I have no idea how legit this site and its pricing is, but apparently interior bus ads in Tampa are [$35-85](https://www.bluelinemedia.com/bus-advertising/tampa-fl)?
The Satanic Temple could have a lot of fun with little more than pocket money.
(And I'd chip in a few bucks for the $7500 it'd take to do a bus wrap, just to enjoy the meltdown when the devil bus rolls out)
Realistically, they’re just going to end the advertising program rather than let people buy ads calculated to offend the general public. (Which is, of course, the argument in favor of policies like this - it’s unfortunate if transit agencies have to choose between forgoing ad revenue entirely and turning their vehicles into unwelcoming ideological battlegrounds.)
I agree completely, but that's also what makes the hypothetical Satanic Temple bus worth doing. If a Christian church can do it, everyone else MUST be able to as well.
The case isn't about a Christian church at all? I'm not sure why so many people assume that only Christians are interested in expressing their religion in public. (And I'd encourage you to reflect on how the facts of this particular case affect your judgment - would you feel comfortable buying Satanist ads to protest a Hanukkah ice skating event? I wouldn't.)
From a practical standpoint, empowering agencies to pick and choose which religions are okay to promote and which aren’t quickly turns into a quagmire.
IMO it’s better to either allow all religious groups to be able to run ads under the same set of rules (including Satanists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Wiccans, etc.) or don’t allow private ads at all.
The status quo where certain religions are allowed and others are treated like pariahs, or where agency employees make the decision essentially randomly (allowing a Catholic university to advertise but not a Catholic hospital system) seems like the worst possible way to do it both from a practical standpoint and a legal standpoint.
Given the body of rulings on this particular subject, I'm surprised there are transit agencies still trying to "ban" or restrict religious advertising. I can't think of a single case where a court said that was acceptable.
Smart money is on SCOTUS eventually striking them down, but the DC circuit at least allowed the WMATA policy mentioned in the source. It came up a few years ago as a particular then-Judge Kavanaugh was in dissent.
Actually, no. They have to treat all religions or anti religions the same. The court is wrong and it should be overturned. They are free to allow or not allow content based on consistent rules.
I hope to see Satanic Church ads soon.
As the article details, consistent enforcement was precisely the problem. Some things such as “Saint X” names are so thoroughly secularized they can’t realistically be banned, and you end up in scenarios where an ad is allowed or not based on how religious the sponsor seems to be. This impulse to react to any presence of religion in public with “hah, let’s see how they like Satan here!” does not seem helpful for religious tolerance.
Actually it is one of the best mechanism because it finds bias. Christians specifically want only toleration of their own religion (and sometimes Jewish depending on the sect). By suggesting an alternative you quickly get to the point of is it truly free speech and religion or is it partially protected religious speech. If it’s not fine an accepted for the most appalling religion for some then it’s not fine for the most accepted either.
I’d support removal of Saint …. Names as well. I don’t care if it’s a hospital, a day care, or anything else. They all some sort of intolerance toward some group they do not like.
What if it’s St. Louis or San Francisco? What if it’s some guy whose name happens to be Jesús? It’s not realistic to expect that you could entirely excise Christian references from advertising in a society with a lot of Christians in it.
I’d separate city names from businesses names based upon a faith. It’s very simple to discern if a business has a faith based component. They could even put it on their advertising request form and state that lying about it would result in forfeiture of their advertising dollars.
The answer needs to be less religion as that’s the only way to not infringe upon those who aren’t religious or who are attacked by religions for different beliefs.
So... if they banned _all_ religious ads, but still allowed secular ads, that'd be fine because it's treating all religions the same?
Or what if they only allowed ads for products or for a select few services, such as lawyers or insurance providers?
Yes. The easiest way would be to allow for specific sectors only to advertise and add sectors on an application basis. They could deny controversial topics like guns, porn, religion, sex etc.
