This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
U.S. atheists sue to run bus ads for a God-free lifestyle
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Azazel
So you're done talking in this thread?
Post by
Gone
No I just dont want to argue about religion vs atheism anymore, it just gos in circles. Ill talk about the bus and weather or not people have the right to denie it and such.
Post by
ExDementia
I actualy have mild dislexia, but I dont really like saying that because people think its like a mental retardation or something, but its just a problem people have with spelling. Something to do with looking at a word and recognising the word itself rather than the individual letters while reading. So I read and write really fast, but reading outloud I tend to stumble over words and as you can see I have spelling issues.
I have what started to be a fairly severe case of dyslexia to the point where they put me in special classes early on in school. I learned from one of my high school teachers who has it about as bad as me, how to adapt and not let it be a problem. If I quickly scribble something out, it can be next to unreadable. So I taught myself little tricks to remember not to mix up letter order and sentence structure.
That's also part of the reason why I hate handwriting things, and love typing instead. Like when signing birthday cards, I always have a few letters scribbled out and it makes it look crappy.
As a fellow dyslexic-ridden poster, I'll give you a few tips that have helped me out tremendously.
1. Proof read. Easy as that.
2. Don't use dyslexia as an excuse. Another thing my teacher taught me was to NEVER use it as an excuse as to why you can't do something. I had my boss tell me one time he wouldn't have given me certain tasks if he knew I had dyslexia, even though I did the job perfectly fine because I know how to work with it, and around it.
In fact, it has made me more observant and given me great insight into the finer points of the English language by trying to cover up my "condition".
3. Use a pencil or type text when you can. That way after you proof read (see step 1.), you can easily fix your errors.
I eventually convinced the school to take me out of the special classes because my "condition was becoming less severe". That pisses me off because it is implying it is something I am maligned with that is out of my control. Sadly this is how most people look at it, and that contributes to a helpless attitude towards it.
Post by
Gone
I actualy have mild dislexia, but I dont really like saying that because people think its like a mental retardation or something, but its just a problem people have with spelling. Something to do with looking at a word and recognising the word itself rather than the individual letters while reading. So I read and write really fast, but reading outloud I tend to stumble over words and as you can see I have spelling issues.
I have what started to be a fairly severe case of dyslexia to the point where they put me in special classes early on in school. I learned from one of my high school teachers who has it about as bad as me, how to adapt and not let it be a problem. If I quickly scribble something out, it can be next to unreadable. So I taught myself little tricks to remember not to mix up letter order and sentence structure.
That's also part of the reason why I hate handwriting things, and love typing instead. Like when signing birthday cards, I always have a few letters scribbled out and it makes it look crappy.
As a fellow dyslexic-ridden poster, I'll give you a few tips that have helped me out tremendously.
1. Proof read. Easy as that.
2. Don't use dyslexia as an excuse. Another thing my teacher taught me was to NEVER use it as an excuse as to why you can't do something. I had my boss tell me one time he wouldn't have given me certain tasks if he knew I had dyslexia, even though I did the job perfectly fine because I know how to work with it, and around it.
In fact, it has made me more observant and given me great insight into the finer points of the English language by trying to cover up my "condition".
3. Use a pencil or type text when you can. That way after you proof read (see step 1.), you can easily fix your errors.
I eventually convinced the school to take me out of the special classes because my "condition was becoming less severe". That pisses me off because it is implying it is something I am maligned with that is out of my control. Sadly this is how most people look at it, and that contributes to a helpless attitude towards it.
Thanks Ill try and keep that in mind. I know what you mean about the implication that its something out of your controll, thats why I dont even like to mention it to people.
Post by
Pwntiff
No I just dont want to argue about religion vs atheism anymore, it just gos in circles. Ill talk about the bus and weather or not people have the right to denie it and such.
Ok, the public bus company doesn't have the right to deny the ad so they are allegedly asking for nearly $40,000 as a deposit, which allegedly no other organization has to pay. These are the facts of the case, as they stand.
Post by
ExDementia
Thanks Ill try and keep that in mind. I know what you mean about the implication that its something out of your controll, thats why I dont even like to mention it to people.
Exactly :)
Now back on topic!
