Posted on May 31, 2015
Soldiers gay-marriage ad rejected by Tennessee TV station - outrageous censorship?
5.92K
8
12
0
0
0
In an interview with BuzzFeed, WRCB president and general manager Tom Tolar said his station had no position on ads on same-sex marriage until this week when they reviewed the FTM commercial. “It’s just a very controversial and personal issue, and we just choose to not air a commercial on either side of that debate,” Tolar said. He said there were “not really” any other issue-based commercials that stir such emotions.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/soldier-s-gay-marriage-ad-rejected-by-tennessee-tv-station-1.349807
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/soldier-s-gay-marriage-ad-rejected-by-tennessee-tv-station-1.349807
Rights
Marriage
Freedom
LGBTQ+
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
One look at the photo and you know its over the top. "One Country, One Constitution" has nothing to do with marriage. Right now such decisions are state decisions. Whether or not the TV station decided to carry the ad is their business. I think COL Vincent Stoneking is spot on with the rest.
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Don't TV stations have the right to run what they want.....isn't that one of the things I fought for? Free Speech. Unless I'm wrong this should apply every one.
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
IMHO SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. and Sgt Richard Buckner and I'm sure I'll catch flak for this, I think the 14th amendment covering marriage is a stretch.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
IMHO, this relates to the abolition of slavery and no one had marriage in mind when this was written. I'm sure this could be interpreted otherwise and interpretation is what is inherently wrong with parts of the law and the constitution. I say potato, you say potahto.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
IMHO, this relates to the abolition of slavery and no one had marriage in mind when this was written. I'm sure this could be interpreted otherwise and interpretation is what is inherently wrong with parts of the law and the constitution. I say potato, you say potahto.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
I think it is equal protection.
When you are married you get tax advantages and a right of inheritance.
This is disallowed to non-married.
Hence unequal protection.
IMHO
When you are married you get tax advantages and a right of inheritance.
This is disallowed to non-married.
Hence unequal protection.
IMHO
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - Actually... a right to inheritance is more than covered by a will. I can will my possessions to someone I've never met, if I choose to.
I'll give you the tax advantages.
Honestly, in this case, original intent is immaterial. We ALL know that every single US citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law REGARDLESS of race, sex, creed, or orientation.
I'll give you the tax advantages.
Honestly, in this case, original intent is immaterial. We ALL know that every single US citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law REGARDLESS of race, sex, creed, or orientation.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Its a New America and people need to be more accepting of this. As Soldier all I care about is can they perform the duties they are expected to perform.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
First, I don't consider this a gay rights issue OR a censorship (the TV Station is not the government....) issue. I consider it a fairness and equity issue.
So... I would really need to know their track record in order to have an opinion here. They have made the claim that they made the choice do it it being a "controversial and personal" issue... Fair enough - there is a LOT of emotion on both sides of the issue. On its face, this is a perfectly reasonable position for a TV station to take. They are in business to sell ads, which means that they need to maximize viewership and goodwill. They are not in business to be a lightning rod for the issue of the day.
I don't know the exact state of the law at the moment, but I do not believe that TV stations have "common carrier" status, so they CAN make decisions based on content.
Do they have a history of making a similar choice when faced with similar issues? Have they refused adds from either side of the abortion issue, for example? While I find it impossible to believe that a TV station has avoided ALL political ads, has it at least shown a history of not running the ones that make (half of the) people throw things at the TV screen? Secondarily, do they have some sort of official policy about avoiding divisive topics? If so, I tend to find that they acted with forthrightness and integrity.
Do they have history of running ads for one side of an issue, but not the other? If so, their claim doesn't pass muster. Though it may STILL be legal, depending on the exact status of the law - again, TV stations aren't common carriers (though I think the cable providers are).
As a secondary issue, it is not uncommon for issue advocacy groups to create over the top ads SPECIFICALLY to either 1) offend people and thus make create a buzz or 2) get banned/have media refuse to carry it and thus make news and create a buzz. I have not seen the ad in question (and have no interest in doing so) and so cannot comment on this potential aspect. I mention it only because I have seen it many times about issues I care about.
So... I would really need to know their track record in order to have an opinion here. They have made the claim that they made the choice do it it being a "controversial and personal" issue... Fair enough - there is a LOT of emotion on both sides of the issue. On its face, this is a perfectly reasonable position for a TV station to take. They are in business to sell ads, which means that they need to maximize viewership and goodwill. They are not in business to be a lightning rod for the issue of the day.
I don't know the exact state of the law at the moment, but I do not believe that TV stations have "common carrier" status, so they CAN make decisions based on content.
Do they have a history of making a similar choice when faced with similar issues? Have they refused adds from either side of the abortion issue, for example? While I find it impossible to believe that a TV station has avoided ALL political ads, has it at least shown a history of not running the ones that make (half of the) people throw things at the TV screen? Secondarily, do they have some sort of official policy about avoiding divisive topics? If so, I tend to find that they acted with forthrightness and integrity.
Do they have history of running ads for one side of an issue, but not the other? If so, their claim doesn't pass muster. Though it may STILL be legal, depending on the exact status of the law - again, TV stations aren't common carriers (though I think the cable providers are).
As a secondary issue, it is not uncommon for issue advocacy groups to create over the top ads SPECIFICALLY to either 1) offend people and thus make create a buzz or 2) get banned/have media refuse to carry it and thus make news and create a buzz. I have not seen the ad in question (and have no interest in doing so) and so cannot comment on this potential aspect. I mention it only because I have seen it many times about issues I care about.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
COL Vincent Stoneking The concept of "common carrier" status caught my attention so I did some digging .. Here is what I found..
"This basic conflict was provisionally resolved by passage of the Radio Act of 1927, and seven years later, by the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act, which continues to be the charter for broadcast television, ratified a fundamental compromise by adopting two related provisions: a ban on "common carrier" regulation (sought by broadcasters) and a general requirement that broadcast licensees operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity" (supported by Congress and various civic, educational and religious groups).(1) The phrase was given no particular definition; some considered it necessary in order for the government's licensing powers to be considered constitutional."
So .. no .. they are not "common carriers" and can pick and choose what they publish as long as they operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity"
"This basic conflict was provisionally resolved by passage of the Radio Act of 1927, and seven years later, by the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act, which continues to be the charter for broadcast television, ratified a fundamental compromise by adopting two related provisions: a ban on "common carrier" regulation (sought by broadcasters) and a general requirement that broadcast licensees operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity" (supported by Congress and various civic, educational and religious groups).(1) The phrase was given no particular definition; some considered it necessary in order for the government's licensing powers to be considered constitutional."
So .. no .. they are not "common carriers" and can pick and choose what they publish as long as they operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity"
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google