Best Protests Money Can Buy

If I ever open a chain of businesses, I think I'll take a controversial stance on something as fast as possible. Chick-Fil-A has two lines running long today: the protest lines, and the drive-thru's. From CNN:

Former GOP presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum encouraged people to show their support for Chick-fil-A by buying food there Wednesday. Huckabee dubbed the day "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" and touted in his TV and radio shows and online.

Over 550,000 visitors to Huckabee's event page on Facebook have responded that they will participate. The action enjoys the support of the Rev. Billy Graham.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have organized a simple counterprotest for Wednesday, asking people to donate the approximate cost of a Chick-fil-A meal, about $6.50, to gay and lesbian rights groups, according to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

I've never eaten at Chick-Fil-A in my life. I'm not in any hurry to start. But I can't help but notice how it's been more free advertising for a business than I've seen in a long time.

The dialogue is all good, far as I'm concerned. The only real danger is when cities like Boston or Chicago threaten to either not approve future expansions in their cities, or threaten to ban them outright. It's one thing for individuals to act upon their consciences, but quite another for municipal governments. There's no such thing as a collective conscience- or if there is, there is no such thing as individual freedom of speech.

Update: The Indy Star (yeah, yeah) covered the long lines at Chick-Fil-A stores around the central Indiana region.

No More Free Speech for Philly

Got a blog in Philadelphia that maybe runs some Google ads for chump change? Then the city wants you to pay $300 for a business license. From the Philadelphia CityPaper:

For the past three years, Marilyn Bess has operated MS Philly Organic, a small, low-traffic blog that features occasional posts about green living, out of her Manayunk home. Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she's made about $50. To Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it's a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.

In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.

This blog has never earned a penny. It is a hobby for me. If I were sent a bill, I would probably do one of three things- close the blog, ignore the bill, or build coalition with every other blogger or any stripe to go on the attack against the City on 1st Amendment grounds.

Yeah, the latter. Business licensing is plain wrong, and this case illustrates it as well as any. Who is protected by running out small-time blogs? Yeah, local governments.

(h/t: Josh Gillespie)

Free Speech Isn't Always Easy To Sort Out

I had a Facebook dialogue prompt this post, centering on Super Bowl ads for CBS' broadcast, where in one case, perfectly good money was refused because of one controversial message, and in another, a different controversial message will be aired. From a Christian Science Monitor article:

Working in a tough advertising climate, CBS surprised many Americans by explaining a new policy on advocacy ads after news emerged that it had agreed to show an antiabortion ad featuring Florida QB Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.

That decision caused an uproar over the ad itself, the sponsor (the conservative organization Focus on the Family), and the prospect of politics seeping into a three-hour block where most Americans are trying to escape from the daily grind.

But after CBS on Friday rejected a potentially controversial ad from ManCrunch, a Toronto-based gay dating site, it opened itself up for criticism – which came fast and furious. The so-called “man-kiss ad” shows two football fans touching hands over a bowl of potato chips, which then leads, as the ad implies, to a make-out session."

CBS has a problem when they do something like this at the same time as they allow an anti-gay group like Focus on the Family to place ads during the Super Bowl,” says Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD.) “This network should come clean to the public about what's going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard."

Well, of course it's a double standard. Interested parties certainly should be unhappy with CBS. Complain loudly if you don't like it. Just don't call it censorship or an affront to free speech.

As owner of their channel, CBS has every right in the world to air, or not air, anything it chooses. They have the right to display any bias they wish with their advertising. That is genuine free speech, when the owner of the medium decides. Indeed, the worst case scenario would be that CBS was made to air an ad it didn't wish to. That's worse than censorship. That's fascism, literally, where one owns a property, but is dictated as to its' use.

As for me, I would love to see other broadcast stations take up the ad. Sure, it's not the same as advertising to the largest TV audience of the year. At the same time, the rejection has generated some buzz that would-be advertisers don't usually enjoy more than a week before the big game.

