Wonder why the two young women in the video related that billboard sign to Proposition 8?

"As a religious person, I am offended by this."

And I'm offended by Viagra commercials, Mormons continually asking me if I've heard about Jesus, unilateral and preemptive war, gargantuan SUVs, Proposition 8, and a myriad of other things. But you don't see me protesting billboards for them.

So much for free speech and freedom of religion...

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religion. The government did not outlaw the billboard or force them to take it down. The company that put it up decided to take it down, just like some billboard companies decided not to display other atheist billboards.

I personally don't have a problem with the billboard, nor do I have a problem with the religious billboards. As long as neither are hateful or attacking, they're just offering a point of view. I really don't see how the billboard was hurting anything. If the government put the billboard up then that would be a different issue.

In the end it was a business decision, not a freedom issue. The company thought it might hurt their business so they took it down. The "First Amendment R.I.P." is completely off-base since this does not involve the government in any way (from what I can tell at least).

Unfortunately, this is how business works. It doesn't matter if the people who complained about the billboard have good reasons or not. If you're a business, you want to stay in business, and that means minimizing the amount of people you piss off. I don't think this situation is covered by an discrimination laws.

On the bright side, they people who paid for the billboard got all of their money back and the ad was broadcast across the world due to the news coverage. I think they got a pretty good deal, don't you?

This is not a first amendment case, because as a private entity, the billboard company can choose not to render their services to anyone.

That said, the company could have shown a little backbone.

Allowing arbitrary political, religious or market forces to veto what may be part of the general cultural and political discourse is antithetical to the concept of free expression in an open society.

This is also an issue of "religious" persecution. If I'm turned away from a restaurant on the basis of my (non)religion or ethnicity, that's illegal. The billboard company should not be at liberty to refuse to do business on the open market with people or groups on the basis of their beliefs, or how others respond to their beliefs.

If theology has veto power over the market, and the market makes these decisions, the market is simply a tool of theocracy.

If churches where buying up all the billboards in order to control what is on them, that is a legitimate (and expensive) market intervention.

When people call in and file complaints and threaten boycotts of companies who do business with people they disagree with, they are demanding religious persecution, that is a political intervention in the market. Don't try and cleanse this by passing it through the market, this is systematic religious persecution, the government permits it and the business enacts it. Selling billboard space does not give one the right to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious views, that is a "freedom" the government does not, and should not, permit its citizens.

From what I've been able to gather, the complaints were made to the CITY (Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency) and then passed on to the company.

You are absolutely correct - the company has the right to put up (or refuse to put up) whatever it wants on its billboards (however, they still should honor contractual agreements that they freely enter into - but that's another issue).

The local government had no right nor duty to pass along complaints to a private company (do you really think they would EVER do this regarding a religious-themed sign?), thus encouraging the sign's removal.

So I must take exception to the claim that this has NOTHING to do with the first amendment...

And yeah, the R.I.P. is hyperbolic. So sue me...

rights are not possible without a sufficiently advanced philosophy.

I don't know of any other group that has a persecution complex quite like the Christians. As a whole, they are probably the single most powerful religious group on the planet, yet they flip out and play martyr whenever someone doesn't buy what they're selling.

2:34 TYPO
Fred Boon - Athiest

Atheism fail.

^Not fail.
They got the billboard on the news and all over youtube.
Atheism Win.

>> ^ObsidianStorm:
From what I've been able to gather, the complaints were made to the CITY (Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency) and then passed on to the company.
You are absolutely correct - the company has the right to put up (or refuse to put up) whatever it wants on its billboards (however, they still should honor contractual agreements that they freely enter into - but that's another issue).
The local government had no right nor duty to pass along complaints to a private company (do you really think they would EVER do this regarding a religious-themed sign?), thus encouraging the sign's removal.
So I must take exception to the claim that this has NOTHING to do with the first amendment...
And yeah, the R.I.P. is hyperbolic. So sue me...



I disagree. If all the city did was to pass along complaints that they mistakenly received, I don't see a problem with it. IF they told the company to take it down because of the complaints that would be different. Having the city just pass along complaints seems like the correct thing for the city to do. Based on your option, if the city receives complaints for anything, they should just ignore it? They obviously shouldn't step in and make a decision on this sign, nor any others unless they are vulgar in some way, in which case, depending on the circumstances they may have to get involved.

Depending on the contract that the FRFF signed, the company might be found in breach, should they decide to pursue that avenue. I think it would be a mistake w.r.t. their broader goals--atheists are seen as overly litigious by society at large as it is--but they might have a case.

Punisher -

That's EXACTLY what they should do - ignore the complaints.

When you are a government official (elected or otherwise) you are not to intervene in issues such as this. I know this having held elected office in my community.

If the sign was in any way lewd or vulgar, it would more than likely be addressed under a public nuisance ordinance, in which case the city would be duty-bound to address it. Under any other circumstance it potentially amounts to violating the establishment clause.

Passing this on as a private individual is one thing but as a representative of the government, pulling crap like this leaves you (justifiably IMHO) wide open for a lawsuit and that's precisely what's happened.

This has nothing to do with the first amendment at all: it has to do with capitalism. Billboard owners are free to post whatever they like. No one is forcing General to take it down, they chose to themselves after hearing that people don't like it. Sorry, but you're mislabeling this.