Post by
Gone
No I just dont want to argue about religion vs atheism anymore, it just gos in circles. Ill talk about the bus and weather or not people have the right to denie it and such.
Ok, the public bus company doesn't have the right to deny the ad so they are allegedly asking for nearly $40,000 as a deposit, which allegedly no other organization has to pay. These are the facts of the case, as they stand.
If thats true then thats kind of messed up. But I still think they had the right to dennie it, but charging more money from an atheistic groupe in order to discourage them from taking out the ad is not ok.
Post by
Pwntiff
No I just dont want to argue about religion vs atheism anymore, it just gos in circles. Ill talk about the bus and weather or not people have the right to denie it and such.
Ok, the public bus company doesn't have the right to deny the ad so they are allegedly asking for nearly $40,000 as a deposit, which allegedly no other organization has to pay. These are the facts of the case, as they stand.
If thats true then thats kind of messed up. But I still think they had the right to dennie it, but charging more money from an atheistic groupe in order to discourage them from taking out the ad is not ok.
No, they don't.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Granted, that means that states are more or less free to do as they please, but since CATA is at least partially federally funded, they have to abide by federal laws.
Since my edit seems to have encountered caching issues: PDF of the legal filings:
http://unitedcor.org/sites/default/files/edit-contentfile/national/UnitedCOR%20v_%20CATA%20Complaint.pdf
Post by
Gone
No I just dont want to argue about religion vs atheism anymore, it just gos in circles. Ill talk about the bus and weather or not people have the right to denie it and such.
Ok, the public bus company doesn't have the right to deny the ad so they are allegedly asking for nearly $40,000 as a deposit, which allegedly no other organization has to pay. These are the facts of the case, as they stand.
If thats true then thats kind of messed up. But I still think they had the right to dennie it, but charging more money from an atheistic groupe in order to discourage them from taking out the ad is not ok.
No, they don't.
IMO they should, incedentaly has there already been a legal decision about this or are you just saying this as a hypathetical? Has a court decided on the case that they do or do not have the right?
Post by
Pwntiff
IMO they should, incedentaly has there already been a legal decision about this or are you just saying this as a hypathetical? Has a court decided on the case that they do or do not have the right?
Then your opinion is wrong. They filed June 1. I've linked a copy of the complaint that was filed.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Nearly 85% for CATA's funding
comes from the government
. If it were a privately owned and funded business, they could say, "We don't want to run this ad," but they aren't, so they can't.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
IMO they should, incedentaly has there already been a legal decision about this or are you just saying this as a hypathetical? Has a court decided on the case that they do or do not have the right?
Then your opinion is wrong. They filed June 1. I've linked a copy of the complaint that was filed.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Nearly 85% for CATA's funding
comes from the government
. If it were a privately owned and funded business, they could say, "We don't want to run this ad," but they aren't, so they can't.
So then somone would be within their rights to take out an ad with a swasticka on it? Under the letter of the law as you describe it they should be able to.
Also dont say "your opinion is wrong" it just shows your ignorance.
Anyway the answer is no there has not been a legal decision, and again yes the bus company has the right to turn down an ad like this. The first amendmant has no bearing on this because its not a law thats restricting their freedome of speech or something like that, its just a company turning down buisness. Now if they purchased a bilboard or were just standing on a soap box talking about atheism and somone stopped him that would be in violation of their first amendmant rights.
Post by
Pwntiff
Read the complaint. They turned it down because of it's "religious" nature (lack thereof, really), which is in violation of the First Amendment.
Depends on the use of the swastika. If it's the obviously red, black, and white Nazi swastika, that falls under incitement; if it's ancient Hindu holy symbol, it's still violation of the First Amendment.
Maybe "Your opinion is wrong" is a little strong. How about "Your opinion violates federal law"?
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Read the complaint. They turned it down because of it's "religious" nature (lack thereof, really), which is in violation of the First Amendment.
Depends on the use of the swastika. If it's the obviously red, black, and white Nazi swastika, that falls under incitement; if it's ancient Hindu holy symbol, it's still violation of the First Amendment.
Maybe "Your opinion is wrong" is a little strong. How about "Your opinion violates federal law"?
