God Wanted These Censored

[Perknose]

Billboards rejected in Utah because they were "misleading, deceptive or offensive to the moral standards of the community."

And, this billboard below, which did make the cut in Times Square, was called by State Senator Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island) an “expression of hatred.”

He went on, “Religious persecution of the kind that similarly led to the Holocaust began with small baby steps of ridicule and hatred of the religious beliefs of others.”

Religious persecution? The Holocaust?!? D:

What ever happened to our seemingly sacred and constitutionally protected ideal of free speech?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You're free to say whatever you want... As long as it's in line with the religious beliefs of the majority in whatever area you're in.

Edit: who rejected them? Government? If not, then the 1st Amendment doesn't really apply.

 

[brycejones]

What ever happened to our seemingly sacred and constitutionally protected ideal of free speech?

Sorry that only applies to "real Americans".

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Atheism is not a religion.

Therefore, atheism can be banned without running afoul of the first amendment!

:whiste:

 

[Victorian Gray]

Billboards rejected in Utah because they were "misleading, deceptive or offensive to the moral standards of the community."

What ever happened to our seemingly sacred and constitutionally protected ideal of free speech?

Govt wasn't involved, private companies did the refusing, no 1st amendment issue. It's just dumb on the part of the companies involved.

 

[werepossum]

Govt wasn't involved, private companies did the refusing, no 1st amendment issue. It's just dumb on the part of the companies involved.

I agree there is no 1st Amendment issue. Hard to say if it was dumb on the part of the companies involved; if enough people were offended, the companies would face a net loss, perhaps even a serious one, from losing other advertisers.

 

[Rakehellion]

Billboards rejected in Utah because they were "misleading, deceptive or offensive to the moral standards of the community."

Any place with a panel on "morality" is no place to live.

 

[Atreus21]

When a billboard deliberately tries to insult Christians, you can expect some push back.

 

[Newell Steamer]

,.. the oppression towards Christians in this country is,.. is too much,..

What is next; prevent Christians from getting married?!

 

[Cozarkian]

Let me see if I understand, it is okay to boycott Chick-fil-A and Papa John's because of private beliefs held by the people that run them. It's also okay to boycott Walgreens or other companies that want to renounce U.S. citizenship. However, it is absolutely despicable for private advertisers, who disagree with the private beliefs of the Atheist organization, to avoid doing business with said organization?

 

[Perknose]

Let me see if I understand, it is okay to boycott Chick-fil-A and Papa John's because of private beliefs held by the people that run them. It's also okay to boycott Walgreens or other companies that want to renounce U.S. citizenship. However, it is absolutely despicable for private advertisers, who disagree with the private beliefs of the Atheist organization, to avoid doing business with said organization?

The proper analogy would have been if a beef supplier who had a monopoly on supplying beef in an area where Chick-fil-A did business refused to supply them beef because of "deeply held religious beliefs."

My stance is not that it was despicable for the company to stonewall them, but rather that it was wrong.

 

[Cozarkian]

The proper analogy would have been if a beef supplier who had a monopoly on supplying beef in an area where Chick-fil-A did business refused to supply them beef because of "deeply held religious beliefs."

My stance is not that it was despicable for the company to stonewall them, but rather that it was wrong.

Well, first, the article said "not a single Utah company," so we aren't talking about a monopoly, we are talking about a competitive industry. Second, they didn't refuse to sell advertising, they refused to sell the product based on its intended use/message.

Would it be wrong if companies refused to sell "Abortion is murder" advertising in neighborhoods with Planned Parenthood locations and hospitals?

What if book stores in a town with a large minority population refused to carry books with racist titles?

What if clothing stores in a community of vegans refused to place orders for leather jackets?

 

[PokerGuy]

So basically some people whine because a private company decides not to post billboards with messages it doesn't agree with. Waaaaaaaaah, someone doesn't agree with me, waaaaaah, stomp my foot and throw a tantrum... waaaaaah.


ATF is privately held. We don't agree with the message you posted. We are now preventing you from posting any more messages we don't agree with, by banning you.

