A Judge Has Ruled Against Atheists Trying to Put Up the Least Offensive Ad Ever
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled that a government agency had every right to reject an atheist advertisement, putting a temporary end to a saga that’s dragged on for more than six years.
In 2012, atheist Justin Vacula and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society attempted to place the following ad on buses in the County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS).
COLTS took the bait by rejecting the ad. They actually called it too “controversial.”
Seriously. Too controversial. The COLTS policy at the time allowed them to reject ads “deemed controversial” or which would otherwise “spark public debate.”
Justin appealed the decision with the help of American Atheists, but the COLTS administrators stood by their claims.
“We will not allow our transit vehicles or property to become a public forum for the debate and discussion of public issues, and since passing this policy in June, we have been very consistent in not allowing any ads that violate the policy. That’s why we didn’t permit Mr. Vacula’s ad promoting atheism,” said COLTS solicitor Tim Hinton.
Debate? Discussion? What exactly are we arguing about when the ad is just one word?
Apparently the mere existence of the word “atheists” was too controversial. (Maybe it’s because it was plural. Too much for some people to handle.)
Was the problem that American Atheists was included on the ad? They were known for being provocative… so Justin submitted a revised ad in 2013, this time without the group’s name. He made a not-at-all controversial ad even less controversial.
Once again, however, he was rejected.
COLTS administrators even voted on a new policy to prevent this “debacle” from ever happening again.
The amended policy, which the COLTS board approved without discussion by a 4-0 vote, clarifies and lays out in more detail the types of advertising the agency will not accept, including ads that promote the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being or deity or other religious beliefs.
“It’s our aim to be completely neutral on religious issues,” solicitor Timothy Hinton said.
He said the revised policy had been in the works “for quite some time” and was not prompted by the NEPA Freethought Society’s latest attempt to advertise on COLTS buses.
Sure it wasn’t…
Still, that new policy hardly made things better. It might be okay and legal to avoid all ads debating God’s existence… but this ad wasn’t doing that. You could argue this was about as religiously neutral as you could get.
The weirdest thing about this whole story, in my opinion, is that Justin tried submitting yet another version of this ad. This time, he removed the word “Atheists” but kept “NEPA Freethought Society” and the group’s URL.
Believe it or not, COLTS said that one was okay.
That’s… really confusing. How could it be that the word “Atheists” was too controversial, but “Freethought” was okay? Maybe they just didn’t know what the word meant… but that would be evidence that COLTS was just discriminating against atheists.
Maybe everyone was making too big a deal about this. As long as COLTS banned all religious/political/advocacy advertising equally, then there wasn’t much atheists could do about it.
But that’s not what they were doing. In fact, since the time Justin’s first ad was rejected, COLTS allowed advertising from the following groups:
a. St. Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church
b. St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church;
c. Christian Women’s Devotional Alliance;
d. Hope Church;
e. a School Board candidate; and
f. Brewer’s Outlet, a beer distributor; and
g. Old Forge Times, an online blog that contained links to anti-Semitic websites, holocaust denial websites, and white supremacist websites.
So what was really going on here? “Atheists” was controversial because it created a debate about religion… but ads from churches were acceptable?
It seemed pretty obvious that COLTS had no problem with religious advertisements until atheists came along, then they tried retroactively creating a policy that would allow them to block Justin’s ad. At least that’s how he felt.
Justin and the NEPA Freethought Society, with the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, soon filed a lawsuit against COLTS arguing that this was a clear case of (non-)religious discrimination.
“It’s hard to advertise effectively if we’re not allowed to use the word ‘atheists’ to say who the NEPA Freethought Society’s members are or who we’re trying to reach,” said Justin Vacula, organizer and spokesperson for the NEPA Freethought Society. “We just want to be treated fairly and allowed the same opportunity to advertise that COLTS has given other groups for years.”
…
“The First Amendment means that government officials can’t censor speech just because it’s unpopular or because they disagree with the speaker,” said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Once you open up a space for speech, you have to let everyone in equally.”
All of that happened in 2015, and there have been a few legal stumbling blocks along the way, but we finally have a decision from U.S. District Judge Malachy E. Mannion.
Unfortunately, it’s not a favorable one. Mannion says COLTS had every right to reject the ad.
… the court finds that COLTS’ advertising space is a limited forum and that COLTS did not violate Freethought’s First Amendment free speech rights when it refused to display Freethought’s advertisements containing the word “atheists” on COLTS’ buses.