"I disagree with your opinion" would be a better way of putting it, after all your not a federal judge any more than I am, its not for us to say what somone has the right to do or not do in this situation, just what we think they have the right to do or not do.
Im not going to pretend I know everything about the law, but to me this seems more like turning down buisness than violating somones first amendmant rights.
I actualy have to head to work, but I will leave one thing to think about before I do. When you sign up with Blizzard their terms of use basicly says they can ban your account for literaly any reason theyd ecide. Its entirley possible that bus companys may have something similar about deciding which ads they take on, I mean they only have room for so many, if they turned down this one in favor of another, then its within their rights to use any criteria they decide.
Post by
Pwntiff
Hang on a minute here. Are you sugesting atheism has more in common with nazism than it does with religion?
He's trying to apply the counter the "violates the First Amendment" argument with a horribly fallacious example. Promoting Nazi-ism, Neonazi-ism, or White Supremacy is both obviously inciting and promoting the violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Since you aren't going to look into it, I'll post it here. These are excerpts from the goddamned complaint I've been pointing you at since I posted it.
In response to an e-mail message dated February 28, 2011, from Plaintiff’s media
broker to the Advertising Agent conveying the content of the Proposed Advertisement, the
Advertising Agent forwarded the message to Betty Wineland, the Executive Director of the
Authority, stating in her accompanying message (in its entirety): “Dear God……HELP!” Ms.
Wineland replied: “I need Him now more than ever. Good grief. I think we need to throw
religion into the advertising policy – as a negative. Stall while CATA reviews.” Lydia
Robertson, president of the Advertising Agent, then replied to Plaintiff’s media broker, stating
that “we are placing this order in a special category” due to the risk of “damage/vandalism done
to the buses or signage due to its message.” She then stated that “in reality, Arkansas is the
buckle of the Bible Belt and I can easily envision zealots or upstanding citizens with a strong
faith acting out.”
The Defendants insisted that any contract with the Plaintiff contain a provision
providing that the Plaintiff indemnify the Advertising Agent against any damage to the signs
displaying the Proposed Advertisement or the Authority’s buses and provide a damage deposit
against such contingency in the amount of $36,000.
In an e-mail message dated March 3, 2011, Ms. Robertson admitted that “I have
never before required such a deposit.”
In an e-mail message dated March 8, 2011, the Advertising Agent stated that the
Authority “is concerned about image in the community” and referred to signs such as the
Proposed Advertisement as “controversial.”
Following this refusal, the Defendants were contacted by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
In an e-mail message dated March 10, 2011, the Advertising Agent sought the Authority’s prior
approval for an e-mail message to be sent to the Plaintiff’s attorney in response from the
Advertising Agent. The Advertising Agent suggested to the Authority that it let the Advertising
Agent “take the heat for awhile” and “Leave CATA out of it; CATA can say On the Move
responded on our own.” The proposed message was then in fact sent by the Advertising Agent
to the Plaintiff’s attorney.
As revealed in e-mail messages attached to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(which are incorporated herein by reference) relating to a variety of other advertisements rejected
by the Defendants that were provided to the Plaintiff pursuant to a request under the Arkansas
Freedom of Information Act (the “FOIA Request”), it is clear that the Defendants’ standard
review procedure is for the Advertising Agent and the Authority to discuss the content (including
the viewpoint) of proposed advertisements and, if the Authority disfavors or disapproves of the
content thereof, to reject them.
The Defendants have stated that there is no official written policy governing the
categories of advertisements that are not permitted on the Authority’s buses.
The Authority admitted in an e-mail dated February 28, 2011, that it had no policy
excluding advertisements on the topic of religion from the public forum created by the
advertising space on its buses.
The Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to the Defendants dated May 9, 2011, stating
that the Plaintiffs intended to file this complaint if the Defendants refused to enter into a contract
with the Plaintiff to run the Proposed Advertisement as soon as possible on the same standard
pricing and terms offered by the Defendants to every other advertiser.
The Authority’s attorney sent a letter to the Plaintiff’s attorney dated May 12,
2011, that referred to “the history of terrorism that follows the intentionally inflammatory
advertisements sought to be placed by the .”
