SF Censors 'The Other Guys' Movie Poster--Removes Guns

[TPaine7]

I thought police and the military got a free pass, but perhaps SF is going for consistency. I must give credit where credit is due; consistent insanity is better--in one dimension, at least--than inconsistent insanity.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/the_other_guys_movie_poster_di.php

[Lightning Count]

1. Reminds me of the digitally enhanced ET. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Bunch of nanny-state weenies...

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

5. Gunnuts huh?

say goodbye to your post.

[slackmaster]

6. I love the new Alert form

It's really quick and easy to use.

[cowman]

7. It is awesome n/t

[SteveM]

14. 5th Column Republican, or a 3rd Rail Democrat.

[TPaine7]

8. Hurrah for the Americans! Down with the fascists!

I don't know whether this particular insanity is unconstitutional, but as we have seen before the anti-gun fascists don't mind leaving their muddy bootprints on the other Amendments on their way to trample the Second.

The Vitter amendment, which stopped federal funding for the trampling of the Fourth Amendment (as well as the Second) by illegal gun seizures in emergencies, was opposed by the usual anti-gun fanatics. Anti-gun fascists agree with Bush that the Constitution is a "Goddamn piece of paper" that shouldn't matter when it doesn't suit their fancy. Obama, to his credit, voted for the Vitter Amendment.

[slackmaster]

3. Censorship in a free society

It's a bad match.

[cleanhippie]

9. Wow, just wow.

Total insanity.

[rrneck]

10. Simple fix...

keep all advertising off of buses.

[Euromutt]

12. Or, at least

Advertising for motion pictures, television shows, and all news media.

[Euromutt]

11. Once again, a question of attribution

"Well, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency does have an advertising policy that states ads should not appear to promote the use of firearms or advocate any violent action," explains spokesman Paul Rose.

I would argue that the ad, in its original form, does not promote the use of firearms or advocate violent action; what it promotes is a motion picture in which use of firearms and violent action are depicted, and what it advocates is that you go to a movie theater and pay money to see it. To depict something is not the same as promoting or advocating it; unless you think that the message in Othello is that it's perfectly acceptable to strangle your spouse on the basis of a few whispered insinuations and a dropped handkerchief, in which case, there's no saving you.

[TPaine7]

13. Apparently this is unconsitutional

The policy is unconstitutional, at least as applied to movie ads, because it’s viewpoint-based. The government has broad authority to restrict speech on its own property (at least setting aside traditional public forums, which transportation ad space is not, see the linked-to opinion’s favorable citation to the Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights plurality opinion). But even in such a nonpublic forum that’s open for advertising purposes, it may not restrict speech based on viewpoint. And a ban on speech that “appear{s} to promote the use of firearms” — but not speech that appears to oppose the use of firearms — is viewpoint-based.

It’s possible that a ban on the advertising of nonspeech products, such as guns, might be treated more deferentially (a difficult question that I set aside here). But a general ban on speech that seems to promote the use of firearms would be unconstitutional (see the highlighted passage in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), both as to noncommercial advertisements — e.g., political ads supporting private gun ownership and use — and as to the movie ads discussed here. And of course on top of this I can’t see how the ad here in fact promotes (or even appears to promote) the use of firearms or advocates any violent action.

Source: http://volokh.com/2010/08/09/no-movie-ads-with-guns-in-them-were-san-francisco/

Eugene Volokh is a respected constitutional law scholar who has been cited by the Supreme Court. He probably knows what he's talking about.

[onehandle]

15. That's 'San Francisco Values' for you.

What do you expect from the 'Left Coast.'

Or something like that...

[TPaine7]

16. So you agree with San Francisco that it's ok to violate the First Amendment

in order to manifest contempt for guns? Even depictions of guns used by police officers? Even fictional depictions of guns used by police officers in an over-the-top satirical poster advertising a comedy?

[proteus_lives]

19. Of course Nohandle does.

NH is willing to sacrifice any Right to be "safe" from guns. :eyes:

[TPaine7]

20. Even pictorial representations of guns, it seems.

[proteus_lives]

21. Evening see a representation of a firearms would cause a case of the vapors.

They're that powerful.

[Euromutt]

17. Something like that, yes

Speaking as a resident of the "Left Coast," I do not wish to associate myself with the "values" of the San Francisco city/county government (the city and county are coterminous) in the slightest, thankyouverymuch. Mainly because that government has absolutely no qualms about ditching its "values" when convenient, such as when Dianne Feinstein wants a CCW permit.

[slackmaster]

25. Yes, all warm and fuzzy and friendly, with a strong authoritarian undercurrent

Kind of like North Korea.

[SteveM]

18. They should have had Ferrell holding a can of Right Guard.

[Callisto32]

22. Freedom of speech,

unless we don't like what you have to say. I wonder if newsstands had to cover the recent Harper's cover?

[one-eyed fat man]

23. The thought police have arrived, thoughtlessly!

These are the same brain-dead ninnies who have suspended:

6 year old for making a "gun" with his fingers

Michigan 6-Year-Old Suspended From School for Making Gun With Hand

Middle school student for doodling on his homework

Student Suspended For Drawing Gun

A 12 year old for practicing the deadly martial art of origami

Paper Gun Nets 10 day Suspension

An 8 year old for gluing plastic army men to a hat for a Veteran's Day project because they had tiny plastic GUNZ!!!!!!
Off with his head..........er, hat!


You should see his Agent Orange lunchbox..........


Ooh! How terrifying! You can find me under the desk!

[Recursion]

24. I absolutely love the city of San Francisco. But...

...this is the city that voted to require city offices to be laid out in accordance with feng shui. It's the city that required computer manufacturers change terminology for IDE buses so that the two drives were not referred to as "master" and "slave".

There was a good piece I think on HuffPo taking the right to task for talking ominously about "San Francisco values", asking if they meant their low unemployment, their affordable healthcare, their compassionate treatment of the homeless, etc. But beyond the rank homophobia of that talk, they really are also talking about shit like this.

[Euromutt]

26. I hardly think the city can take credit for low unemployment

Let's face it, San Francisco is a very expensive place to live. If you don't have a job and you want a roof over your head, you're going to be looking for digs in Contra Costa or Alameda, and that makes you no longer San Francisco's problem.

And while San Francisco's attitude toward the homeless is more humane than most of the rest of the country, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out in 2006 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/31/MNGD9M1QV41.DTL) that the city was spending around $108 million a year on programs for the homeless and those under imminent threat of becoming homeless, but that it really had no idea where that money was going and what it was getting back for it.

And then there's what the SF Bay Guardian has dubbed the city's recent "War on Fun," involving warrantless searches and seizure of money, liquor and equipment "as evidence" and not being returned despite most such cases not even resulting in charges being filed. http://sfbayguardian.com/2010/03/23/new-war-fun

Evidently, accountability for money and goods extracted from the citizens is not a "San Francisco value."

[Callisto32]

27. That last one isn't an SF value.

It is a guiding principle of government.