billboards. I have no problem with a town banning billboards. I have a big problem with a town permitting a billboard promoting, say, affirmative action, while at the same time prohibiting a billboard promoting abstinence as opposed to birth control. It amounts to the town taking political positions.
Cite for your unsolicited bullstuff there, cmk?
And count me among the “if it ain’t illegal, let him keep it up” camp.
rjung:
Will this column by John Leo do? He does several similar ones per year…
Or how about this?
In addition to not being “bullstiff”, the comment was not unsolicited, either. It directly addressed a line in Eve’s OP, and I quoted it in my earlier post (emphasis mine):
Chaim Mattis Keller
I’m concerned that some people will view his message as an invitation to harm gay folks.
Some people thought that Natural Born Killers was a message to go out and kill people, so should we start banning movies because “someone” out there may see another message than what was intended?
There was a boycott from construction companies against an Abortion Clinic... basically local groups wrote letters to suppliers and construction firms saying that they "might" lose clients if they accepted to work building the clinic. The clinic basically can't get anyone in wide area to build their clinic.
This billboard thing would be the liberal version of the above clinic example. It sure makes for some very beligerant tactics against private businesses.Ye gods, John Leo? You might as well dredge up Ann “all liberals are traitors” Coulter if you’re going to look for right-wing zealots. Having John Leo fairly analyze the Democratic Party is like asking Bill Gates to confess to Microsoft’s monopolistic tactics – ain’t gonna happen, not in this lifetime.
I’ll bet; there’s always a rabid audience for conservative porn.
So, a small group of Democrats, who took a position that was in direct opposition to the party platform, are upset because they didn’t get the prime-time news coverage they wanted? That’s it? I thought you had something more substantive, like how they were drummed out of the party and branded traitors or something. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
I’m all for leaving signs like that alone. But there are ways to make people want to take down their own signs.
The Rev. Okweddy’s sign said: "“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus…whatever”
Another sign should go up next to it: “Thanks to the Rev. Okweddy for the vote of confidence! – from the American Lesbian Union”
How about Nat Hentoff? He is far from conservative, but argues (well) that liberals attempt censorship just as much as the right.
Attacking the source rather then strictly the content of an argument never wins any points: the person who trusts the right-wing pundit isn’t going to take your word for it that the pundit is a liar, and if there’s any truth in what the pundit is arguing, it makes you look ignorant and closed-minded. :rolleyes:
rjung:
Did you even read the linked column? It’s not about the Democratic Party. It’s about suppression of free speech on college campuses by liberal-leaning deans and professors.
But of course, there’s no need to actually read the link. It’s John Leo. (BTW, does someone have to be proven false to have his columns ignored, or does he merely have to have a conservative slant?)
Small group? According to the article, it’s a good 20% of the party. Compare that to the generally accepted “10%” of gays in the population (and in fact, probably a much smaller percentage, given that Kinsey’s sampling and definition of homosexuality was somewhat skewed), which Democrats feel is a substantial enough number to address their concerns.
But that itself is a side issue. The main point is: Considering the fact that Republicans gave such coverage to speakers who were pro-abortion-rights, I think that it makes it a valid “cite” to back up my statement that being liberal does not inherently make a group more tolerant of diverse opinions than conservative groups. Which was the point I was addressing in the OP to begin with.
Chaim Mattis Keller