Actually, I think it’s worse. On shakier ground, anyway. I don’t know that advertising space is a civil right. Or a freedom, for that matter. Newspapers refuse to run classified ads all the time. Most of them even have a written policy for refusing certain types of them, which is printed in every issue.
If the broadcasting industry were a monopoly, I would say you may have a case, simply because that would make this a collusion to deny service. But it’s not, and this situation isn’t collusion. The UCC was able to get the ads aired on some networks. They don’t have a right to get it aired on all of them. Hell, they don’t have a right to get it aired on ANY of them.
I’m sorry, but this whole business of calling the situation an erosion of freedoms or a violation of rights irritates me because it trivializes real erosions of freedom.
Now whether that’s a legitimate policy or not is certainly fodder for debate. But just saying that they didn’t air the spot because it was “controversial” is a bit misleading.
. . . just realized that I confused some terminology . . . the whole immutable characteristic busniess has to do with equal protection under the law . . . the whole woolsworth analogy has to do with the government’s ability to force private actors to comply with civil rights legislation. hopefully this makes it up before I suffer unbearable ridicule. my woolsworth analogy is till good though because a law that protected certain suspect classes and not others would probably not stand up to 14th amendment assault
But it just isn’t the same as newspaper advertising. If a group is excluded from purchasing newspaper advertising, they can establish their own newspaper. To do so requires no public invovlement. A broadcast TV network, on the other hand, is granted the right to use a public resource, and so subjects itself to public scrutiny.
not saying advertising space is a civil right, saying it is a public accomodation in the same sense a lunch counter or motel might be. as such it is subject to certain civil rights legislation. further saying that certain legislation that protects certain suspect classes but not others from the same type of discrimination with no good reason for the disitinction might not meet consitutional muster.
not getting to sit at the counter with your sandiwich and a malted was not a big deal, in the literal sense either, but the insitutional refusal to treat all with parity was and is a big problem
I’m really failing to make the connection between this example and the debate we’re having. I’m going to make you spell it out. There’s no real public debate over liquor laws, so it just ain’t the same thing.
Oh goody, I get to be a drama queen!! (Do I need a tiara and high heels? :D)
Recall that the main thrust of freedom of speech is the freedom to be the speaker, and that freedom to decide who to listen to, and who to ignore, is derived from that. If people are blocked from accessing the airwaves, then I can’t decide whether or not to change the channel on them.
Anyone else here plan on writing an angry letter to CBS and NBC? Let them know its not just bigots that can get pissed off and won’t buy from their sponsors.
Look, RT, I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. I’m going by my instinct here. And my instinct says that this is a tempest in a teapot. I agree that refusing the ad was a cowardly and stupid thing to do. But I just can’t find it within me to get too upset about that. Maybe I’ve just not allowed myself to get too carried away with the whole “ACCEPTANCE AT LAST!” wave that’s been settling over gaydom the last few years (to be yanked away savagely right around Nov 2), but I never really expected any of the networks to accept an ad like that. Especially since 9/11 when every network exec of any stripe crawled right up Bush’s rectum and settled in for the long haul. So I wasn’t disappointed when the networks rejected it. I was simply validated in my previously held belief.
I don’t HAVE a giant GD “Gotcha ya!” point of evidence to offer. Just my gut (and while that is most definitely a giant “Gotcha ya!” point of evidence, it is so for my prodigious appetite and lack of desire to get up and move around a little rather than for my argument).
I don’t understand this. The message in the ad. is inclusive. The message of Jesus was inclusive when he said [among other things]
Are there now so many “Christians” in the USA who prefer not to remember what Jesus actually said and prefer the ‘anti-gay’ message that the networks think that airing this ad would damage their ratings? That’s really sad.
Neither am I…I guess our instincts are telling us different things, and that’s that.
I must admit I found the ‘gay’ aspects of this commercial so innocuous that it’s hard for me to see it being that much about ‘gay’ = ‘controversial’, but simply about ‘Fearless Leader won’t like it, so we won’t show it.’
And I agree that there’s been nothing stopping the networks from taking sides in a big way in our society, ever since they got rid of the Fairness Doctrine ~15 years ago, but up until now it’s been possible to view instances of their refusing ads (e.g. MoveOn’s ad intended to run during last January’s Super Bowl) as being special exceptions of sorts. This was a pretty trivial ad, in terms of ‘controversy’, in an everyday programming situation, and they still axed it. So it sure looks like a new thing to me.
How is it an advocacy ad? It’s a commercial: join our church, we’re more open, it rocks, the end. It doesn’t say “allow gay marriage” or even “Bush bad!” It basically says that their church has an excellent new feature that many churches lack: acceptance of everybody. That’s a sales pitch, not issue advocacy, and it’s no WORSE at least than any other ad on tv that touts itself over its competitors.
Not even close to the “choose-life” ads that CBS and NBC seem to have no problem running ad nausem.
I’m still confused as to what exactly is supposed to be so controversial about the ad, since all it seems to be saying is “here at UCC we all get along, unlike some other groups”.
I don’t agree that freedom is being hijacked or eroded – a network is entitled to make its own decisions about what ads to air and shows to play – but I do agree that rejecting this ad on the basis of homosexual controversy is a thoroughly stupid thing to do. There is no overt message about sexuality in the ad, and it would require a specifically subjective interpretation to find one.
I guess one thing that perhaps other groups might find offensive (and that the networks might have picked up on) is that the doorman de facto representing the non-UCC by granting access nightclub-style is white, dressed in black, and with a shaved head. Aside from the obvious neo-nazi dig, other churches might find it insulting to be equated to establishments that only let in fashionable well-dressed or famous people.
That’s just my guess. I have a hard time finding anything on homosexuality or lifestyle in general in this ad, so it seems the stupidity (and hypocrisy – “choose life” indeed) of the networks is further underlined. If nothing else this incident will help restrict the spread of the idiot-held notion of the “liberal media”…
Want to let CBS and NBC know how you feel about it? Send them an email (you’ll obviously want to alter the canned message if you’re not a UCC member) or contact an NBC or CBS affiliate.
Whoops. It looks as though that link is just to append your signature to a letter they’re sending. It does give you the names of the contacts if you want to send your own message though.
Could you please point me to the cite where it explains how the administration was somehow involved in this decision? From where I’m sitting, it looks like the networks made this poor decision on their own. Since there has been no indication that the FCC had any input on this decision, I fail to see where else administration involvement could be infered.
