Should Anti-Abortion Advertising be Banned?

[DC Al Fine]

Some months ago, a group called "Signs for Life" started buying bus shelter and billboard ads in my city. They look like this.



Recently, I was contacted by a friend of a friend who's trying to get a petition signed in an attempt to ban signs like this in my municipality. The petition is accompanied by an eassay and can be read here.

I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about this, so I'll refrain from posting a rant for now. I'll just leave this choice quote from the essay

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's an interesting peek into the reasoning of a certain segment of the pro-choice movement. What do you think?

[Deus Naturae]

No, if the government is going to be in the advertisement business, it should sell advertisements to the highest bidder, no exceptions.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If I spelled out my fulling opinion here, I'd come off as the cold asshole I am, but my position is known.

[bedstuy]

I think regulation of advertising signs needs to be content-neutral, that is without regard for the message conveyed.  Valid regulation could rightly restrict advertising signs altogether from an area or restrict violent or graphic content.  But, the basic principle of free speech is that people should be allowed to express political views.  That goes for any political view, whether it's a legitimate view like pro-life or Nazism.

That said, I really dislike the tendency of anti-abortion protesters showing disgusting photos of mutilated babies to people.

[Goldwater]

No, if the government is going to be in the advertisement business, it should sell advertisements to the highest bidder, no exceptions.

[PJ]

No, it's a bad idea. As unfortunate as that situation may be, freedom of speech/expression should not be violated for that reason. And while I disagree with pretty much everything the pro-life movement stands for, they should have a right to exist and campaign for their cause.

[H. Ross Peron]

No unless you also support banning anti-war protesters from holding signs of mutiliated children.

[TNF]

All advertising should be banned as it is a completely wasteful form of economic activity.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course not.  It's free speech.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

All advertising should be banned as it is a completely wasteful form of economic activity.

[tmthforu94]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

[Goldwater]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

And the video games. "Think of the children!" is probably the quickest path to tyranny, or at the very least to nanny statism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

And the video games. "Think of the children!" is probably the quickest path to tyranny, or at the very least to nanny statism.

The second being a category of the first.

[they don't love you like i love you]

All advertising should be banned as it is a completely wasteful form of economic activity.

At the very least, roadside billboards should be heavily regulated for aesthetic reasons. Advertisements like the one shown in the OP (even innocuous ones, e.g. for the co-op that only sells organic, locally-sourced food) invariably make their neighborhoods look hopelessly blighted.

Um no. They look urban, not having ads like that on street corners reminds me of bland suburbs since they're the ones that don't have them. Plus they give funding to the city's transportation systems, losing that money would make things worse and cause a lot more blight.

To answer the question obviously no.

[bedstuy]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

And the video games. "Think of the children!" is probably the quickest path to tyranny, or at the very least to nanny statism.

The second being a category of the first.

Conservatives think it would be OK if GLAAD started buying billboards in Texas depicting explicit gay sex scenes.  Interesting...

[traininthedistance]

All advertising should be banned as it is a completely wasteful form of economic activity.

At the very least, roadside billboards should be heavily regulated for aesthetic reasons. Advertisements like the one shown in the OP (even innocuous ones, e.g. for the co-op that only sells organic, locally-sourced food) invariably make their neighborhoods look hopelessly blighted.

Um no. They look urban, not having ads like that on street corners reminds me of bland suburbs since they're the ones that don't have them. Plus they give funding to the city's transportation systems, losing that money would make things worse and cause a lot more blight.

To answer the question obviously no.

There are countless features that can give a streetscape an urban feel (i.e. interesting and safe for pedestrians) without relying on garish advertising. Most advertising of this kind is so generic and lacking in meaningful relationships to the street around it that it detracts from sense of place. I won't quibble with the necessity for funding public transportation, but plastering busses and bus stops with advertisements does make using it less pleasant.

Public transit has accepted advertising dollars for space on its vehicles and facilities since time immemorial.  If you ever go to the MTA Transit Museum, you can see their set of vintage subway cars, complete with (rather delightful in that time-capsule way) vintage ads and PSAs.  Viewed in that light, I don't think it really distracts from "sense of place" at all, tbh.

