The ex-gay group PFOX may no longer be able to post ads for free in the Washington, D.C., subway system.
One of the city’s gay newspapers reports that Metro may stop giving free ad space to non-profit groups. The policy change was prompted by the transit system’s budget deficit and by controversy generated by ex-gay, pro-marijuana, and Catholic pro-condom ads.
Two D.C. gay-rights groups — the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance and PFLAG of D.C. — oppose the ad ban, saying that banning nonprofit ads does more harm than good.
GLAA’s Rick Rosendall:
“We of all people have nothing to fear from an open and robust debate, because we have been winning these debates for many years,” Rosendall said. “It’s only when there’s hysteria mongering that goes unresponded to, that we get into serious trouble.”
An earlier newspaper article also reported on Rosendall’s defense of the right to post ex-gay ads. At the Yahoo Ex Gay Discussion Board, a PFOX operative posted a copy of that article with the subject line, Gays Bash Ex-Gays. Go figure.
Rosendall writes from a libertarian perspective at IGF.
Ok will someone please tell me why should a public transit system post controversial ads(gay, ex-gay, or otherwise) for free?
Many people think AIDS education ads are controversial. It would be awful if they could not run. This is one of the few issues where Rick Rosendall(whom I respect greatly) and I agree.
I don’t know of anyone who is qualified to decide what is controversial (or truthful) and what is not. If ads are run, then — free or not — some will be controversial.
However, the D.C. subway system is already underfunded, with infrequent trains, frequent track outages, and fares averaging $4 to $5 a day. If there’s a choice between better service and free ads, I choose the service. If groups wish to advertise in a public facility, then it makes sense to me that they should reimburse commuters and taxpayers for the privilege. Though perhaps they could be charged a reduced rate.
What bothers me about this situation is that it was prompted by intolerance for speech, not a concern for commuters. PFLAG-DC clings to the idea that its ideas are true, and worthy of public subsidy, while its rivals’ ideas are not. Some antigay groups play the same game. And councilman Jim Graham’s idea for non-profits to obtain government sponsorship for ads only adds to our tax burden; D.C. taxes are already unjustifiably high.
Is it moral or ethical for PFOX run ads that falsely imply support for tolerance? I don’t think so.
Should public agencies pick and choose which ads run? I don’t think so.
Should commuters and taxpayers have to pay for non-profit groups’ advertising? Again, I don’t think so.
A handful of companies is earning billions annually on pharmaceutical and medical-supply sales. Is anyone pressuring them to cover the costs of health-related PSAs? Where is the incentive for them to promote illness prevention?
Actually, Mike, PFLAG-DC does not want the ban, they are preparing their own ad campaign and relying on free advertising on Metro.
I agree, however, that the free ad thing is a little strange, although Metro does not give up huge amounts of ad space for free. I believe their concern is to allow for political speech in the Nation’s capital, but that might be unnecessary.
I understand that PFLAG-DC doesn’t want the ban on free ads, but the second Blade article made it sound like they want a means to establish whether free ads are true or not, and if an ad is deemed untrue, then the ad would be banned. That’s the sort of tactic that I’d normally expect from PFOX.
Regardless of the fact that ads for non-profits appear on mass transit systems everywhere, despite subject matter or affiliation, the greatest impact they have, as evidenced by this blog, Is their ability to promote discussion on the subjects “advertised”. I agree that mass transit dollars should be spent on improving and maintaining existing systems as well as planning future systems, but if ads like this were banned I fear that ads bolstering consumerism rather than socially relevant discussions would take precedent and these issues would take a back seat.