Hey, there! Log in / Register
MBTA declares it's had quite enough of political ads, thank you very much, votes to ban them altogether
By adamg on Mon, 11/23/2015 - 4:56pm
The board that now runs the MBTA says the cash-strapped agency doesn't need the tsuris it keeps getting into with ads related to Israel and Palestine and so voted today to just ban all "political issue" ads starting next month, WBUR reports.
And, no, the T's decision doesn't infringe on anybody's First Amendment rights, as long as it's consistent about it, according to a 1993 federal court decision on the T's decision to ban some Muslim-hater group's anti-Palestine ads. In the decision, the judge said a 1993 federal decision involving the T (condom ads then) that found T ad spaces were "non-public fora" still stood.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Just Remember
Buying of politicians via super PACs = Free Speech!
Paying for an issue ad = Banned!
Art on the T = Too Expensive!
Issue ads on the T = Meh, we don't need the cash.
I'd accept the issue ads if they put the money towards art and fixing the bells in Kendall Sq.
The T
The T has had issues with political ads before. They refused one and got sued.
By saying no to all political ads as a blanket policy, the T now doesn't have to 'approve' or 'disapprove' any political ads anymore, and this will prevent lawsuits. And remember lawsuits are expensive... far more than what the advertising was probably worth, so in the long run, it saves the T money.
Yes I do understand the financial aspect, but this issue has come up before and cost the T $$$ in legal fees.
Suing the MBTA
Unless you got mowed down by a bus, you're a greedy piece of (expletive) for doing this.
i dont think
you fully understand the purposes behind lawsuits
Oh, no, I do
It's just kinda douchey to me to kick the MBTA while it's down. They gotta pay to defend this.
And by "they" you mean us,
And by "they" you mean us, the taxpayers and riders of the T, right?
Courts
If someone wants to challenge the MA Court's decision to the Supreme Court it would seem like they would at least have a case given the way other free speech decisions have been decided. Someone would obviously need to pay for the defense of the law if the court accepted the case. So it's not clear this policy will end the T's legal troubles with advertisements. If anything else the "safer" alternative is to allow all ads irrespective of the content entirely.
With that said, I don't disagree with the T in making a blanket ban on issue ads. I just find it ironic, if not insulting, that they don't have the money for Art but they don't need the advertising money. Ads provide far more revenue then the tiny cost of paying artists yet the art betters everyone's life as opposed plastering every flat surface with messages saying I need to switch banks.
A few things
I disagree. As I said above, it will remove the T's option to allow some but not other political ads. If your advertising policy just plain doesn't allow it, there's no infringement on free speech rights.
Think of it this way. Let's change the topic from Political Ads to Pornography. One of the core reasons why porn is allowed is because of "free speech". By the T not allowing ads from porn companies (or even riskay sites like Ashley Madison), the T removes all aspects of the free speech thing since it's a blanket policy for all. Not some, but all.
(and yes I know why porn, and cigarette ads are not on the T is more "for the children", but still, same principals apply)
I don't disagree
My point is that even the blanket policy could lead to lawsuits they'll need to defend, particularly if they try to enforce the no religious ads.
Also, When is it an issue ad and when is it a "product" ad? (Example: "The civilized man banks at Bank of Israel")
The anti-Israel ad that the T
The anti-Israel ad that the T approved is disturbing.
The ad mentioned in the
The ad mentioned in the article was disturbing because it was meant to disturb people, but it did not amount to slander against the Jewish people. The pro-Israel ad rejected by the T was far more disturbing on a moral level because it conflated those who don't "support" Israel with Jihadists, and called them savages.
Now, now, now
If you two keep this up, none of your ads will go up on the T.
The religion ads are safe right? Or are they?
I've seen this one all over, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis"
I forget the name of the church affiliated with the ad, but for sake of argument let's say they take a traditional view on social issues which makes them quite contrary to the prevailing progressive agenda here in MA. Is that political? Even if it doesn't run afoul of the policy now, is the policy headed in a direction where religious ads are next on the chopping block?
That's a different thicket
If churches were competing by pointing out that the other is somehow evil, there might be an equivalence. And belief systems are different from political stances, though they might intersect.
And no, despite my disdain for militant atheism, I think their approach in ads are such that the level of offense does not rise to the level of Israel/Palestine.
EDIT- upon further review (i.e. reading the papers today) I discovered that even religious ads will be banned. To be honest, if it means no more sitting in cars wrapped in ads for booze delivery services, I'll even take the worst of the Israel/Palestine ads. Of course, they will all be vandalized, but then the process will begin anew.
More to the point, if the
More to the point, if the religious advertisers began to do as you describe, then the T tried to pick and choose who's offensive and who's not, and then the advertisers started to sue the T over first amendment violations (a government agency attempting to deny speech based on its content), the T would probably ban them.
The T is making the right financial decision here because, on the whole, accepting some political ads and not others has cost them more money than they would have earned from accepting the ones they did approve of.
i approve of this 100%
i'm not going to look it up but i remember ~1 year ago or so when this came up here i made my thoughts pretty clear. couldnt really imagine being jewish or palistinian and let alone being a passenger and seeing anti-me ads, but being an employee of the MBTA. like oh great, i get to go to work and read about how somebody essentially wants me exterminated or whatever.
a good call imo.
Can you link to a picture of the ad in question?
I'd like to see it for myself. Unfortunately I did not think to look for it in Davis Square, and it will be gone by the time I'm next in that station.
As a local Jewish citizen of Somerville, I don't find the idea of an ad opposing current Israeli government policy to be at all threatening to me, since (a) I live here, not in Israel, and (b) if I did live in Israel, I'd also oppose the current Likud-led government.
Here's the link
http://image.masslive.com/home/mass-media/width620/img/republican/photo/...
"non-public fora"
I'm curious if there are distinctions to be made.
First, you have a train car which is a small enclosed space.
Second, you have the station, a large enclosed space.
Third, you have bus stops, open air space.
In the second instance the non-public fora argument is weaker than the first, and in the third it's basically non-existent.
Maybe these ads should be allowed at least at bus stops?
Just to note
Consumerism - the one true American religion - will still be allowed to buy ad space.
fundamentally
i consider that to be very different than ads throwing mud between what are effectively two entities that are at war with each other