General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Censorship of hate speech is an unconditional surrender to hate. [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Making a 1st amemdment/not 1st amendment argument.
IF they are accepting paid political opinion or "issue" ads, it becomes more difficult to make arguments about regulating the message content of some ads, and not others.
But what it seems you're trying to do, here, is move the ball onto a different field, where the layout is more favorable. Discussions on DU around this stuff for the past few days haven't been about the bus ads. They've been about people who think it should be illegal to draw blasphemous cartoons or "insult a deity".
DU has several people wildly misinformed and off base about the 1st amendment, not the least of which are the folks who seem to think that if someone says something that they know might "make" someone so angry that person was "forced" (???) to commit an act of violence, then the person doing the speaking is the criminal.
I know, fucked up, right? Doesnt make any sense. Basically it says that anyone ought to be able to censor any speech - a heckler's veto- they dont like, merely by becoming violent over it.
But what you're doing here is, you seem to be trying to make this a censorship argument that no one is, currently, having.