From the DNC

[eldritch48]

This morning I was getting ready to send an email thanking more than 7,000 of you for stepping up to take the fight into the backyard of Jean Schmidt and any other Republican leader who attacks one of our veterans for cheap political gain. We had begun working with Lamar, an ad company in the area, and signed a contract to place two billboards near

Comments

hmm

[_r3_]

I'm not sure that Lamar has the right to decide what is "too negative", but what I do know is that they aren't giving us any significant clue about what the actual content of the billboards is. What's it take to web up a couple of small pictures of the billboard art? Not much. It always seems a bit fishy, and I can't in good conscience get behind something when they're just complaining without telling us what, specifically, they're complaining about.

"By rejecting these ads, Lamar has limited your right to be heard." Well, isn't that a bit self-aggrandizing? They're limiting the DNC's right to be heard, since WE didn't have any say on the specific content of the ad, just the general idea the ad was presenting. "We" not including me, since I'm not a money-donor.

Anyway, seems like a bit of political grandstanding without much content.

Re: hmm

[eldritch48]

I see your point...however, Lamar accepted the graphic, had it for 48 hours and then had signed a contract 24 hours before. So, regardless of what it says, I want them to honor their contracts...and I agree with the concept, regardless of the actual picture used.

(Not that I was a money-donor either)

Re: hmm

[otakubilly]

It's a private company, not a public office. They have EVERY right to decide what they advertise and what they don't. Especially if it's in their contract that they have to right to refuse service.

"While Lamar's form contract reserves to the company the right to refuse to run a billboard advertisement,"

It, frankly, doesn't matter whether they have "any company policy providing any objective standards or criteria for rejecting political or advocacy advertising." If they decided that the content was inappropriate, and it's in their contract that they can refuse to run the ad, that's their right, end of story.

It's stuff like this that makes me glad I'm not a Democrat OR Republican.

Re: hmm

[eldritch48]

Again, except that they had the content for a full 24 hours before they signed the contract, and then waited 24 hours after signing the contract before reversing their decision.

Block free speech however you want to...but if you enter a legally binding contract and then back out...fuck 'em.