Baptist minister says that this billboard takes free speech 'too far'
Theists seem to have money to burn — littering our highways with billboards promoting a belief in their magic ghost. However, when the other side of the debate wants to bring its point of view to the marketplace of ideas, the theists wig out.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation put up a billboard in Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said “Imagine No Religion.” The billboard company is now taking down the billboard and refunding the FFRF’s money after the city received more than 90 complaints about the advertisement, according to Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Director, Linda Daniels. (source). Daniels is quoted as admitting state action that got the billboard yanked down.
“We contacted the sign company and asked if there was a way to get it removed,” Daniels said. (source)
Whoops.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation explained the purpose of the billboard:
“It’s asking people to think,” she said. “We want people to realize you don’t need religion to do good, and that if we didn’t have religion, the world would be less divisive. . . . Think of how many people have been killed in the name of a supernatural being that there has never been any evidence for.” (source)
Judy Rooze, administrator of First Baptist Church of Rancho Cucamonga is quoted as calling the billboard “unsettling.” (source)
“I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far,” she said. “It’s very jarring.” (source)
This controversy brings to mind the brilliant line from the movie Quills. When the Marquis De Sade has his writing censored by the local priest, he screams:
Are your convictions so fragile they cannot stand in opposition to mine?
It certainly shows little belief in the strength of one’s superstition religion when one can’t handle a billboard that questions your beliefs.
HT: Jacob Grier via Nobody’s Business
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
This (as well as the De Sade quote) brings to mind something I’ve been trying to get my head around in the wake of the election: the seemingly growing trend of theists of all varieties, and in my experience many conservatives as well, regardless of their faith, to advocate denial and wholesale rejection without contemplation. What puzzles me is that, historically speaking, some of the most significant thinkers have come from religous providence. Most of the “big questions” have been argued, philosphized, and fought over under the unbrella of religion. It’s I think too easy to say that they just don’t have conviction of their beliefs or are scared of being questioned or challenged. That may well be true in many cases. But the contemporary pattern suggests something more. The rise of fundamentalisms the world over seems bigger than just fear.
I’ve been meaning to blog about something related in the context of Proposition 8 boycotts.
I’m with you here because you haven’t sought to portray this as a free speech violation. It’s not. One group contracted through a private entity to speak, another group engaged in more speech complaining to the private entity, the private entity made a decision to take the contracted speech down. All were acting within their rights.
The correct response is further speech ridiculing the church for being overly sensitive and incapable of receiving opposing views, as you suggest. But this is not a free speech violation, and should not be portrayed as one. It should also not be portrayed as a violation of the “spirit of free speech,” as the “spirit of free speech,” when trotted out, is usually an elaborate justification to tell Speaker A to shut up — or to speak less effectively — so as not to deter Speaker B.
I think the free speech implication comes in if the private billboard company took it down as a direct result of the city’s request:
“The billboard company is now taking down the billboard and refunding the FFRF’s money after the city received more than 90 complaints about the advertisement, according to Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Director, Linda Daniels. ‘We contacted the sign company and asked if there was a way to get it removed,’ Daniels said.”
Albeit, a request may not rise to the level of actual state action. Still, the city’s response tot he complainers should not have been to contact the billboard company. Rather, they should have suggested that those folks get their own billboard.
I’m not sure that a suggestion or request rises to the level of state action. If there were any threat, actual or implied, it would be a different story.
Yeah, I’m not 100% certain the “state action” rises to a First Amendment violation either. It depends on the context of that conversation.
However, it seems like there was some impropriety there. If the city gets a complaint like this, it should simply tell the complainy-pants that the municipality has no control over the billboard, that it is a private company, and if they want to complain, to call the billboard company.
I think it is a problem when the city makes the call to the billboard co. on behalf of the complainy-pants. If city hall calls you and says “we’re getting complaints,” city hall doesn’t need to say “therefore, you better take it down.” A cop doesn’t need to threaten you with arrest to coerce you, and neither does city hall.
Of course, your first comment is right — there isn’t a First Amendment issue with the 90 complainers. They have a right to complain, the billboard company has a right to cancel the contract (well, if the contract allows it to, which I’m sure it does), and FFRF has a right to be peeved.
The question of whether the city can call and engage in speech — complaining — is an interesting one. On the one hand, caselaw pretty clearly establishes that the government does not violate rights by engaging in its own speech celebrating or decrying things. If the Nazis march on Skokie, the Mayor of Skokie does not violate anyone’s rights by saying that the Nazis are bigoted jackasses who ought not do that.
On the other hand, government speech can definitely approach intimidation.
It’s probably a fact-based inquiry.
You’re clearly right. I just suspect that the facts trend toward state action. Your Skokie analogy is perfect. But, tweak it… if the KKK wants to have a cross burning at a private campground that they rented, and the Chief of Police calls and says “we have had complaints,” that might be an issue.
In this circumstance, the city should have, if it wanted to, simply said “we don’t agree with the message, but we believe in the marketplace of ideas.”
What the city did here was place a finger on the scales of that marketplace… perhaps a slight or subtle one, but it seems like the finger was there.
FFRF has a pretty bad ass legal team. Lets see if they make the claim (I would imagine they wont — and they’ll keep their powder for another fight).
Really, what the billboard company should have done was ask for all the compliany-pants’ contact info, and then offered to sell them all their own billboards. A city-wide billboard debate on religion vs. no-religion would be hella good for business.
Yep, exactly what happened on the phone is unknowable. One good immediate speech remedy is to loudly proclaim the city officials to be the theocrats’ nut-sucking little lapdogs and contribute to the next nimrod who wants to run against them.
(laughing hysterically)
By the way, Eugene Volokh posted a couple of times about the question of when government criticism crosses the line into suppression here. And I had a polite exchange with one of the fine folks at The FIRE here and here (There, the issue was whether a college president condemning a parody was a violation of freedom of expression).
It’s a fascinating area, with occasionally wobbly boundaries.
Imagine No Religion: Imagine No Marketplace of Ideas « The Legal ……
The Freedom From Religion Foundation put up a billboard in Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said “Imagine No Religion.” The billboard company is now taking down the billboard and refunding the FFRF’s money after the city received more ……
[…] the Freedom From Religion Foundation is going to go to take its billboard battle to the courts. See Imagine No Religion: Imagine No Marketplace of Ideas. A billboard with the message “Imagine No Religion” by the Freedom From Religion […]
[…] At the WSJ Law Blog, Amir Efrati discussed the First Amendment claims raised in a South Carolina case concerning religious-themed license plates South Carolina Christians will still be able to use bumper stickers to proclaim their superstitions to the people behind them in traffic. See us on Proselytizing Plates Punted in Palmetto State. In the same theme, Nobody’s Business shows us that Christians seem to believe in the First Amendment and the Eighth Commandment when it suits them and them only. Howard Friedman at Religion Clause already knew that when he reported on the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s foray into faith-based censorship. […]