@colage

You definitely have this one right. If the revenue us actually lost, which I doubt very much as I've never seen a blank ad spot, maybe. The bottom line is that advertisements are not guaranteed speech insofar as you're never forced to display them. I imagine whomever handles the ad revenue has a termination clause "for any reason" without penalty.

It's an ad. They don't like it and they don't have to publish it. If we were to push too hard, public transportation might have to resort to dropping ads altogether and doubling fares. Doesn't this really boil down to us making our own choices, teaching our own children our way despite the possibly offensive ads, and not to be personally influenced by ads if you don't wish to be? That's nothing to do with the actual printing of ads on public transportation.

I will admit the decision to remove the ads shows a hypocritical set of morals, but that's really a personal problem.

anything with the PTC isn't worth the paper (either online or off).

I mean they praised the hallmark channel (now hands up, who knew such thing as a hallmark channel actually even existed?)

Colage
its a public transit system that needs money and they are using politics to lose money.
its one thing to drop it without the injection of politics trumping logic,but once politics come into it any group can come to them and get them to remove any ad they don't like because the transit system opened the door to it,this sets a bad president on other grounds as wel .

Wolf
sigh.....ever had to use the bus eh? never relied on it and then one day it was shut down for lack of money?....think about it abit befor you talk...

Brandon St. Germaine
becuse the media mafia is helping the fundies use Video games as a whipping boy,they get money from the game industry and get to sale ads about the evils of the game industry and as long as they get to water down games they will sale more movies.......

I actually agree with BlueWolf72 on this. It's a bus. Who cares about a bus, or a train, or whatever?

However, I also think that the problem here isn't what it's on; rather, the principle of what they want. They're saying, basically, an ad on a bus promotes violence. However, as said earlier, there are ads for alcohol, for cigarettes, for violent movies, etc. But the arguement over those apparently are minimal here, although they're, by that logic, as also stated, influence whatever it is they are advertising. Such as alcohol promoting drinking, and I'd rather be violent than an alcoholic. Although, these ads will not affect this; rather, TV ads are more influential.

So yeah, who cares what medium of transportation it's on. But also, it's what they're trying to do and say which is the issue, not necessarily what they're trying to pull and from what.

Seriously? Is this such a big deal? I can't see anything wrong with any agency, be it a bus system, newspaper, or whatever making choices of what kind of advertisements they accept. I doubt the Family Channel would accept ads for M-Rated games either, where's the fuss over that?

This is just about advertising space, not about actually restricting these games from the market.

This really just shows the PTC's true colors. Do they have problems with Beer and R-rated movies on Transit? I guess if Beer is advertised on the train than it encourages kids to drink. Following thier logic, shouldn't parents be able to ride thier train without alcohol being advertised to kids? And how these ads promote violence any more than an ad for an R-rated movie? I guess people are still under the dellusional impression that kids can't get into R-rated movies. The PTC is full of old fart, out of touch, technophobic, elitest, scumbags who want to dictate how everyone else should live. They are a sickening parasitic stain on the human race and I'll be so happy when thier generation dies out and ours takes over.

Anyone else randomly feel like rioting? And AnonAmbientLight is right, where is our voice? Who speaks for us?

I say, next time a politician like Clinton is in New York, we storm the stage and take our stand.

Also, id like to add.

Where is our voice? I mean all we hear are polititians talking crap about games, all these people bashing games and none of us can get our voices out there. It seems like this is the only place to do it.

I just feel like all the legislators are making the moves, and we are stuck talking about it amongst ourselves and/or to a brick wall.

Im glad that Gampolitics is a reliable and useful source, and im glad that some legislators actually come here sometimes are at least talk to GP guys, but thats not enough.

If this is a free and just country, can we not defend ourselves?

That Portland report had a funny thing tho. The quote
"TriMet said it does not accept ads that promote or encourage illegal activity. After a review, the transit agency decided to pull the ads, saying the national agency who purchased the ad space didn’t alert them to the game’s nature"

Alert them to the games nature? It called GRAND THEFT AUTO!!!

@ jer this is the fourteenth admendment


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"As a father and a Denver-area resident, I want to know that my children can ride public trains and buses without being subjected to ads that promote violence and lawlessness."
If I worked for the RTD, I would need this to more precise to be sure what kind of ads he is talking about. Looking at this objectively, I don't know of any ads that promote violence or lawlessness. If he answered that he meant ads for games like GTA I would then say I would have to refuse ads for movies like "The Fast and Furious" or sitcoms like the "Simpsons" or that "70's show" since there are filled with examples of lawlessness. There is very, very few shows, movies or books that do not have an example of lawlessness inside.

If he then say he only meant videogames I would answer that this is a double standard. If he said that it's not a double standard, because videogames are interactive I would then have to say ads are not.

