Atheists' billboard pulled from latest spot

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1holycatholic

Guest
Atheists’ billboard pulled from latest spot
An atheist organization’s billboard, recently moved because it was on church property, is on the move again.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation of Madison, Wis., said it was notified yesterday that the billboard company Clear Channel Outdoor removed the sign from an E. Main Street and Alum Creek Drive location because of a complaint from a local business.

Dan Barker, co-president of the foundation, said he doesn’t know the identity of the business that complained or why the billboard company complied.
…
 
I don’t think that’s a good thing. I don’t agree with the Atheist view, but if compainies or the government start limiting it, then it sets every religion (Atheism is a type of religion in my mind) for the same treatment. The search for truth shouldn’t be hampered because people don’t like a certain message. I don’t personally think religious billboards do all that much good, but if someone wants to put one up then it’s their money. People really concerned with finding the truth don’t need billboards, and those that don’t care either way, won’t be affected by a quick message on the side of the road.
 
cemiller said:
I don’t think that’s a good thing. I don’t agree with the Atheist view, but if compainies or the government start limiting it, then it sets every religion (Atheism is a type of religion in my mind) for the same treatment. The search for truth shouldn’t be hampered because people don’t like a certain message. I don’t personally think religious billboards do all that much good, but if someone wants to put one up then it’s their money. People really concerned with finding the truth don’t need billboards, and those that don’t care either way, won’t be affected by a quick message on the side of the road.
Click to expand...
I agree, to an extent. Unless the group paid for the billboard at a specific location, I think the company has the right to move it, so long as that isn’t in violation of the contract. Still, it shouldn’t be moved every single time there is a complaint, but perhaps it was randomly assigned a lot that faced a row of Christian churches. Wouldn’t it be least problematic to find another lot away from certain religious areas?
 
Mumbles140 said:
I agree, to an extent. Unless the group paid for the billboard at a specific location, I think the company has the right to move it, so long as that isn’t in violation of the contract. Still, it shouldn’t be moved every single time there is a complaint, but perhaps it was randomly assigned a lot that faced a row of Christian churches. Wouldn’t it be least problematic to find another lot away from certain religious areas?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how that works, but I would think that if I paid for a billboard I would want one in a certain location. Location is an important factor of how effective the advertising would be. I would also think that there would be a lease agreement with the company for the billboard. Maybe some one on here has a better understanding of the billboard business 🙂
 
cemiller said:
I’m not sure how that works, but I would think that if I paid for a billboard I would want one in a certain location. Location is an important factor of how effective the advertising would be. I would also think that there would be a lease agreement with the company for the billboard. Maybe some one on here has a better understanding of the billboard business 🙂
Click to expand...
Like most forms of advertising, “outdoor” — the industry term for billboard/building-side advertising — is based on “impressions.” Locations are rated by the number of people who are likely to see the sign.

As ever, Jesse
 
Well it seems that, as usual, the news outlets are simply giving poor information on a matter that really is of no great importance to the vast majority of people, religious or not.

This is a purely contractual issue between the sign company and the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” who contracted with the sign company.

As others have pointed out, we do not know the terms of the contract and the news article does not give any. It would appear that the company is within it’s contractual rights to move the sign since there does not seem to be any move on the part of the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” to sue over the matter.

So, depending on how long the sign was in each given location, plus this silly news article, is the “Freedom From Religion Foundation”, getting more exposure or less for it’s money.

Tempest in a teapot.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Well it seems that, as usual, the news outlets are simply giving poor information on a matter that really is of no great importance to the vast majority of people, religious or not.

This is a purely contractual issue between the sign company and the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” who contracted with the sign company.

As others have pointed out, we do not know the terms of the contract and the news article does not give any. It would appear that the company is within it’s contractual rights to move the sign since there does not seem to be any move on the part of the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” to sue over the matter.

So, depending on how long the sign was in each given location, plus this silly news article, is the “Freedom From Religion Foundation”, getting more exposure or less for it’s money.

Tempest in a teapot.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
That would pretty much sum it up 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top