Anti-war ads rejected during State of the Union

Yeah, but you know these broadcast companies want nothing to do with those ads in terms of timing. Reps and Dems would explode all over those companies for running those ads during the State of the Union.

 

Actually, I believe broadcast companies can halt or not play ads based on their own whims if they desire. First Amendment doesn't apply here.

 

while they can certainly have that view point and express it, they arent guaranteed the rigth to buy time for a commercial. cnn has every right to refuse anything they want. the same way the WB would refuse that great miller lite ad during 7th heaven.

 

Depending on one's views, yes, that could make someone chuckle.

 

Actually, it's not that simple--since the State of the Union address is a specifically and explicitly political event, the First amendment IS implicated.

What's questionable is whether it's the controlling precedent in this particular instance, since it was a paid ad, rather than the Democratic rebuttal. This is one of the fundamental problems of our current two-party system--all sorts of voices are excluded from the political arena.

My gut feeling is that the First Amendment is not controlling because it's a paid ad, and it wasn't the government, but a private entity, that refused to air the ads. However, the right to broadcast on the airwaves, or carry broadcast signals is a public trust--it's not a simple market situation. Under that kind of reading, this IS a First Amendment violation, and Comcast could be in serious trouble.

gildarkevin is the guy to talk to on this one, if he's around here somewhere. He actually makes his living as a First Amendment lawyer.

 

This isn't true. CNN has to answer to the FCC.

 

One could make an equally compelling argument that forcing a company to run a PAID ad is infringing their 1st Amend. rights, no?

 

No. Forcing them to run a FREE ad could be an infringement of their First Amendment rights. As long as they're collecting a fee for the commercial, the First Amendment rights being infringed are those of the content provider.

Keep in mind that the only reason that this question is even coming up is that the State of the Union address is an explicitly political event, and the commercial was unquestionably political speech. Without BOTH of those elements, the peaceniks have no case at all. Since both are present, it's an open question.

 

Corporate censorship is nothing new. For example, ABC, CBS and NBC have all refused to run the 30-second Adbusters commercial for Buy Nothing Day every year since the event was set up in 1992 despite the BND proponents' willingness to pay for the air time. Sometimes the networks claimed they couldn't run the ads because the ads were "too political" which is patently absurd as the networks run political campaign ads which are nothing BUT political! For the past few years they've switched tacks and are claiming that an embargo on shopping would threaten "the current economic policy of the United States." I'm glad that the network execs are so terrified of the 30-second ad spot and believe that they must protect the American people from it by censoring it from our own airwaves.

 

$5,000 well spent???????????


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$ So much for "free" speech. $$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



Does the media like Comcast have the right to judge on which ad to run rather if you are with agreement or not?

And what are the certain claims or charges for one person or group to air and ad on TV?

 

Unlike, say, the MPAA / Palestinian movie argument here a few days back, the claim that "the networks are private and can run what they want" doesn't really apply here. It does to some extent, but not entirely.

Networks can refuse political ads on public taste grounds, but they can't, for example, air ads for one candidate if the other is willing to pay the going rate. How an issues ad such as this pertains to that - someone else can figure that out. But I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast had to defend itself in court over this.

 

Wow, you flatter me Dan, and put me on the spot. What tipped you off that I was posting here as well now? It's been a while since you played for Gildar, thought you had blocked those unpleasantries out of your memory altogether.

I think this is a clear cut case of private action, so there's no First Amendment implications here. Comcast doesn't even have to sell ads if they don't want to; thus, they can decide whether who to sell them to.

Dan is right that the explicitly political nature of the event might have some bearing, but only if this were an advertisement for or against a legally qualified political candidate, not an issue, and if it was within a required period of time before a primary or general election. In that case, there is a federally mandated right to "equal time" under Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 -- without editing. And things can get pretty dicey about what would be run on those ads. I can recall cases in which the station wanted to excise graphic materials from a reply ad from an anti-abortion candidate but was forced to keep them in the ad b/c the law said so.

But even that law said that the right of reply only existed if the station first ran an ad supporting the opposing candidate first. Hence, no requirement to sell time, but if you do, you must give equal time.

There used to be a similar rule for issues as well, called "The Fairness Doctrine" but its no longer in effect, as the FCC basically abandoned it in 1987. Interestingly enough, it was never actually declared unconstitutional, so it could be brought back at any time. A "right of reply rule" that was required of newspapers was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1974.

Answer: I think its a cowardly act by Comcast, but in no way unconstitutional.

 

I wonder if since the networks cited "the the current economic policy of the United States" as a reason for rejecting the Buy Nothing Day ads and since said policy is undoubtedly political in nature (hence the opposition here to other possible economic arrangements) the Adbusters folks could argue that each ad urging people to buy is therefore a political statement to which the "Fairness Doctrine" applies.

 

They should have let the "Buy Nothing Day" ads run outta sheer hilarity and irony.

 

I saw one of your posts on the DCU Fans board, I think--something about 'Te, if I remember right. Besides, I didn't block those memories completely. We had some fun when I wasn't cussing out referees or getting my ribs broken.

That's what I thought as well, but I wasn't sure that it was as clear cut as all that.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks! I was leaning that way myself, but wasn't sure. We haven't done much work in this area of late. Actually, I'm leaving CRB next week anyway. Time to do something else with my life.

 

I agree. The funniest thing about the situation is the TV execs all quaking in abject fear of a 30-second ad spot that 90% of the population will blithely ignore. I mean, this is the country that doesn't care if it supports terrorism by buying gas guzzling cars so do the execs really think our politico-economic system will really be brought crashing down by a Buy Nothing Day ad? Then again, nothing is so terrifying to a totalitarian regime like a corporation than the least bit of dissent so I can see why the execs aer so scared.

 

That's the FCC that Colin Powell's son runs, right?

 

This is the stupidest ************ing thing I've ever heard. CNN is a privately-owned company, and has no obligation to show any ads. (Hell, it doesn't even have to show the State of the Union address if it doesn't want to.)

If you don't like it, start your own cable company and carry the peacenik ads.


Alex