I agree there's a case to be made against particularly large/garish billboards on the street, but it's hard for me to get worked up about this issue, especially since it is, pragmatically, a necessary part of these agencies' bottom line.  So I guess I agree with BRTD on this issue.

As for the OP; I remember there being a brouhaha about the MTA trying to reject an Islamophobic ad put out by Pamela Gellar's folks, and being rebuffed by the court on free-speech grounds.  Now any advertisements that do issue advocacy for religion and politics have this ugly disclaimer that the MTA doesn't endorse their views.  I guess my stance is that it would certainly be better if such ads didn't exist, and we should exert social pressure to discourage them, but actually banning them outright opens up a can of worms that I don't think I can get behind.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

And the video games. "Think of the children!" is probably the quickest path to tyranny, or at the very least to nanny statism.

The second being a category of the first.

Conservatives think it would be OK if GLAAD started buying billboards in Texas depicting explicit gay sex scenes.  Interesting...

If whoever is willing to sell them, I guess. I mean, it'd be pretty sick (not in the good sense), but it's not my conscience.

[bedstuy]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

And the video games. "Think of the children!" is probably the quickest path to tyranny, or at the very least to nanny statism.

The second being a category of the first.

Conservatives think it would be OK if GLAAD started buying billboards in Texas depicting explicit gay sex scenes.  Interesting...

If whoever is willing to sell them, I guess. I mean, it'd be pretty sick (not in the good sense), but it's not my conscience.

If you can acknowledge that certain things are better not shoved in people's faces, I don't see the problem with some common-sensical restrictions IE No dead babies, no frontal nudity. 

[ElectionsGuy]

No. Government shouldn't be regulating private advertising, period.

[Link]

No. Government shouldn't be regulating private advertising, period.

Ugh.  Absolutely no thought given...

[bedstuy]

No. Government shouldn't be regulating private advertising, period.

Ugh.  Absolutely no thought given...

That brings up a good point.  There is no private advertising in a sense.  The point of advertising is to make a message as public as possible.  To do that, advertising needs a public medium to grab people's eyeballs; the frontage of a public roadway, the public airwaves, public transit, etc.  If advertising appears in those collectively held areas, we can insist on a few modest regulations and fees. 

[Link]

No. Government shouldn't be regulating private advertising, period.

Ugh.  Absolutely no thought given...

That brings up a good point.  There is no private advertising in a sense.  The point of advertising is to make a message as public as possible.  To do that, advertising needs a public medium to grab people's eyeballs; the frontage of a public roadway, the public airwaves, public transit, etc.  If advertising appears in those collectively held areas, we can insist on a few modest regulations and fees. 

Yeah I think each individual person should have as many rights as possible.  But I don't think other people's rights should trample over mine with absolutely no regard.  It's like smoking in planes and restaurants.  Just because I have to travel for work and eat in restaurants doesn't mean I should have my cancer risk elevated just because someone else doesn't care about their health.  Smoke at home and look at obscene or disturbing advertising at home.  Don't plaster it where the rest of us are just trying to go about our day.

[ElectionsGuy]

No. Government shouldn't be regulating private advertising, period.

Ugh.  Absolutely no thought given...

Actually, I did put thought in. Admittedly my statement sounds like one straight out of the libertarian/conservative playbook, but I really meant it. I was considering going for option 3, but decided that advertising should be seen by everybody, and if its to graphic then it should be threatened to take down it should get enough criticism by people. But really for an advertisement exposed for the public it shouldn't be too graphic. When I said "private" I was preferring to the organizations and entities that put these things out, not that it was a public advertisement (obviously advertisements are supposed to be public).

[Goldwater]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

And the video games. "Think of the children!" is probably the quickest path to tyranny, or at the very least to nanny statism.

The second being a category of the first.

Conservatives think it would be OK if GLAAD started buying billboards in Texas depicting explicit gay sex scenes.  Interesting...

Dan't assume that me and Cathcon speak for all conservatives.