Underground Palestinian Free Speech
April 5th, 2007Cross-posted at Pissed Off Liberal Jew
Alright so there has been this big brew-ha-ha about this advertisement for the Washington Metro System by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. The ACLU got involved calling this a freedom of speech issue and CBS Outdoor (who runs ads in the metro) gave into the demand.
Now I for one don’t care for such inflammatory or one-sided advertisements from any side; it only pisses people of as apposed to sending a message. But that is besides the point. This isn’t a free speech issue.
According to CBS Outdoor, this ad (seen here) is both inflammatory and depicts a child close in danger. (DUH it is an ad about children in danger) And CBS Outdoor doesn’t use ads that are deemed inflammatory. Clearly that is subjective but that is how advertisement works. TV Stations, Radio Stations and Web sites all select ads for issues which they are willing to provide a platform.
While I don’t believe this ad violates CBS Outdoor regulations, I find this “freedom of speech” argument to be miss placed. It would be one thing if the DC Police said US Campaign couldn’t rally or if they were arrested for producing the ad, but they were not.
They were shut out of an ad agency. They won because they threatened to sue and CBS didn’t have the guts to stand up with their regulations. I for one am pissed as hell as an American with his Civil Liberties in jeopardy and I am always willing to fight for my right to say so in anyway shape or form. Let it be in the form of Bong hits 4 Jesus or something like the civil rights movement. But this case of “freedom of speech” is nothing of the sort.
Call it what it is, a fight against cooperate America, not a violation of the constitution.
Loading ...
Loading...
Yeah, I’m all about free speech, too, but you’re right — this ain’t it. Advertising is business, not a basic right. TV Networks don’t have to air things they don’t want to, and advertising companies don’t have to run ads they don’t want to. Still, using that hook got them extra visibility, AND the placement of the ads, so guess they’re not dumb, just good at PR!
And when the only way to reach a formidable audience is to use these advertising agencies or these network stations, what then?
And what of the fact that this metro is PUBLIC transportation? Just because the advertising work is contracted through a private company does not mean that it is no longer through the medium of a public place. If the local government gives the authority to place advertisements on public transportation to company X, and company X refuses to post advertisements of a certain political message, in effect the local government is responsible. Just because it is an indirect relationship does not mean that company X is not involved in a freedom of speech issue.
Freedom of speech is not limited to government control. Liora and Peter Jacob, you point resembles what some Brits use when they defend their action in South Asia. It was the British East India Company that controlled most of the sub-continent. It was a private company with it’s private army. It committed the crimes and not the British government for most part.
If CBS Outdoor sensor something because inflammatory, why do they allow half naked chicks on their ads or naked chicks with things covering the private spots?
This is not about inflammatory ads, it’s about politics. CBS Outdoor obviously don’t like the ad so they didn’t allow it. The reason they gave into ACLU is because of this, they would have lost the case if they had gone forward with it.
I want to further generalize on what Jina mentioned in addition to what I hinted at above. When a government uses non-governmental institutions to do its work, that does not mean the government can wash its hand clean of any acts that that non-governmental institution commits that undermine the rights of citizens and other human beings. A similar scenario exists in Israel. Israeli law does not permit the state to discriminate by religion or race–and yet, such discrimination does exist, though it is not explicit. For example, a number of social services in Israel are only available to citizens who have performed their service in the military; but service is not compulsory for Arabs in Israel and many are not permitted to join, so those services by definition are not available to them. At a very superficial level the state is not discriminating against them. Law one says social services are available to anybody who meets the conditions of law 2, so law 1 may appear to be “fair.” But law 2 discriminates by race–that by extension means that law one is effectively racist.
So, just because this interaction did not occur with a government agency does not mean that the government agency is not responsible or that the non-governmental institution with which it did occur does not have to be held to the same standards as a government agency.
Jina and Yaman-
No question about it. But CBS Outdoor isn’t the BEIC. I am SURE it has rejected other ads based on the issues of “naked women” (and men) because they were too inflammatory.
I doubt (really I do) if this was an ad with an identical message without the tank (ie it had a group of Palestinian children playing and smiling asking for self-determination in a clever way) this ad would have run no question about it.
When you make sweeping statements equating CBS Outdoor to BEIC you miss the entire point here; the US isn’t a colony of the crown. (while we can argue if the US is a colonizer another time) CBS Outdoor must compete with others for the contracts to have the “public” space ads.
I am also sure that if a militant pro-Israel group wanted to put up a picture of suicide bombers, it would have similar problems.
My point was that just because a private company was abusing the rights of the people doesn’t mean that abuse didn’t happen.
CBS Outdoor also owns all the ad spaces in Toronto, where I live. Some of these ads sometimes makes me wona puke.
Jina-
Perhaps you should apply to work for CBS Outdoor.