[ul][li]Is it hypocritical for these Christians to ask for “special rights”; i.e., to get exemption to do something that no one else is allowed to do, when they accuse the LGBT community of doing the same regarding civil rights? (The same question could be applied to “promoting an agenda” in this case.)[/li][li]Is this a matter of free speech?[/li][li]The organization says, “We’re not advertising; we’re trying to reach a specific target audience with a very specific, noncommercial message.” Is this advertising?[/ul][/li]
Finally, should they be given the exemption? (According to the article, the no-fly zone was granted by Congress and maintained by the FAA, and can only be repealed or exempted by legislation.) Should Disney fight them? (The article notes that Gay Days is not an official Disney-sponsored event.)
No, it is not about free speech per se, but a matter of security, and I do not think one can run around making exceptions for special interest groups. I would oppose anyone seeking special rights based on any reasoning whatsoever- and regularly do.
They are bloody advertising. Ii do not care that it is targeted - much advertising is targeted. Whether or not it is commerical is irrelevant, although a good argument is possible that religion is a commercial enterprise. One can advertise anything, of a commercial nature or otherwise.
I mean, really - I don’t see gay groups asking to fly planes over churches saying, “You could be gay - you just haven’t met the right man yet!”
Do queers protest their policies? Sure. And these Christians have every right to hang out, chant, wave signs, hand out flyers, whatever (although I doubt Disney World allows protesters anywhere on their property, which extends several miles out from the entrances to the various parks) - there’s their free speech. But fly a plane overhead? I’d say it’s a bit much, IMHO, considering the circumstances.
It’s not a matter of free speech; if it were, they might as well fly over the white house and bombard it with leaflets. Hopefully this will be shot down (The legal effort to have a special permit to fly in a no-fly zone, not their plane, mind you).
Guin - that was answered in the OP, although I know Disney has somehow “discouraged” flyovers in the past. I don’t know how, but I vaguely remember there being something about that in orientation some 10 years ago.
That said, why don’t they spend the money they’re going to pay for the rental of the plane/constructon of the banners & so forth and make sure that their poorer parishoners are, say, eating?
I agree with you they are a private company so they can pretty much do what they want. But then so is Augusta where the Masters is played. That didn’t stop a feminist group from doing what they did.
And as far as I remember, the no fly zone was decided by the government.
The gov’t is enforcing the no fly zone, not disney. But that’s still not gov’t action depriving them of free speech. The airspace over theme parks has never been a traditional forum for speech. Go prance around in the park or at the entrance. And yeah it’s hypocritical, if gays constantly tacked up “jesus was a fag” signs on their churches, they would get pissy real quick, and it wouldn’t be long before we’d have some lynchings and cross burnings.
The Christians have a right to ask for an exception to the rule, but it would be foolish for the legislature to change the status quo. If they do, what’s to keep a terrorist from flying over that day and crashing into the crowds?
I doubt that this particular faction of Christianity has anything to say that hasn’t been heard before.
The no-fly zone was created by the government – the FAA, to be specific, presumably at the request of Homeland Security. It is also a perfectly legitimate government action without any constitutional problems whatsoever.
The airspace restriction is a classic content-neutral limit on free speech, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and which leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. It in no way, shape or form contravenes the First Amendment. The protestors should get bent.
See, e.g., L.A. City Council v. Tapxpayers for Vincent, 466 US 789 (1984) (city ordinance prohibiting signs on city property not traditionally associated with speech is permissible to reduce clutter); Int’l Society of Krishnas v. Lee, 505 US 672 (1992) (regulation of speech in airport terminal need only be reasonable).
If the group wants to promulgate its message, it can do it on the ground like everyone else.
I’m kind of surprised that even this group actually believes that they have a case. I suspect they’re really just trying to get some free media attention for their little crusade. The article doesn’t really say what their legal argument is, and I can’t see that that have one.
Imagine if a Muslim group wanted to fly over Disneyland with a “Christians are infidels” banner. Would there even be a discussion about it?
As Dewey says, the content of the speech is totally irrelevant here. It’s purely a security issue.
I don’t think so. There is nothing to stop them from other ways of communicating their message. As far as planes flying over Disneyworld, it’s a safety issue, plain and simple. I believe I read that a gay group wanted to fly planes overhead too with banners and they were told no as well … as they shoulda been.
Finally, should they be given the exemption?
No. It’s a no-fly zone. Nobody should have permission to do it.
Is this advertising?
Yes because they wanna broadcast their website, although I doubt they would financially profit off of any hits they’d get on their site. Maybe a little bit, but it’s not like this website of theirs would get a lot of hits anyway.
Ummmm, why don’t they just stand at the park’s entrance and hand out fliers?
Like Disney is going to let a group stand at the park’s entrance and bug their customers, all intent on giving Disney vast amounts of money! But to answer your question: physical assault? 100k people, someone’s bound to get pissed and throw a punch. From purely a safety standpoint I can see how flying a plane overhead would be more attractive to them than doing the face-to-face witnessing thing on the ground.
F’in loonballs. Typical X-tian foolishness. Requesting permission to degrade, slander and harangue innocent people. F@K does this piss me off! How about you MIND YOUR OWN F@*!ING BUSINESS? I’m goin to the pit. sonsabitches.
However, while I don’t believe this group should be given permission to fly their planes, I’m wondering how saying “Jesus loves you” to someone can be classified as degradation, slandering, and haranguing. Bothersome? Perhaps. But degrading? Say what?
Are you so blinded by your hatred of Christianity that you honestly can’t tell the difference between religious groups who are trying to live what they believe (love people as God loves them, witness, preach the gospel, do good works, etc.) and nutsos like Fred Phelps and his band of merry whackos?
Did you not read the OP? “Jesus can set you free from the sin of homosexuality?” :rolleyes:
I love my partner. Period. How DARE those. . . people. . . call our relationship sin merely because of our gender? What nerve! (I’d call it “chutzpah” but I’d bet my last nickel they also have a problem with Jews).
How would they like it if I flew an airplane over their church with the message “Reading books will set you free from Christianity”?