"Go to hell Barack" Ad Acceptable in Washington Metro System?!?

Who do we write to? (0.00 / 0)

This is disgusting to say the least and should be immediately removed

---

by: totallynext @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 16:00:53 PM UTC

Metro. (0.00 / 0)

By Mail
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
600 5th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Customer feedback form

Marketing: 202-962-2767
Advertising: 202-962-1188

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 16:23:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kind of goes with (0.00 / 0)

"You Lie!" yelled the Congressman at the President; and "Re-load!" If you think it was vicious and tending toward violence during the last two elections, then brace yourself for an escalation to another level this time, now that we have Citizens United and the self-righteous religion-saturated theocratic thugs combined with gushing torrents of corporate money.

Go ahead and object to Metro, on-line, to the media and everywhere else. You will probably succeed in getting the offensive ad removed, but at the cost of publicizing its content.... content which, I suspect, is/will show up in other places across the country. It is just the opening salvo, and others will follow, like swarms of bees, too many to swat down every time.

I find it interesting that someone at least wrote a counter comment, defacing the ad. Perhaps that is one answer: street theatre, defacing the ads when and where they show up---- maybe adding "Thank You, President Obama" or "This is a lie!" or "This lie paid for by pharmaceutical companies." Much better than drawing a mustache on a the politician's face on his poster.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:15:09 PM UTC

Isn't WMATA a government or quasi government agency? (0.00 / 0)

If so, then I would oppose barring it on First Amendment grounds.

---

by: aznew @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:28:36 PM UTC

You have a point, but also (0.00 / 0)

notice that part of the ad is for a DVD of Michael Moore's "Sicko." If the DVD is honest, and not a  series of clips twisted and spliced for contrary effect, "Sicko" is a pretty good argument for single-payer universal health care. It makes one wonder....

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:31:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's NOT for "Sicko!" (0.00 / 0)

It's for Sick and Sicker, a viciously anti-"Obamacare" film. Totally different.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:47:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Sicko (0.00 / 0)

"Sicko" is the 2007 movie by Michael Moore. The one depicted in the Metro is by a different director and it's premise is the dead opposite of Moore's film.  

---

by: glennbear @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:50:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I stand corrected, but why not (0.00 / 0)

put up an ad for "Sicko" itself right next to this one? Fair and balanced, equal time, you decide...

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 21:44:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've never seen profanity in the Metro system (0.00 / 0)

before. I strongly doubt that's acceptable by any standard.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:37:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you really not see the difference? (0.00 / 0)

A ban on profanity is clearly a standard of, for lack of a better word, decency, that is equally applicable to all materials. Pulling down this ad would be quite different, in that it would be censoring a particular ad because you are offended by its message and its level of disrespect toward the President.

I like living in a country where it is legally protected to publicly tell the President to go to Hell.

---

by: aznew @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 18:13:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've never seen an ad like that in the Metro system (0.00 / 0)

about any politician, or anything for that matter. They simply don't allow that kind of language.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 18:20:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Metro's advertising guidelines (0.00 / 0)

are here. To be allowed in the Metro system, ads have to comply with a variety of guidelines, including not be "false or misleading," be "truthful," "shall reflect a high level of good taste and decency in copy and art," etc.  

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 18:44:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

False and Misleading (0.00 / 0)

The profane language aside, that ad certainly appears to be untruthful, false and misleading using the oft cited by the courts definition of "as seen by a reasonable person"

---

by: glennbear @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 19:04:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clearly. (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 19:14:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

I presume your referring to the statement that Obama "wants politicians and bureaucrats to control America's entire medical system."

Look, I don't agree with the statement, and it is certainly hyperbolic and in my opinion, wrong, but it is well within the bounds of the political debate going on in this country.

I mean, do you really want a government agency deciding that such assertions are false and misleading, and therefore can be banned from public advertisement in Metro stations. Because if so, get ready for Metro to ban the ad that claims "Republicans want to end Medicare," on the same grounds, on the basis that Politifact has called that statement the Lie of the Year.

That is slippery slope you are travelling down there.

Seriously, this is Constitutional Law 101 here, folks. Insofar as the First Amendment goes, this isn't even a close call.

---

by: aznew @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 19:50:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, you're arguing that Metro's (0.00 / 0)

advertising guidelines are unconstitutional? I can't wait for THAT court case! :)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 19:52:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Well, on its face the language is arguably neutral and Constitutional, so on that basis it might pass Constitutional muster.

But that is only one part of the inquiry. Another question is whether the application of otherwise Constitutional standards violate the First Amendment, and I think it is pretty clear that banning this advertisement on the basis of "truthfullness," or that it is "false and misleading" or fails to meet some standard of good taste would be Unconstitutional.

Not even a close case.

---

by: aznew @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 20:13:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Totally disagree. (0.00 / 0)

Metro has every right to establish criteria for ads in its system, just like every other organization does. What next, "free speech" requires government offices to put up whatever banners people want on their property? I don't think so. Look, I'm a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment, but clearly you can't say or do anything, such as the classic "fire in a crowded movie house" or whatever. Also, you can't do or say anything you want on private property. None of this is even controversial, to my knowledge, it's just common sense and how we've all lived in this country for a long, long time.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 20:19:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, just for argument's sake and to help clarify (0.00 / 0)

your position, would any or all of the following be ok?

*"Go to hell Jews!" (or religious slur term)
*"Go to hell Blacks!" (or racial slur term)
*"Go to hell Hispanics!" (or racial slur term)
*"Go to hell Women!" (or misogynistic slur term)
*"Go to hell Fat People!" (or...)
*"Go to hell Disabled People!" (or...)
*"F*** You Eric Cantor!"
*"You're a piece of s*** John Boehner!"

Should Metro be under any obligation to accept any or all of those ads?

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 20:03:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In my opinion (0.00 / 0)

all of those statements are Constitutionally protected.

As long as Metro accepts some messages, the First Amendment requires them to accept all.

That said, I suspect the current state of the law would allow them to reject the ads that contain profanity, on the misguided notion that people need to be protected from harsh language.

---

by: aznew @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 20:17:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow. (0.00 / 0)

You really are a 1st Amendment purist. We are NOT going to agree on this at all, nor do I think that 90%+ (at least) of Americans - or of courts, for that matter - would agree with you on this. But you know what? If you feel so strongly about this, stop wasting your time arguing about it on a blog and instead take it to court! If you do, I'll even live blog it! :)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 20:20:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The ad is a blatant lie, which violates Metro's policies right there (0.00 / 0)

"wants politicians and bureaucrats to control America's entire medical system." BLATANT OUTRIGHT LIE

Even before we get to the profanity part of it.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 20:07:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Situation Now (0.00 / 0)

Health insurance before the Affordable Care Act was controlled by bureaucrats and politicians. The politicians were on the state level, most of them in the pockets of the insurance companies. The bureaucrats were/are at the health insurance companies, some of whom are expressly hired to find ways to kick sick people off their insurance. The Affordable Care Act ends that by requiring sick people to remain on policies.

I'm all for defacing any and all such ads where they appear.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:35:09 PM UTC

I'd be interested to know (4.00 / 1)

who's paying for this reprehensible ad as that's who I'd like to give a piece of my mind (not that there are that many pieces to give).

By the way, I don't believe it's publicizing Michael Moore's movie but a knock-off that probably presents a quite different point of view.

---

by: jwsevert @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:41:54 PM UTC

It has nothing to do with Michael Moore's movie (4.00 / 1)

It's for Sick and Sicker, a viciously anti-"Obamacare" film. Totally different.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 17:48:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]