Vaginas and insurance: Billboard warsBy Tim Redmond
The group Consumer Watchdog is going after Mercury Insurance. Absolut Vodka is going after guys, I guess, with what appears to be a giant vag in the sky.
And guess which image the billboard company removed?
Steve Lopez at the LA Times says "its funny what passes for offensive these days.
Now, I don't find pictures of vaginas offensive (it's supposed to be a mango, but WTF?). But I agree with Lopez that removing a billboard critical of an insurance company is, at the very least, a free speech issue.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (2)
It's not a constitutional issue, Steve, but a moral one. The first amendment applies to government action...not action by the private sector.
I think the larger problem here is that one company controls so many billboards. Why should Clear Channel (or any other billboard company) have that kind of control over the de-facto channels of public discourse?
Posted by Joe Morse | September 11, 2009 08:18 AM
It's Tim, not Steve, and I would disagree with your analysis. If one company, or only a handful of companies, controls the billboard marketplace, and those billboards are regulated by the government and thus limited to a finite number, then there's a real First Amendment issue here. Same with broadcasters -- they have in effect a government license to use the airwaves, and the public has the right to demand certain standards. I've always supported the Fairness Doctrine for that reason, and I think it's censorship when government licensed billboard companies limit what is clearly an exercize of free speech.
You can buy a billboard to sell vodka, but not to criticise and insurance company? That's a problem.
Posted by Tim Redmond | September 11, 2009 12:00 PM