What about all those advertisements from churches that were green-lit? COLTS argued that they weren’t promoting God, per se, just advertising the churches. That’s the same logic they used when accepting the ad with only the NEPA Freethought Society’s name on it.
Said Mannion:
There is therefore no viewpoint based restriction. COLTS’ content based restriction on promoting or opposing religion is neutral and reasonable.
In short, the least offensive atheist ad ever made was deemed so anti-God that the government was within its right to reject it because it could “potentially affect its revenue or ridership.”
The word “Atheists” — just by itself — is officially too in-your-face for certain religious sensibilities. But an advertisement for a local church is still okay.
Justin told me a decision has not yet been made about whether his side will appeal the ruling. I hope they do, though, because the word “atheists” — without any attachment to a belief — shouldn’t be placed on the same level as people who say “God is good” or “God exists.” Our existence is not up for debate, nor should it be considered controversial.
It’s disappointing atheists have to jump through all these hoops to get the same sort of treatment religious people get automatically. That’s why I’m hoping the fight will continue.
Tags
Who is online
447 visitors
I remember posting the original article about this in 2012. Can't believe that it is still being argued. From the looks of it, it sounds like the Church of Satan is free to advertise on these buses.
They should be but I bet their ads will be rejected, too
Hopefully they'll submit that ad or one for the FSM. On the face of it COLTS' actions and the court ruling are pretty clear Establishment violations.
Why in the hell does a government agency have any right to decide such matters. They are paid for and work for their constituents. I think they forget this.
They serve all the people not only some.
I would put up billboards all over the city just to piss them off.
Dear Friend Ender: Probably politics.
Pandering to their base.
Distinct from First Amendment Freedom of Speech.
Oh, that pesky Bill of Rights.
Me, unless it is hate speech, which this clearly isn't, let everyone have their say.
Let the public sort it out.
See John Locke's "Four Arguments on the Freedom of the Speech".
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Enoch, Content to Sip on a dry Riesling and watch the sunset, while each has their turn at the podium in a free society.
Now that is the way to do it.
Hi Enoch and friends. I just read this court's opinion on a site offered in the seed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/26w4dq7ha6m4120/COLTSFreethoughtAd.pdf?dl=0
IMPORTANT: The address is from the "Seed Content" link not any 'dropbox' of mine.
Supplied for reading and insights.
The decision rendered is based on three reasonable concerns:
Good find, Calbab.
The court does a really good job of documenting its decision. Basically,
1) a bus mustn't be an open forum, because the audience is captive and things could get out of hand too easily
2) religion is a topic to avoid
COLTS accepted an ad from "Freethought" that didn't carry the word "atheist". They rejected an ad for a Lutheran nursing home because of "Lutheran" and a cross.
Sounds like they're trying to be reasonable...
But they did advertise for “Old Forge Times, an online blog that contained links to anti-Semitic websites, holocaust denial websites, and white supremacist websites.” That’s not controversial at all! /s
I suspect they weren't at all attentive until
What is COLTS's legal status? If it's private, the 1st amendment doesn't apply. If it's public, then the 1st should apply. If it's a county-owned company... dunno...
It's a county owned transportation entity, from what I can see in the little internet information that is available.
It's a "tweener".
Pennsylvania has "Municipal Authorities" charged with various, utilities. They're run by a Board that is designated by whoever (township, county...) created the entity. So one of these "authorities" is clearly an emanation of the state... but isn't actually part of the state. It sounds like a set-up intentionally isolated from public influence.
COLT is a public forum for ads. However, its policy and pattern is specific to this legal concern not to place ads which 'confirm' or 'not confirm' the existence of God. The COLT Communications Officer accomplishes this understanding of potentially troublesome ads by vetting the clients own website for how they classify their worldview. (Credit: Court documents.)
That's a clearly biased criterion. Any religious ad will simply assume God's existence. There's no need to affirm it. An atheist group, OTOH, has as message that God does not exist. That affirmation is what atheism is all about. So COLT banning affirmations is very one-sided.
Good morning. Here is a relevant excerpt from Page 14 of the link:
“ The 2013 Policy provides that COLTS will not accept advertising:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/26w4dq7ha6m4120/COLTSFreethoughtAd.pdf?dl=0
Yes. I read the whole thing. Interesting, actually...
Indeed, it is interesting.