So, here's what all the fuss is about:



Just doing my part to show that ManCrunch hasn't been censored. Gratis.

(The most objectionable part is showing a Packer and Viking fan embracing. Everyone knows that would never happen.)

Update: Apparently, there is an ad that should be every bit as controversial as these, courtesy of Bud Light. Check out this Reason blog post.

Commercial Speech Banned In Indy

I'll never forget the experience of driving through Silicon Valley in 1998. Upon entering the area from the north, the highway driver was greeted by signs proclaiming the presence of HP, Intel, and a host of computer and tech company billboards. It was actually an exhilerating experience. The billboards let you know you were in the midst of something exciting and on the cutting edge.

Contrast that with the attitudes of billboards in Indianapolis. From an Indy Star report:

Norman Pace, land-use chairman for the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, said he had waited eight years for the signs' demise. Thursday, he drove from his Warren Township home to the north split, the junction of I-70 and I-65 on the north side of Downtown, to watch the sign be dismantled.

"It was an eyesore blocking our city's beautiful skyscape," Pace said. "It detracted from the quality of life here. We don't want to look like one of these cities that are filled with billboards."

Pace and other billboard opponents call the signs "litter on a stick."

No, you sure wouldn't want Indy to resemble a vibrant place like Silicon Valley. So much better to make it look like the kind of place not worth advertising to.

Interestingly, the cityscapes are often decried as a kind of litter that hides the natural beauty of the environs. I realize that in such places there are mountains, hills, molehills or any other kind of terrain. The point is, eyesores, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

More importantly, freedom of speech suffers. I looked at the First Amendment, and while nowhere does it say "except for billboards", it also says "Congress shall make no law". Is this cause for celebration among the state's rights crowd? Maybe I'll get an explanation here.

In the meantime, we can add a new entry into the list of restrictions on freedom of speech at wikipedia, which is an interesting read. A line in the wikipedia description of freedom of speech is exactly as I have it:

The United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.

Commercial speech is still speech. So, was it necessary to remove the billboards? I'd love for Indianapolis to have to make the case to a higher court. To bad Pinnacle, the billboard company, won't be suing. From the Star:

Pinnacle has gone out of business, and an attorney for the company said that happened because the company lost the revenue the signs would have generated.

This action was begun under the Peterson Administration. Too bad Mayor Ballard hasn't done anything to reverse course here.

Indianapolis- killing speech, killing businesses. There's a motto for a billboard at the city limits.

ACLU Uses Wrong Approach

The ACLU filed suit today to attack an Indiana law that requires book stores to register with the state and pay a fee if they sell sexually explicit materials. From an Indy Star report:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and attorneys for several national organizations representing booksellers filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court today seeking an injunction barring enforcement of a new state law which requires businesses that sell sexually explicit material to register with the state.

The new law, approved earlier this year by the General Assembly, takes effect July 1.

The lawsuit names the prosecutors of Indiana's 92 counties as defendants because they are responsible for enforcing the law. The law covers new businesses and existing businesses that move to a new location after June 30.

I know what you're thinking- this is America, and banning speech is patently un-American. You're right! This case has enormous merit, and is exactly the sort of law an organization that defends civil liberties should attack. It's that I find their method boring.

The ACLU is made up of lawyers, so they think and act like lawyers. They sue. Not me. I think one of the best ways to get rid of bad law is to force compliance.

Instead of naming all 92 prosecutors as defendents, the ACLU should have pressed them all to prosecute every new or relocated religious book store that has the Bible on its' shelves, or the Chirstian 'birds & the bees' manual for parents. Make them register with the state and let them be labeled 'pronographer' or 'smut peddler'. Let these very innocent and innocuous examples be prosecuted to the full, embarassing extent of the law. See if they don't rush to have the law repealed. See if the prudes in the Statehouse aren't eaten alive by the very people they tried to pander to with this stupid, offensive law.

On another note, it sure makes me glad that our state reps and state senators find time to pass this law, yet fail to provide real, non-shell-game tax relief. Complete bastards.