Tolerance Central
Clyde Haberman has an interesting column on the pressure that led an advertising company to take down a prolife billboard in New York. Though I think he at times glosses over the difference between censorship -- which is the government telling us what we can't say -- and a private company declining a message, it's an interesting column. Especially today when so many private concerns find themselves the objects of organized campaigns targeting them for expressing either their own speech or that of some other party:
New York, never at a loss for self-congratulatory words, regards itself as the most tolerant of cities, a place where one may express any thought freely. It is true. In New York, one may articulate any idea whatsoever — as long as that idea parallels popular opinion.
Stray too far from generally accepted wisdom, though, and you are asking for trouble.
The latest to discover this reality is a Texas group called Life Always, which bought billboard space in SoHo to deliver an anti-abortion message rooted in recent statistics from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. They showed that in 2009, 41 percent of all pregnancies here ended in abortion. The abortion rate for black women was even higher, almost 60 percent.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: Tolerance Central
I just read that column, surprised to find it in NYT. I don't think these are examples of "censorship" but they do show a serious problem with what conservatives are frequently accused of -- epistemic closure.
The inability to even tolerate being in the presence of differing opinions is a flaw for many in NYC. I have a few conservative or libertarian friends there and the stories they tell me almost sound hard to believe.
Nov '10
Re: Tolerance Central
This provides confirmation, if any were needed, that the liberal arguments about “epistemic closure” aimed at conservatives are evidence of psychological projection.
Oct '10
Re: Tolerance Central
Nah! It's simply another example of the closed minded ignorance that the left continuously beats the drum about regarding conservatives. Wow, this is really unusual and new.
Dec '10
Re: Tolerance Central
The Life Always people should fund a "public service message" billboard that merely repeats in plain text the statistics from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. A big sign that says:
41% of all New York pregnancies end in abortion.
59% percent of New York's African-American pregnancies end in abortion.
Source: New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
We thought you should know. Know more at thisisabortion.com
Dec '10
Re: Tolerance Central
Those numbers make me sad.
Jan '11
Re: Tolerance Central
I thought the NYT article was strong and very pointed. Still, I'm left wondering who exactly were the “very important people” who, “as soon as they squawked, action followed”? Councilmembers? Mayor's Office? Who else could wield that kind of power? I'd really like to know who controls the messages I'm allowed to see.
Feb '11
Re: Tolerance Central
I don't see why they should do this. Are you saying you think it would be a more effective ad for their message, or simply that it might be acceptable to the censors? The in-your-face billboard is the one that got written up in the NYT -- the bland one you are proposing might still be up and unremarked.
I am not sure why Mollie Hemmingway would say, "I don't think these are examples of 'censorship'" -- there is no official in the government charged with the task of censoring, but certainly the idea that the objections of unnamed elected officials caused this factually based but provocative anti-abortion billboard, privately funded and on private advertising space, to be taken down, is of interest. I would like to know exactly whom the "raft of elected officials" consisted of, and what their "squawking" was, before concluding that there was no censorship here.
Edited on Mar 1, 2011 at 6:49pmRe: Tolerance Central
Good point, Mama Toad.