NFL Right To Ban This Super Bowl Commercial?

[jrry32]

According to these sites below (I don't know how legit the info is, just a quick Google search) Daniel Defense had $32 Million in estimated annual revenue (Actual data) and CBS charged 3.8 - 4 million a slot last year, so if this data is correct money shouldn't be the issue. there can be multiple reasons why they wouldn't air it, who knows.

http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/11411966/Daniel-Defense-Inc-in-Black-Creek-GA
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-do-...ad-prices-continue-rise-still-bargain-1057574

3.8 to 4 million to a company with only 32 million in annual revenue is a major chunk of change. I doubt they could afford that unless it was a local slot which is much cheaper.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

3.8 to 4 million to a company with only 32 million in annual revenue is a major chunk of change. I doubt they could afford that unless it was a local slot which is much cheaper.

You're actually right, from what fox news is saying, it was 500k playing in 8 states or something. I was randomly flipping threw channels and they happen to be talking about it tonight lol.

Good shit Jrry :bigup:

 

[bluecoconuts]

And FWIW the constitution isn't a political document, it's a statement of the rights of man but people politicize it to gain power over the same,so did they censure Bob Costas,tell him to shut his yap,I hadn't heard

Huh? The constitution is the set of rules our government follow, its a political documant, and I dont see how it relates here.

 

[RamFan503]

The NFL isn't a governmental organization. They are a business. The First Amendment protects against government suppression of free speech. It's how the NFL can get away with fining coaches and players for talking bad about the referees.

But I do agree with you, I doubt that Daniel Defense had the money to run a Super Bowl ad unless it was local.

When will people stop thinking only gov't action is covered by The Constitution and Bill of Rights? Do you really want to hold to that theory?

 

[Thordaddy]

Huh? The constitution is the set of rules our government follow, its a political documant, and I dont see how it relates here.

Which is a voluntary subscription to a set of assumptions.
My assumption is that the words "endowed by ...creator " precludes it being a political entity that grants,it ONLY promises to protect,people first and formost just don't get that your rights exist if there is no government to protect them

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think you are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Constitution. The Construction is the 7 articles, that separated and gives powers to the three branches, as well as lays the basic foundation of how they operate.

 

[Thordaddy]

I think you are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Constitution. The Construction is the 7 articles, that separated and gives powers to the three branches, as well as lays the basic foundation of how they operate.

I think there are several amendments to that constitution and we are talking about them ,you are cherry picking here bc,not the least important being the one crafted second only to speech.
All those papers were o be considered in consort and no matter how you slice it if the NFL wants to crawfish away from the anti gun lobby,subvert an organizations right to buy add time speeking in behalf of your right to protect yourself ,and you don't care,fine it's your rights you surrender, I just get crossways when you want me to surrender mine as well

 

[bluecoconuts]

Don't think that I'm surrendering my rights because I think that that particular commercial is stupid, and don't care if the NFL wanted to avoid a sensitive subject at a time when the country was steel reeling and it was a controversy at the time. I'm not telling you to surrender anything, and neither is the NFL. Nobody has told anyone to surrender their rights, you're personalizing something when there's no need to. There could be a myriad of reasons why the NFL didn't want to air a particular commercial, TV stations turn down commercials every single day, Standards and Practices turn things down constantly, there's always a battle going on in that sense. Why they turned it down, only they know for sure. And if they did turn it down because they didn't want to promote guns? Then so fucking what, that's THEIR right to do as a private league. They could sit there and make players play two hand touch, and have a princess tea party at half time if they wanted to, if people don't like how they run their organization, then they can stop watching and giving them money.

 

[Thordaddy]

FWIW if the add was for an equal rights issue and they turned it down, they'd get a civil rights case made against them the second amendment is a civil right, believe it or not

 

[jrry32]

When will people stop thinking only gov't action is covered by The Constitution and Bill of Rights? Do you really want to hold to that theory?

You're creating a strawman. In this case, yes, it only applies to the government. The First Amendment as it pertains to freedom of speech only protects government suppression of free speech or the suppression of free speech by government agents/employees.

Private businesses do not owe you free speech. That is why X can ban any user on this board and they can't sue him for violating free speech. It is a private business. It's also why the NFL can fine coaches and players for their speech if it violates the NFL's rules.

The NFL is not a government organization. Feel free to look up this issue and look deeper into the law behind the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech.