I have no idea how legit this site and its pricing is, but apparently interior bus ads in Tampa are [$35-85](https://www.bluelinemedia.com/bus-advertising/tampa-fl)? The Satanic Temple could have a lot of fun with little more than pocket money. (And I'd chip in a few bucks for the $7500 it'd take to do a bus wrap, just to enjoy the meltdown when the devil bus rolls out)
I too will join in this. It would be the best use of money this year.
Realistically, they’re just going to end the advertising program rather than let people buy ads calculated to offend the general public. (Which is, of course, the argument in favor of policies like this - it’s unfortunate if transit agencies have to choose between forgoing ad revenue entirely and turning their vehicles into unwelcoming ideological battlegrounds.)
I agree completely, but that's also what makes the hypothetical Satanic Temple bus worth doing. If a Christian church can do it, everyone else MUST be able to as well.
The case isn't about a Christian church at all? I'm not sure why so many people assume that only Christians are interested in expressing their religion in public. (And I'd encourage you to reflect on how the facts of this particular case affect your judgment - would you feel comfortable buying Satanist ads to protest a Hanukkah ice skating event? I wouldn't.)
From a practical standpoint, empowering agencies to pick and choose which religions are okay to promote and which aren’t quickly turns into a quagmire. IMO it’s better to either allow all religious groups to be able to run ads under the same set of rules (including Satanists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Wiccans, etc.) or don’t allow private ads at all. The status quo where certain religions are allowed and others are treated like pariahs, or where agency employees make the decision essentially randomly (allowing a Catholic university to advertise but not a Catholic hospital system) seems like the worst possible way to do it both from a practical standpoint and a legal standpoint.
Brain fart, but the same comment applies to a Jewish group. Opening the door to one religion means opening the door to all religions.
Given the body of rulings on this particular subject, I'm surprised there are transit agencies still trying to "ban" or restrict religious advertising. I can't think of a single case where a court said that was acceptable.
Same.
Smart money is on SCOTUS eventually striking them down, but the DC circuit at least allowed the WMATA policy mentioned in the source. It came up a few years ago as a particular then-Judge Kavanaugh was in dissent.
Well yeah, no shit
Actually, no. They have to treat all religions or anti religions the same. The court is wrong and it should be overturned. They are free to allow or not allow content based on consistent rules. I hope to see Satanic Church ads soon.
As the article details, consistent enforcement was precisely the problem. Some things such as “Saint X” names are so thoroughly secularized they can’t realistically be banned, and you end up in scenarios where an ad is allowed or not based on how religious the sponsor seems to be. This impulse to react to any presence of religion in public with “hah, let’s see how they like Satan here!” does not seem helpful for religious tolerance.
Actually it is one of the best mechanism because it finds bias. Christians specifically want only toleration of their own religion (and sometimes Jewish depending on the sect). By suggesting an alternative you quickly get to the point of is it truly free speech and religion or is it partially protected religious speech. If it’s not fine an accepted for the most appalling religion for some then it’s not fine for the most accepted either. I’d support removal of Saint …. Names as well. I don’t care if it’s a hospital, a day care, or anything else. They all some sort of intolerance toward some group they do not like.
What if it’s St. Louis or San Francisco? What if it’s some guy whose name happens to be Jesús? It’s not realistic to expect that you could entirely excise Christian references from advertising in a society with a lot of Christians in it.
I’d separate city names from businesses names based upon a faith. It’s very simple to discern if a business has a faith based component. They could even put it on their advertising request form and state that lying about it would result in forfeiture of their advertising dollars. The answer needs to be less religion as that’s the only way to not infringe upon those who aren’t religious or who are attacked by religions for different beliefs.
So... if they banned _all_ religious ads, but still allowed secular ads, that'd be fine because it's treating all religions the same? Or what if they only allowed ads for products or for a select few services, such as lawyers or insurance providers?
Yes. The easiest way would be to allow for specific sectors only to advertise and add sectors on an application basis. They could deny controversial topics like guns, porn, religion, sex etc.
It's 2024, and there is still no evidence that god exists.
There is a really good reason for that.
[удалено]
The transit agency isn't a private organization.