05.11
UPDATE: Well, it’s a little different than the impression that I was given. Bloomington Transit is, in fact, not a private company, which certainly changes things. The article was written as though it was, and I maintain that private companies should have the rights I mentioned. However, public companies have the responsibility of being open to all legal points of view, especially since, for one, it’s definitely not illegal to be an atheist. I regret the error and wish the bus campaign the best. The original article follows below, regardless.
I’ve often seen advertisements on buses touting God or quoting Bible passages, but I’ve never seen bus advertisements touting atheism. There’s such a campaign in Indiana, and they were just rejected by Bloomington Transit. Their statement, which I found via Unreasonable Faith:
Bloomington was first on the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign’s list of places it hoped to run bus ads. However, the city has rejected our campaign’s slogan, ‘You Can Be Good Without God.’ This is deeply disappointing to our campaign’s members; we all love Bloomington and were very much hoping to run ads in our hometown along with many other cities.
Following their rejection of our ad’s slogan, Bloomington Transit referenced their ad policy, which currently states that they may reject any ad they feel is ‘too controversial.’
However, we are not giving up. Today the ACLU of Indiana, on behalf of the campaign, is filing a lawsuit against Bloomington Transit on First Amendment grounds. No campaign donations will be spent on the suit.
To be honest, I wish Bloomington Transit had accepted the ad, but I hope the ACLU loses the suit. It seems to me like a private company should have the right to choose what content does or does not appear on their product. I think about my blog here: if I were to ever have advertising or other content hosted on here, I want the first, last, and only say on what does or doesn’t appear here. I would never allow fundamentalist advertising on anything of mine. You know what? That’s my right. The reverse should hold true, too: although I wish people would open up their minds a little more – the slogan of this rejected campaign is, “You can be good without God”, which I think is solid – it should be up to the company. Really, the ACLU has no place here: it seems to me that they’re in a conflict of interest, since to support the ad campaign, they have to step on a private company’s right to choose its content.
That’s not that unreasonable, is it?
(TE)DC
The reason there's a lawsuit is the Bloomington Transit is public, not a private company. If it were private, there would, of course, be no suit. The ACLU wouldn't have filed one.
However, in this case, because the transit corporation is public, there is a case. The case involves first and fourteenth amendment rights (due process and freedom of speech). The ad policy that states something 'too controversial' can be rejected is too vague a policy, thus violating the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The ACLU/IN ABC are asking this policy be removed and replaced with something more reasonable, and also asking that our ads be allowed.
Of course, if our ads are allowed, it will open up the way for religious ads to be allowed, but that's fair and equal treatment under the law and it should be that way.
Thanks for the clarification! I was under the impression, obviously, that the transit company was private, which obviously creates a much, much different scenario. I'll go ahead and update it now. Good luck.
[...] A while back, I wrote about how an atheist bus ad campaign had been rejected and that the ACLU had stepped in. Well, long story short, they ended up winning, and now the policy on bus ads has changed: If you’re looking to advertise cigarettes, churches, politicians, guns or porn, don’t even think about approaching Transpo. The public bus line for South Bend and Mishawaka adopted a policy Monday spelling out exactly the types of advertising Transpo will allow plastered on the sides of its fleet. [...]