I have to agree with ObsidianStorm, having the complaints passed on by government officials carries with it a certain amount of weight. Even if that wasn't the intent of the government official that passed it on. We can't be sure what the officials were actually thinking, but we can probably assume it was a not so subtle suggestion to do something about it. As for the company itself, using business as an excuse seems a bit of a farce. Honestly, how would the general population boycotting a BILLBOARD company really hurt them? How many average citizens do you know that rent billboards? Billboards are rented by corporations and businesses, both of which usually steer clear of religion and politics for this exact reason.

I imagine the responses would have been nearly identical if a religious billboard was removed due to complaints, except the names of those opposed and in favor would have been reversed.
"It's a violation of freedom of speech!"
"It's just capitalism!"

Only I wouldn't expect complaints to lead to a religious billboard being removed. It's noble to stand up to complaints against religion. It's immoral to stand up to complaints against atheism. (That's my perception of societal standards, not my personal belief.)

Here are the press releases about this, from the Freedom From Religion Foundation - www.ffrf.org

Censored! FFRF Billboard Removed by Outdoor Company
"Imagine No Religion" Billboard Comes Down in Cucamonga
http://ffrf.org/news/2008/censorship.php

FFRF Sues City of Rancho Cucamonga over Censorship of "Imagine No Religion" Billboard. Asks for Punitive Damages.
http://ffrf.org/news/2008/rancho_complaint.php

also... If you want to complain the billboard company:
General Outdoor Advertising
909-983-4414
http://www.general-outdoor.com/Contact.htm

Freedom "from" religion is not a "right".

Private company, their billboard.

How long would a "Homosexuality is wrong" billboard last in that same liberal-fascist environment?

^Well, "God hates Fags" is still hanging in some places, and is permitted because of the first amendment. Even if it is despicable.

The company that owns the signs have the right to not put up anything they want, just as any store can choose not to serve you for whatever reason. It may be political persecution from the religious, but the store is not to blame in that. It's their right to not show it.

One could argue that "the market" quashes the obscure or quiet, while the loudmouths are preferred and therefore something like public signs should be handled by a public entity, ie. the government.

Another proof what religion does to people: IT MAKES THEM FAT:-) look at those overfed kinder gardeners speaking in the video

hopefully in the future people will be called up on spreading lies on billboards, so the religious ones would have to be pulled down - and the ones made by freethinkers would be the only ones standing.

>> ^Lordoderus:
I have to agree with ObsidianStorm, having the complaints passed on by government officials carries with it a certain amount of weight...

That's fine, as long as it doesn't involve enforcement. The city can even suggest that they take it down due to complaints, but they can't force the company to take it down legally.

Ideally the local gov't would tell anyone that called them about it that it doesn't violate any laws and that they should contact the billboard company. Maybe they were doing that, the video doesn't say. They could have been passing along the information as a courtesy, which is fine with me. It is understandable that some people wouldn't want that to happen at all, but it still isn't a first amendment issue because the gov't isn't enforcing anything in this case.

If the town made it illegal to put up atheist billboards then that would be a definite problem, but I can't really get worked up over them passing along information unless they were strongly suggesting it be taken down. Even that wouldn't be breeching the first amendment, it would just be poor character.

Edit: They are suing the local government over this, but it seems to be over the city "suggesting" that it be taken down. If that is all the city did then I don't know how far the lawsuit will go (unless the city also "suggested" that there would be consequences if they didn't take it down).

You know, I've heard the old "It's freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion," before and it really pisses me off because even if you take the words as give, it's still bullshit.

Muslims are getting a bad rap for their religion. Even some different Christian groups can't stand each other. Hell, everyone takes the piss out of the Scientologists!!! If I go start a new religion based on WeWah, the God of Nourishment, should I really have the right to insist that I'm taken seriously? Ok, maybe that last one goes a bit far but you get the point.

So, please, don't give me the bullshit of you can beleive in whatever religion you want as long as it's not "no religion", because what you really mean is that you want people to believe YOUR religion and if they don't they're gonna burn.

Sure, agnostics and atheists are gonna burn hotter, but still...

^ If I've got to go to hell to get away from Christians, punch my ticket now.

Magic is REAL.

Really. It is true.Some magic zombie dude rose from the dead to save the white man from evil. Now lets convert slaves to Christianity too and subjugate them completely. A slave adopting their slaver's god. Brainwashing at it's best.

Angels are real. Demons are real too. Horned red dudes with forked tails. Really. I am telling you the truth. If you don't believe me, you must be living in the REAL world or something.

change from "First Amendment R.I.P." to "Capitalism Reigns Free". That's it, nothing more to see here

"you should also watch ace of base - the sign."

right on.

"it is offensive to anyone with any religious belief"...

...err... no it's not. in fact, what she just said offends me. maybe i should ban her.

I wonder how many Christian billboards I can get removed by complaining?

I call myself an atheist too, but I also know what would happen in this world if there were no religions.
A new age of chaos.
Religious belief was already proven by SCIENCE to be genetic in humans. Some people just believe in different things, even though they dont call them religion.

Anyway, its still silly to remove such a sign. On the other hand it wouldnt be stupid to remove a sign that states "Imagine No Laws".

This post has been removed from the Philosophy channel by channel owner mauz15. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.