September 20, 2013

ACLU challenges the rejection of this ad by the Portland airport.



"The ACLU has no position on forest practices, but an important part of our mission is to prevent government censorship of expression... The Port of Portland refuses to allow advertising they conclude is too controversial or political and that is exactly the type of content-based restriction our constitutional free speech protections are designed to prevent."

24 comments:

phx said...

I'll defer to the constitutional scholars but the ACLU's position seems to make a lot of sense. If the government's going to sell advertising space I don't see how it can pick and choose. I feel the same way about prayer or religious expression, if the government opens the door to it then you have to allow the Wiccans, the Satanists, the shamans to have equal footing.

Matthew Sablan said...

Maybe it is a local Oregon thing, but I don't think I get why this is controversial. Oddly enough, if I was more in favor of Citizens United, I could see a stronger case being made for, politically, quashing the ad (there's an upcoming vote in the Senate! We can't let big money interests like the Sierra Club, ACLU, et. al buy votes!) As it is, if the Port of Portland is privately operated/owned, then, tough luck (especially given a quick look at their page shows they have several environmental efforts underway, the ad seems like it would be a slap in their face.)

Matthew Sablan said...

Oregon Senate, Oregon Congress, what difference, at this point, does it make?

BarrySanders20 said...

Civic leaders are very sensitive about airports. They want to make a good first impression on visitors.

Grievance groups that seek to denigrate on the town, area, or state because they did not get what they wanted purposefully select this space to cause maximum discomfort.

Madison, WI: Welcome Comrades!

Milwaukee: Welcome to one of the most racially segregated cities in America!

Chicago: On pace for 750 murders! Help do your part.

There have to be reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to allow the owner of the property some control over the messaging in their own space.

phx said...

There have to be reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to allow the owner of the property some control over the messaging in their own space.

As I see it the problem with that is WE the PEOPLE are the owners of that property.

EDH said...

Now, what I want to see is a similar ad for Brazilian clearcut.

BarrySanders20 said...

As I see it the problem with that is WE the PEOPLE are the owners of that property.

Well that settles it. The County will just have to let your have whatever advertising billboard you want, wherever you want to put it.

MadisonMan said...

I've been through lots of airports.

Advertising signage is remarkably forgettable.

I agree with the ACLU's take on this. The Govt cannot restrict if it offers an outlet for expression.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

The advertising agency that works with the port told Oregon Wild that the ad violated the port's rules against political advertising at the airport.

In what way is the poster "political?"

Lazy reporting. Who at "the advertising agency?" What, exactly, are the "port's rules?"

phx said...

The County will just have to let your have whatever advertising billboard you want, wherever you want to put it.

I think you're missing the point. The point is if the government is selling an advertising space they cannot discriminate against someone who wants to buy it because of the content of the message.

I don't think anyone said "whereever you want to put it." Rather "wherever it's for sale."

madAsHell said...

Clear cut!
Schmear cut!
That is so 15 minutes ago.

The Seattle Times tells us that the new boogey-man is ocean acidification. Get with it people!!

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Off topic. Stepped on laptop late Tuesday, broke screen. Found replacement on Amazon.com early Wednesday. Delivered and replaced by mid-afternoon Thursday.

southcentralpa said...

Memo to anti-loggers: The spotted owl is being displaced by another owl http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/BarredOwl/default.asp

Disuss: 1) Is it better that we periodically harvest lumber and use it to build things, or that the forest is occasionally cleared out naturally by forest fire?

2) Should we try and re-expand the range of the brown rat that was so cruelly displaced by the Norway rat?

Hagar said...

The brown rat is the Norway rat.
The species is known by many names, and it is thought the "Norway rat" appellation came about from a mistaken belief it arrived in London on Norwegian ships bringing produce from the continent to the London markets. However, this species was unknown in Norway at the time.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

If the ACLU has such loving concern for freedom of expression, it needs to reverse immediately its decades-long campaign to obliterate public expressions of Christian precepts.

MadisonMan said...

The Seattle Times tells us that the new boogey-man is ocean acidification. Get with it people!!

This actually is a problem, especially if you build shells to survive. It is well known that CO2 dissolves in water, and Carbonic Acid results. There are (noisy) plots out there that show decreasing pH in the ocean, and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely the reason.

Andy Freeman said...

Remind me - why is the portland airport public?

If it's like most such facilities, it's a feather-bed filled with folks who have political connections. They're not making sufficient pension contributions and the public is on the hook for the shortfall.

Thorley Winston said...

Two solutions:

(1) Construct a larger billboard that fully obstructs the view of the one with the anti-logging message.

(2) Sell advertising space on the billboard to the highest bidder and see if the logging people can outbide the anti-loggers.

Sam L. said...

I see no reason to ban this--all Portland and Willamette Valley blue voters think this way. There, this is totally (like,totally!, man) conventional wisdom.

Oclarki said...

Southcentralpa,

I don't have a problem with logging, I have a huge issue with practices that destroy streams and kill wild salmon and steelhead. There is no excuse for that besides greed.

gadfly said...

The solution that I like is to change the sign to read: "Welcome to Oregon . . . Where Clearcutting Prevents Forest Fires. . . www.smokeybear.com.

Now that would really hack off the Clear Cut Oregon enviro-commies. Yep - better fed than red!

gadfly said...

@Oclarki said...
I don't have a problem with logging, I have a huge issue with practices that destroy streams and kill wild salmon and steelhead. There is no excuse for that besides greed.

Not to worry. Lots of clear cut pictures at ClearCutOregon.com but not a single stream is shown, let alone a waterway to the sea that would support "wild" salmon and steelhead (otherwise known as rainbow trout).

ALP said...

Similar issue arose in Seattle, with regards to ads on Metro buses. An ad that had something to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was rejected. I honestly can't remember what side the ad was on, but given the tendency of the Middle-eastern conflicts to inspire the bombing of things such as buses...I'd be letting the bus with THAT ad go by to catch the next one.

CharlesVegas said...

90% of the flora in a mature forest are a single species of tree.

Come back to that clear cut in a year and wonder at the diversity of life you'll find.