The Advertising Agent’s attorney sent a letter dated May 16, 2011, to the
Plaintiff’s attorney. Despite the fact that the letter referred to the Plaintiff as a “terrorist
organization,” a proposed form of contract (the “New Contract Offer”) regarding the Proposed
Advertisement was attached to this letter.
In contrast to the Advertising Agency’s standard form of advertising space
sublease contract (the “Form Contract”), an example of which was provided to the Plaintiff’s
attorney pursuant to the FOIA Request, the New Contract Offer (i) requires that the Plaintiff
“indemnify and hold harmless the against all personal; injury, damage
or loss to person or property caused by . . . persons, theft, burglary, assault, vandalism, any
criminal act . . . acts of terrorism, acts of public enemies or other causes, unless same is due to
the gross negligence of . . .”; (ii) permits the Advertising Agent to
remove all of the Proposed Advertisements from the Authority’s buses if “any damage occurs to
the signs, Advertising Space, or any other portion of the property on which the . . . advertising
appears” unless due a cause “purely accidental in nature”; and (iii) requires that the Plaintiff
name the Defendants as additional insured entities on an insurance policy with a coverage limit
not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $3,000,000 in the aggregate covering “contracted
liability, hired vehicles, advertising liability, and acts of vandalism and terrorism.”
None of the above provisions appear in the Form Contract, nor do any
substantially similar provisions.
If you want to read the full text, it's still
here
.
They are being denied because CATA doesn't want to run atheistic ads.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ryja- the point you're missing is that it's NOT a company. It's a government-funded institution. They technically cannot discriminate against someone based on religious views, just like they can't discriminate based on race or gender or disability.
Let's put the example out like this. Lets say that instead of it being an ad about Atheism, it was an ad for the Dyslexic Association of America (don't know if that's real or not), and bus company decided that they expected there to be extra costs associated with running the ad- lets say that they tried to rationalize it by saying there might have to be extra re-writes or spell checking or something. Would you say that they have the right to charge that organization more than any other organization? Most people would call that discrimination.
That's what's happening here. Except instead of them being prejudiced against a certain condition or disability, they think that people won't like the message, so they want to charge extra money for the ad space- money they don't charge anyone else. They say it's because they worry about vandalism.
My personal opinion is that there shouldn't be ANY kind of religious advertising on government funded buses, but if they allow any of them then they have to allow all of them.
As far as whether or not there has been a ruling, there doesn't need to be one for someone to know that something is against the law. If your neighbor gets drunk, drives his car into your house, and throws your computer into the pool, the law says he's responsible to the damages. But you can't actually collect until there's a court order. That doesn't mean that no one knows whether or not he's legally responsible- just that he is contesting it so there has to be a hearing. If you told the story to someone, and they said "Well you don't know that the law will say he's responsible, because there hasn't been a hearing" you would look at them like they had two heads. Because the law exists that says he is, and you just have to go through due process to have the law applied.
And, for your question about the swastika, posting that would be discriminating against Jewish people- so, no, they wouldn't have to post that.
Post by
Monday
In your opinion, a federal organization should have the right to completely defy federal law and withhold rights to citizens?
Also, just to help with what Ex said. You may want to get Firefox, as it has built-in spell check and will let you know when you're misspelling stuff, so you can learn from it in the future.
Yes, Firefox is amazing. It spoils me, a lot. I think I've forgotten how to spell like half the words I did before, because I can just use spell check >.>
Post by
Gone
I had a post I deleted idk if anybody saw it but it said it would take 5 minuts to reflect on the site. Im done though with this debate, its giving me too much of a headache. I will say though I am not an idiot, I know its a govermant funded company, and I fully understand everything being said on the other side of this debate, I just dont agree. To me this does not seem slike it violates anyones first amendment rights, and PLZ do not tell me why you think it does, we each have our own opinion, ive given mine thats all. Peace out leavin now, see yall at the next one ;-P
(posted from my iPhone)
Post by
Pwntiff
And, for your question about the swastika, posting that would be discriminating against Jewish people- so, no, they wouldn't have to post that.
As I said, it depends on the swastika. It was around for over 4,000 years before the Nazis screwed it up.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.