 

[bluecoconuts]

FWIW if the add was for an equal rights issue and they turned it down, they'd get a civil rights case made against them the second amendment is a civil right, believe it or not

You don't know that, it would depend entirely on what the ad said.

 

[-X-]

So ... yeah. Regarding the OP's question ... no. It's not right. But it is THEIR right to ban it. They can choose, as a private entity, to do whatever they want with regards to who they accept money from to air a commercial. There is no set list of what they deem allowable with regards to submitted ads. It's their judgment call, and they can make it with no beef from me. Capitalism in full effect. If a gun advertiser wanted to pay me $500.00 to place an ad on my board, I could turn it down if I wanted, and there would be no recourse. I could also accept money from the LGBT to place an ad - again - with no recourse.

 

[-X-]

Whatta you got against chicks with guns?

 

[-X-]

 

[LosAngelesRams]

So ... yeah. Regarding the OP's question ... no. It's not right. But it is THEIR right to ban it. They can choose, as a private entity, to do whatever they want with regards to who they accept money from to air a commercial. There is no set list of what they deem allowable with regards to submitted ads. It's their judgment call, and they can make it with no beef from me. Capitalism in full effect. If a gun advertiser wanted to pay me $500.00 to place an ad on my board, I could turn it down if I wanted, and there would be no recourse. I could also accept money from the LGBT to place an ad - again - with no recourse.

Yea I get it, the question was copied from the site I watched the video used as a title to create discussion. It sucks but is what it is

 

[had]

I believe that cigarette companies are banned from advertising on television. Could the same be true for gun companies? I don't believe I've ever seen a gun commerical on the TV.

This video appears to be a strawman.

 

[Angry Ram]

lol..."I'll watch Beyonce hump the stage until I'm blue in the face."

And no...the NFL shouldn't have banned it. BUT you also can't say they don't have the right to ban it. Can't scream censorship when the other party has every right to say no to a commercial.

 

[RamFan503]

You're creating a strawman. In this case, yes, it only applies to the government. The First Amendment as it pertains to freedom of speech only protects government suppression of free speech or the suppression of free speech by government agents/employees.

Private businesses do not owe you free speech. That is why X can ban any user on this board and they can't sue him for violating free speech. It is a private business. It's also why the NFL can fine coaches and players for their speech if it violates the NFL's rules.

The NFL is not a government organization. Feel free to look up this issue and look deeper into the law behind the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech.

Completely different. If Paul were to open this forum up to speeches by candidates for example, he couldn't say which candidates wouldn't be allowed to be on the forum if he was charging for those speeches to be aired. Even still it would be different and may not infringe on speech issues because this site is largely membership based and would likely not be considered a public area. I believe you have to be a member to post here - no?

TV stations or systems also can't discriminate based on content. Dish Network for example sued Direct TV because they were trying to block their commercials. They won. What grounds do you think they sued them on? When you start getting into advertising to the general public you start falling under the protections of the First Amendment and others.

The NFL can make all kinds of rules regarding its employees and anyone who works for them. They cannot tell you or me what we can say about the job the refs are doing this year (which for the record - sucks).

Part of what makes me skeptical of this commercial is that this decision would most likely be made by the network and not the NFL. The NFL may have this in their bylaws and that could possibly hold up. They could have a set of rules for their networks as to what can and can't be advertised during games. They would have to be careful there as well because there could still be issues due to the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that businesses are covered by the First Amendment. If they took a commercial and determined it wasn't suitable due to content, they could very well be sued. But I guarantee you that if they had anything to do with stopping this commercial, they had their Ts crossed and their Is dotted long before rejecting it.

If you own a piece of property that has say a shopping center on it that is open to the public, the areas to and from but not inside the doors of the businesses is considered public and the property owner cannot interfere with free speech by those using that property. The airwaves have been deemed public by the Supreme Court as well.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights may mostly be interpreted as documents protecting us against the gov't. But no individual, group, or business, is allowed to usurp those rights. The difference generally comes in - and this is where it gets sticky - is what you are determining is the reason for denying someone. Are you denying based on a political stance or content? Bummer for you. Have you defined your policy to simply state that guns won't be a part of any commercial either for or against? You are probably safe.

Here's a simple one. Can you say "coloreds" aren't allowed in your establishment? No? But it is a business - not a government building. Why not?