Bigots get ClearChannel to replace Cambridge gay billboard to Navy ad

[Ian David]

Cross-posted in GLBT forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=14361&mesg_id=14361


Cambridge, Massachusetts

From the anti-gay bigots at The Article 8 Coaliton

ONE-DAY SERVICE !! BILLBOARD COMPANY SWIFTLY REACTS TO PUBLIC OUTRAGE. OFFENSIVE SIGN CAME DOWN IMMEDIATELY!

Your voices were heard! Wednesday at noon we posted the picture below. By 2:30 pm we were told that the company planned to take it down the next day! And it did (see below).

How much worse does it get? Two naked men embracing, wrapped in an American flag, advertising a pornographic homosexual "hook-up" web site. This is where the gay movement is taking you, unless you take action.

The billboard company apologized to callers, but tried to spin the story to the press. Interesting to note: they claimed that the sign had been up for several months, but only yesterday did they receive any complaints! Well . . . notice that they don't have their company name on the billboard. EVERY other billboard has the company name on it. So we had do do a fair amount of research to find out it was owned by ClearChannel Communications.

Read the Boston Globe article - and more! Billboard company spins story. ACLU weighs in in favor of homosexual client (why aren't we surprised?) and portrays critics of billboard as "fringe". Also, some (sickening) excerpts from Gay.com web site. . .
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/banner_0705/bb_press.htm


Read report on national WorldNetDaily news site.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45473


Billboard on Massachusetts Ave. near M.I.T:
Wednesday:

The gay movement since the same-sex marriage ruling: pushing it in people's faces. Does the position of the men in this picture have some significance?)


Thursday:

NOTE: The "ClearChannel" logo is back on the top of the sign. Notice it's not on the previous sign. Why do you suppose that is?

[henslee]

1. Excessive squeamishness about gays is gayer than being gay.

[Kurovski]

2. So they took down an ad for Jeff Gannon's latest venture?

:shrug:

Will he now switch it to "sailorstud.com"?

[dogday]

3. Those pictures don't look right

look at the position of the billboard, then look behind it to to building with the metal rods on it.... It doesn't look settled in the same position to me....

[Kurovski]

4. It's a different angle.

[Ian David]

6. Notices sent to:

1) Billboard Liberation Front
2) Freeway Blogger
3) Boston Jammers
4) Mainstreet Moms
5) Other organizations that might be interested

[unrepuke]

5. I think it's just from taking the pic from a slightly different position

But replacing a gay sign with a Navy one === uh, is there a big difference here?


Clear Channel has one up in my 'hood that bothers me - advertises radio station KMET, which, I think, is Limbaugh's channel here, and states "Liberals may not like it."
They're right - I don't.


BTW, I'm ex-Navy. Not gay, but I damn sure saw a lot of it

[unrepuke]

11. Oops...I just read in another post that it is KFI with Rush, and

on second thought I think the bulletin advertises KRLA.
My bads. :-(

[LondonAmerican]

7. Is it unintentional irony

that the post-censorship billboard has the word FREEDOM on it? Ugh.

[Chipper Chat]

8. The Gay.com billboard has much more artistic class

than those awful, blatenly-fake e-harmony.com commercials on TV.

[Ian David]

9. So, someone from Boston Adbusters responded to me...

> ----- Message from [e-mail] ---------
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:35:28 -0400
> From: Michael Xxxxxx <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: Michael Xxxxxx <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Bigots replace gay dating ad with Navy recruitment billboard
> To: Ian
>
> The [e-mail] mailing list is for people working on the
> issues of over-advertising and commercialism. It is not a gay rights
> group. It is not a multi-issue left wing group. Use of this mailing list
> for anything but AdBusters issues constitutes abuse.
>
> I ask you to henceforth refrain from using this mailing list for
> non-AdBusters issues.


And my response to him:


I would say that the war in Iraq-- and the attending military recruitment-- is the most egregious and bloody manifestation of commercialism imaginable.

Military recruitment is commercial advertising for the war in general and Halliburton in particular.

I'm sorry if you disagree, and apologize for wasting your time.

Please re-consider your position on this?

Thanks!

----

On-edit:

The dickhead kicked me off the list!

Your mail to 'Boston' with the subject
Military billboards are commercial advertising with a bodycount

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:
Post by non-member to a members-only list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel
this posting, please visit the following URL:

[Ian David]

10. Re: Military billboards are commercial advertising with a bodycount

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005
From: Michael Mxxxxx <[e-mail]>
Re: Military billboards are commercial advertising with a bodycount

I think that's really stretching it. This is the kind of the talk that
makes the average shmo think we're nuts, and with good right. War
existed long before commercialism. Yes, some corporations benefit from
the war in Iraq, but to call the war itself commercialism is abusing the
English language.

If you want to oppose the war as a separate issue, that's fine with me.
I once marched against the war. I probably won't do it again, because
when I got there, most of the signs people carried had nothing to do
with the war in Iraq, and I felt a silly being there. As a result, it
did not like a serious protest to the public at large.

The question is, who you be willing to work against commercialism with
someone who supports the war? Or maybe with someone (like me) who
supports the capitalist system, however critical we may be of its
excesses? As a general point, who you be willing to work for a cleaner
environment with someone who is anti-abortion? Or for human rights with
a conservative Christian? The real question is: are you tolerant enough
of other people to be able to work with people who agree with you only
on some issues.

This is has long been a big issue for me. People on the left (I am a
moderate) always want to link everything together, and it reduces their
effectiveness. Personally, I don't want my politics as a package deal.
I'll pick chose my positions on a case by case basis. You'll win few
hearts if you expect people to swallow a hundred positions at once.

And when we link things so speciously, we sound like those people who
try to blame the sexual depravity of conservative Catholic priests on
other people's liberal values.

Let's stay on point.

[Bill McBlueState]

12. odd

It sounds like the guy has some personal issues he's taking out on you, rather than expressing the opinion of adbusters. I don't know anything about the list you posted to or much about what adbusters does, but his response is surprisingly angry.

[Ian David]

13. Thank you. I thought so too.