Please don't be a hypocrite stomp your foot in any way and throw any sort of tantrum. Just take your medicine, which your prescribe for others, like a man.

Good-bye.

Perknose
Forum Director


Lesson learned, "ban" rescinded. Now, how did that feel?

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[alzan]

When a billboard deliberately tries to insult Christians, you can expect some push back.

Insulting as in "Christians are dumbf*cks" or insulting as in "There are other options to the various Christian faiths"?

Exactly which of those billboards, either in the OP or in the linked article, is insulting.

 

[Sonikku]

My hand is shaking at how offensive this is. I think we can all agree we should be outraged and Fox News must be notified immediately to get the word out.

Begun, the Christian Holocaust has.

 

[Cozarkian]

Insulting as in "Christians are dumbf*cks" or insulting as in "There are other options to the various Christian faiths"?

Exactly which of those billboards, either in the OP or in the linked article, is insulting.

I definitely read #1 as suggesting that Atheism is superior to Mormonism, and can see how that would be insulting to put in a Mormon community.

#2-#3, on their face, fall in the lines of "other alternatives," but the intent to use them in Utah strikes me as suggesting that Mormons are oppressive and/or bigoted in their treatment of atheists. Now, if #2-#4 were used in other states, I would instead perceive them as an attempt to educate people that, contrary to popular (and my own) belief, Utah is not filled with Mormons and Christians.

 

[Cozarkian]

My hand is shaking at how offensive this is.

At this point in reading your post, I thought you were a Mormon living in Utah who was honestly, severely offended and were about to explain why you felt that way. Obviously, the rest of your post revealed the error of my assumption.

I'd agree that anyone that finds this highly offensive is a bit oversensitive, but I do think the AANC was being deliberately rude. To illustrate the difference, cutting in line isn't offensive, but it is rude.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Theists can be petty and abusive at times. The same is also true of Atheists. Therefore, I suggest all become Pantheists and live in harmony.

 

[WilliamM2]

As an atheist, I have to wonder why anyone would want to put those billboards up anyways?

 

[ch33zw1z]

What's good for the goose is good for the...oh wait, atheists don't belong here, in god we trust bitches.

 

[werepossum]

So basically some people whine because a private company decides not to post billboards with messages it doesn't agree with. Waaaaaaaaah, someone doesn't agree with me, waaaaaah, stomp my foot and throw a tantrum... waaaaaah.


ATF is privately held. We don't agree with the message you posted. We are now preventing you from posting any more messages we don't agree with, by banning you.

Please don't be a hypocrite stomp your foot in any way and throw any sort of tantrum. Just take your medicine, which your prescribe for others, like a man.

Good-bye.

Perknose
Forum Director


Lesson learned, "ban" rescinded. Now, how did that feel?

Perknose
Forum Director

Perk, I don't think you really made the point you thought you were making. You guys continuously ban people for speech you find offensive, inappropriate or just unacceptable to these forums. That's perfectly understandable - if you accept some speech, then it will hurt future business as most people will not willingly participate in a Storm Front forum even if they support the right of a Storm Front forum to exist. This is what the billboard company is doing - you can say it all you want, but you can't say it on my forum.

This isn't just principle. Allisolm gave me an infraction recently, my first I believe in 25 years on various boards, for speech he considered inappropriate. It's not a curb on my free speech, it's a curb on my free speech on the forums he administers. You don't see me whining about it, I merely acknowledged it and moved on. Companies must be free to act in their own best interests, and as long as they enforce that reasonably evenly we should all accept that right.

tl/dr: No one owes you the means to make your free speech reach more people.

 

[alcoholbob]

From the title I expected titties.

 

[werepossum]

From the title I expected titties.

No no no. I have it on good authority that G-d loves us; therefore G-d wants us to see titties.

 

[MtnMan]

When a billboard deliberately tries to insult Christians, you can expect some push back.

With what, the only thing they have is hate and ignorance based on fairy tales. But they are damn proud of their hate and ignorance and trot it out very quickly.

 

[master_shake_]

nothing except the last billboard even said anything about christians.

sometimes i think christians are too quick to play the martyr card (pun intended)

get over yourself...