[Peace-discuss] Adams Billboard *Vote Yes to Impeach* a precise political statement

[C. G. Estabrook]

Announcing that we're suing because our political statements are being 
censored, as of course they are, can itself be a valuable bit of publicity.


John W. wrote:
> 
> At 07:50 PM 5/24/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> If they insist on censoring our message -- if they won't sell
>> us the space -- I think we should take them to court.  A call
>> to our legal advisor would be in order -- or see if we can
>> find someone to sue them (altho' I admit that access to this
>> particular medium will probably not make much headway against
>> "private enterprise"). 
>>
>> But what they're willing to post is the Bush administration's
>> position -- see
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052200115.html 
>>
>>
>> AWARE funds should not be spent for that!  --CGE
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of wasting my time replying to this because I lack 
> "credibility" or something, here is what your legal advisor will tell 
> you:  A privately-owned newspaper is under no obligation to accept a 
> paid advertisement from any particular individual or interest group.  
> Radio and TV are held to a SLIGHTLY higher standard than are newspapers, 
> because they utilize airwaves (frequencies) that are finite and are 
> regulated by the government.  (There's something called the Fairness 
> Doctrine that requires radio and TV stations to give political 
> candidates equal time, as Carl experienced, but that wouldn't apply to 
> paid ads by special interest groups.)  The idea is that if someone wants 
> to propagate his/her ideas, he/she can start his/her own newspaper. 
> 
> I couldn't find any cases quickly that pertain specifically to 
> billboards, though I'm sure they're out there if someone cared to hunt 
> for them.  But I'm betting that legally, billboards are considered more 
> like newspapers than like TV or radio.  In any case, none of the media 
> are required to accept paid ads from anyone who wishes to purchase one.
> 
> A relevant case is _Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc._ (476 
> U.S. 488, 1986).  William Rehnquist, the author of the majority opinion, 
> says, "The power of a privately owned newspaper to advance its own 
> political, social, and economic views is bounded by only two factors: 
> first, the acceptance of a sufficient number of readers - and hence 
> advertisers - to assure financial success; and second, the journalistic 
> integrity of its editors and publishers.  A broadcast licensee has a 
> large measure of journalistic freedom but not as large as that exercised 
> by a newspaper.  A licensee must balance what it might prefer to do as a 
> private entrepeneur with what it is required to do as a 'public 
> trustee'."   Later he says, "...so long as a licensee meets its 'public 
> trustee' obligation to provide balanced coverage of issues and events, 
> it has broad discretion to decide how that obligation will be met." 
> 
> As we know from the example of Fox News, even that minimal requirement 
> to provide "balanced coverage of issues and events" is not terribly well 
> enforced.  :-)
> 
> There's lots more, but I won't quote it as the case pertains primarily 
> to a cable TV company.  Suffice it to say that the Independent Media 
> Center came into existence as a consequence of just such jurisprudence 
> as the case cited above.
> 
> John Wason
> 
> 
> 
>> ---- Original message ----
>> >Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 17:26:37 -0500
>> >From: Jan & Durl Kruse <jandurl at insightbb.com> 
>> >Subject: [Peace-discuss] Adams Billboard *Vote Yes to
>> Impeach* a precise political statement 
>> >To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> >
>> >AWARE and Friends:
>> >Below is the message from Adams Outdoor Advertising.  As you can see
>> >they have a problem with placing one of our Ballot initiatives on a
>> >Billboard.  Adams response seems to be in the realm of double talk.  A
>> >copy of the actual design will be brought to the AWARE meeting this
>> >Sunday May 28 so folks might see it first hand (graphics too large to
>> >post).  The design Adams "feels comfortable with" is a ballot with only
>> >one item for voters to approve: [ X ]  Bring the Troops Home NOW!
>> >If you are interested you might be thinking about how we proceed since
>> >the GM feels that this being a public service message and Adams being
>> >"simply the advertising provider" Adams wouldn't feel comfortable
>> >making such a precise political statement such as: ( [X] Impeach
>> >Bush/Cheney).
>> >I guess I wonder about this since AWARE and other Peace groups are
>> >paying for the BillBoard after-all.
>> >Bring ideas and suggestions for what we do next!
>> >
>> >Below is the message from Zack the graphic design person from Adams.
>> >Here's the two billboard layouts that we talked about.  The first one
>> >is similar to the previous layout that we did, with the changes we
>> >talked about on Monday.  The second board is the voter's ballot idea
>> >that you wanted to go with for Oct. - Nov.  We put together that layout
>> >just as you wanted with the exception of the 'impeach Bush & Cheney'
>> >line.  After talking with our GM we feel that with this being a public
>> >service message we wouldn't feel comfortable making such a precise
>> >political statement, since we are simply the advertising provider.  If
>> >you have any questions, please contact Rick Mills, our General Manager.
>> >Thanks, and let us know what you think.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss