Christian censorship: Atheist billboard taken down

[Jose Fly]

Atheist Billboard in Alabama Gets Taken Down Two Weeks Early Following Complaints from Local Residents

Earlier this month, the following billboard went up in Mobile, Alabama (along with other billboards in two other cities) to mark the launch of the Gulf Coast Coalition of Reason:

While the contract said the billboard would be up for a month beginning around Christmas, the placement of that ad was actually delayed by two weeks.

Delays happen. So the simple solution would be to keep the billboard up for an extra two weeks to make up for the lost time, right?

That’s not what Lamar Advertising is doing. They’re taking the billboard down now, as the contract originally stated, even though it hasn’t been up for a full four weeks

Free speech!! Censorship!! Soon it'll be illegal to be an atheist!!! Aaaaaahhhhhhh!

:chuckle:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Atheist Billboard in Alabama Gets Taken Down Two Weeks Early Following Complaints from Local Residents


Free speech!! Censorship!! Soon it'll be illegal to be an atheist!!! Aaaaaahhhhhhh!

:chuckle:

That, would be a good thing!

 

[serpentdove]

That, would be a good thing!

:chuckle:

[From his article] "Earlier this month, the following billboard went up in Mobile, Alabama (along with other billboards in two other cities) to mark the launch of the Gulf Coast Coalition of Reason..."

:dizzy: They think it's

reason vs. faith when it's faith vs. faith. Ps. 14:1; Ps. 53:1

See:

Atheism & Agnosticism

 

[serpentdove]

 

[Word based mystic]

yes serpent dove . atheism is faith.
True atheists have discarded their science approach to developing their atheist philosophy.
They cannot disprove through science that there is a God. Yet they militantly imply that God does not exist.

probability mathematics shows that a designed and ordered atmosphere or setting is way more likely to be developed by a creator.
Life birthed from life is way more likely than life coming from self creating accidents.
and yet they choose the improbable.

 

[Jose Fly]

Very interesting responses so far. It seems the fundamentalists' call for "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" only applies to Christians. Everyone else? Too bad.

 

[Town Heretic]

Very interesting responses so far. It seems the fundamentalists' call for "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" only applies to Christians. Everyone else? Too bad.

I'm not particularly moved by the claim of an infringement of speech here since the tasteless billboard in question was actually up and visible. The rest is a matter of contract and a likely discount for missing the initial deadline.

Many companies that rent space, especially desirable ones, have large chunks of time rented out, much like some apartments, well in advance. It's no more or less likely that the next paid patron was due for their use and the complaints had nothing to do with anything, not that Llamar wouldn't let them think otherwise given the nature of the advertising area.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not particularly moved by the claim of an infringement of speech here since the tasteless billboard in question was actually up and visible.

I don't think it is actually an infringement of speech either, but I guarantee you if this had been a Christian billboard, those on the right would be screaming that their rights had been violated.

Many companies that rent space, especially desirable ones, have large chunks of time rented out, much like some apartments, well in advance. It's no more or less likely that the next paid patron was due for their use and the complaints had nothing to do with anything, not that Llamar wouldn't let them think otherwise given the nature of the advertising area.

If they delayed the atheist billboard going up by two weeks, then certainly they can delay the next billboard as well. Also, the company apparently cited the number of complaints when they told the atheists that it was coming down.

Seems pretty clear to me what happened.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Or

:think:

I call it freedom of being atheist idiots.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't think it is actually an infringement of speech either, but I guarantee you if this had been a Christian billboard, those on the right would be screaming that their rights had been violated.

Could be. The further you go out on either end of the spectrum the louder and more self sensitive people tend to get.

If they delayed the atheist billboard going up by two weeks, then certainly they can delay the next billboard as well.

Which might then delay another and there's nothing better, as a business practice, than seeing how many contract suits and retainers you can have on the books at any given time. :nono:

And I thought it read the billboard was delayed without going into why. Since it hadn't been up to draw complaints I wouldn't be surprised if the delay had nothing to do with controversy and everything to do with a tangential, like work crews or weather.

Also, the company apparently cited the number of complaints when they told the atheists that it was coming down.

Coming down at the contract's end, so that sounds more like a PR appeasement than anything else, especially given Llamar appears to have counter offers of compensation.

Seems pretty clear to me what happened.

Sure, it always does to someone with an expectation, but all we know is that for some unknown reason the billboard went up late and came down on time. And in between people griped about it. :idunno:

 

[serpentdove]

...It seems the fundamentalists' call for "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" only applies to Christians. Everyone else? Too bad.

:yawn: The American soldier fought for your freedom :5020: to make bone-headed comments (Jn 8:36).

 

[Jose Fly]

Which might then delay another and there's nothing better, as a business practice, than seeing how many contract suits and retainers you can have on the books at any given time. :nono:

And I thought it read the billboard was delayed without going into why. Since it hadn't been up to draw complaints I wouldn't be surprised if the delay had nothing to do with controversy and everything to do with a tangential, like work crews or weather.

I haven't seen anyone complain about the delay in it going up. The issue is it being taken down before the agreed to 4 weeks was over.

Coming down at the contract's end, so that sounds more like a PR appeasement than anything else, especially given Llamar appears to have counter offers of compensation.

The contract was for 4 weeks, they took it down after 2 and cited the complaints when they informed the atheist group.

Sure, it always does to someone with an expectation, but all we know is that for some unknown reason the billboard went up late and came down on time. And in between people griped about it. :idunno:

It's pretty simple really. The atheist billboard is supposed to be up for 4 weeks, but there's a 2 week delay in getting it up. Ok, things happen. But then the company calls the atheist group and tells them it will only be up for 2 weeks and cites the number of complaints as a reason. So the atheists are kinda irritated.

Given the entirely benign nature of the billboard, I understand why they're upset.

 

[Town Heretic]

I haven't seen anyone complain about the delay in it going up. The issue is it being taken down before the agreed to 4 weeks was over.

Sounds like the contract was time specific too. If it was a date to date then Llamar was in breach when they missed the first and the rest of the conversation is about mitigating damages.

The contract was for 4 weeks, they took it down after 2 and cited the complaints when they informed the atheist group.

Actually, I believe the contract was time sensitive. Had they put it up and taken it down on time it would have been four weeks.

Here's what your article said:

They’re taking the billboard down now, as the contract originally stated, even though it hasn’t been up for a full four weeks.​

Ok, things happen. But then the company calls the atheist group and tells them it will only be up for 2 weeks and cites the number of complaints as a reason.

Except that's not what the article said. According to the article Llamar said they were taking it down now as per the contract. Additionally, the atheist group said Llamar had communicated a number of complaints about the billboard and the atheist group "questioned" whether that motivated Llamar to go with the date certain instead of the four week implied.

That's a bit different.

So the atheists are kinda irritated.

They have every reason to be given they paid for one thing and got another.

Given the entirely benign nature of the billboard, I understand why they're upset.

I assume you're being willfully obtuse. Entirely benign campaign meant to launch during the height of the dominant culture's religious holy month...right. Rather an immature stunt, but a very real legal issue.

 

[fool]

I'm not particularly moved by the claim of an infringement of speech here since the tasteless billboard in question was actually up and visible. The rest is a matter of contract and a likely discount for missing the initial deadline.

How do you find this billboard "tasteless"?
I'm hard pressed to imagine how it could be any less confrontational than it was.

 

[Town Heretic]

How do you find this billboard "tasteless"?

I'm a bit surprised to find you asking that, but okay, as per my last to fly: [a] campaign meant to launch during the height of the dominant culture's religious holy month. That's in poor taste and it was designed to be confrontational by virtue of its timing. Launch it in May and it's just a peculiar billboard you see in route to Spring Break. Put it up during the Christmas season and it's a calculated headline grab in the making.

I'm hard pressed to imagine how it could be any less confrontational than it was.

Then something very, very serious has happened to your imagination...I imagine.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm a bit surprised to find you asking that, but okay, as per my last to fly: [a] campaign meant to launch during the height of the dominant culture's religious holy month. That's in poor taste and it was designed to be confrontational by virtue of its timing. Launch it in May and it's just a peculiar billboard you see in route to Spring Break. Put it up during the Christmas season and it's a calculated headline grab in the making.

On the other hand, for a message intended to express solidarity with non-believers, the Christmas season is exactly the most timely part of the year, precisely because of what is happening in the dominant culture.

I think you're assuming the target audience is really Christians. I don't think that's true.

It's not always about you, man. :madmad:

 

[fool]

I'm a bit surprised to find you asking that,

I'm surprised you're surprised.

but okay, as per my last to fly: [a] campaign meant to launch during the height of the dominant culture's religious holy month.

Holy month? A google of Holy month returns mostly Ramadan, I wasn't aware Alabama was predominantly Muslim.
Many Christian sects have a Holy Week but that's usually pertaining to Easter.

That's in poor taste and it was designed to be confrontational by virtue of its timing.

I see alot of fireworks safety PSAs around the 4th of July. Are those "confrontational by virtue of their timing"?

Is fireworks safety anti celebration?

Did this billboard attack anyone?

You make the point for the billboard by pointing out that it's directed at people who don't adhere to the dominate religion at the time they might feel the most alone.

Launch it in May and it's just a peculiar billboard you see in route to Spring Break. Put it up during the Christmas season and it's a calculated headline grab in the making.

Only because small minded people made it that way.
What's the insult here? Is it an insult to imply that some people in Alabama might not believe in a god? Is that it?

That billboard doesn't attack or insult any one in any way, it's a question, a statement, and a web address. If people are insulted by the mere fact that some people might not believe as they do then they deserve to be insulted. Repeatedly.

Then something very, very serious has happened to your imagination...I imagine.

There are some billboards we've seen offered that are attacks at specific religions, this one doesn't even remotely fall into that category.

So tell me, if I want to put up a billboard to reach out to other Atheists during the time they might most feel alone what should it say?

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm surprised you're surprised.

I'm shocked you're surprised I'm surprised.

Holy month?

I'm sorry if my shorthand confused. December is the month within which Christians, comprising the dominant culture/larger part of the nation's populace commemorate/celebrate the birth of the central figure in the Christian religion, Jesus Christ. I wouldn't have used the shorthand had I realized that might not be common knowledge among non Christians. lain: Given how little of the religious is noted in the commercial and public square maybe the problem is ignorance...but then you'll argue against that by the end of this, so...

I see alot of fireworks safety PSAs around the 4th of July. Are those "confrontational by virtue of their timing"?

Only to those advocating the unsafe use of them.

Did this billboard attack anyone?

Someone's been attacked? Who said that? Let's put up a billboard and give them the what for.

You make the point for the billboard by pointing out that it's directed at people who don't adhere to the dominate religion at the time they might feel the most alone.

No, I didn't say that. I said it was tasteless and then started answering attempts to shape my objection and the objective facts (that is to say, correcting Fly's factual errors in retelling the narrative found in the article that was the foundation for his OP].

In response I made the point it's confrontational by virtue of it being meant to have launched at a time when most of that public is involved in the Christmas holidays. That strikes me as willful and inconsiderate, tasteless. It isn't an attack on liberty or person and I haven't confused it with one.

Only because small minded people made it that way.

Silly thing to say.

What's the insult here?

Where's the insult in talking about finding fault with the institution of marriage while you're surrounded by a wedding party?

Is it an insult to imply that some people in Alabama might not believe in a god? Is that it?

I haven't treated you as though you're stupid. I'd like to think you'd reciprocate and not try to erect straw men or suggest some tizzy I'm not having merely because I noted the aim and placed a value on it. And the Alabama angle is beneath you.

That billboard doesn't attack or insult any one in any way

Supra on attack. Insult is a bit broad.

If people are insulted by the mere fact that some people might not believe as they do then they deserve to be insulted. Repeatedly.

Not the issue.

So tell me, if I want to put up a billboard to reach out to other Atheists during the time they might most feel alone what should it say?

Why would an atheist feel any more alone in December than they do in January? There's such a strong parallel secular celebration going on this feels like an invention. Most public expressions are carefully tailored to encompass. Forty years ago I'd have been more appreciative of the point. Today, not really.

 

[rexlunae]

Reading the article, it does sounds a bit like the group that put up the billboard is kinda looking for a fight. But I don't see anything really objectionable in the billboard itself.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Reading the article, it does sounds a bit like the group that put up the billboard is kinda looking for a fight.

Atheists acting like X-Men: it's not a disease, it's evolution!

As if the cure for anyone who has real problems has ever, ever been 'there is no God'.
Tell that to virtually any institution that exists today

They are picking a fight which they pretend to win, but actually don't.