Well, I haven't been a RTD customer for some time (mainly since I was going to high school in Boulder while living out in the Lafayette/Louisville area, with the -occasional- Denver trip), but I seem to remember, as has been pointed out numerous times both here and on the Boston threads:

-Ads promoting TV shows containing Pre- and Extra-Marital Sex (Beverly Hills 90210, Nip/Tuck, various Soaps, etc).

-Ads promoting TV shows and movies containing violence (The Shield, The Sopranos, NYPD Blue, various Jerry Bruckheimer -style action films, etc)

As a non-parent and an area resident, I want to know that I can ride public trains and buses without being subjected to ads. I therefore demand the removal of all advertisements from public transport.

"Our public transportation network serves more than half the residents of Colorado and is doing them a disservice with its tacit approval for the dangerous content in the Mature-rated video games that are advertised throughout the system."

They seem to refer to the "content" as being a tangible, dangerous thing. Fire is dangerous. A knife is dangerous. Content within a video game is an idea, a concept, not a tangible form- someone emulating a scene from a game is dangerous.

That they claim the transportation system "approves" the content is further ignorance- that's just putting words into their mouths with the idea that because they display it, they must approve of it, when the fact may be that nobody really approves of it.

A point many people have brought up- "I've seen more violent material on CSI- why do they allow THAT to be advertised?" The question then becomes whether it's the idea behind violent material that irks them so much, or the idea that there is a medium they don't understand that contains content they find offensive, and misinformation and ignorance leads them to believe the cotnent is for their own children.

Wake-up call. Most children under 14 don't give 2 flying f***s about advertisements on a bus. Fact is, most get their advertisements from T.V., and are content with that.

GUYS WE NEED TO EMAIL THE TRANSIT PEOPLE AND HELP OUT SO IT DOESN'T END UP LIKE BOSTON
GUYS WE NEED TO EMAIL THE TRANSIT PEOPLE AND HELP OUT SO IT DOESN'T END UP LIKE BOSTONGUYS WE NEED TO EMAIL THE TRANSIT PEOPLE AND HELP OUT SO IT DOESN'T END UP LIKE BOSTON
GUYS WE NEED TO EMAIL THE TRANSIT PEOPLE AND HELP OUT SO IT DOESN'T END UP LIKE BOSTON
GUYS WE NEED TO EMAIL THE TRANSIT PEOPLE AND HELP OUT SO IT DOESN'T END UP LIKE BOSTON

Ahem. But really, we should.

Frankly, the PTC is full of drek. For those of you who aren't wrestling fans, in the mid to late '90s, the PTC had, basically, a long running feud with the WWF (World Wrestling Federation, not the World Wildlife Fund) over the content of their programming, with the general theme that it was too violent.

In the course of this feud, the PTC fabricated some claims of people being severely injured mimicking stuff on WWF programming, as well as putting a "blacklist" and "whitelist" of advertisers (you were on the blacklist if you were advertising on WWF programming, and on the whitelist if you weren't). However, they failed to take people off the blacklist when they stopped advertising, and they kept people on the whitelist who were advertising on WWE programming. Also, they claimed companies had pulled their advertising from WWF programming in protest when they had not.

Ultimately, Vinnie Mac (Vincent Kennedy McMahon Jr., VP of the WWF/E) took the PTC and it's parent organization, the Media Research Center, to court for making the false claims regarding the murders, and the advertising claims, and for using footage taken from WWF programming in fundraising videos without consent. Ultimately they came to a settlement, after which the PTC and MRC stopped attacking WWF/E programming.

Also, it bears mentioning that 20% of the complaints made to the FCC in 2003 (the year of the Janet Jackson Halftime Show Incident) were made by the PTC.

In short, it disgusts me to see the PTC and it's ilk having such a chilling effect on public expression.

I think I speak for all of us when I say:

"GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!! HOW DO YOU EVEN REMEMBER TO BREATHE DURING THE DAY?!?!?!?!"

Phew. Glad I got that out of my system.

Interesting, however I would like to read the letter they sent but the link isnt working.

"As a father and a Denver-area resident, I want to know that my children can ride public trains and buses without being subjected to ads that promote violence and lawlessness."

As we all know kids have no brains and cannot think... they just have these little machines that copy the last thing they saw or heard end act it out.

This of course goes for most politicians too...

@Shoehorn O'Plenty

"I’ve seen ads quoting Bible passages on public transport, how successful would I be in complaining about them and asking for them to be removed because I don’t want kids to hurt each other emulating David vs Goliath, or crucifying each other?"

I should so do that; just for the hell of it.

"Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage." - Igningokt

Anyhow, I dunno. Is it just me, or is it kind of ironic that Grand Theft Auto, wanting to be pulled off a automobile...I just find it minorly ironic.

That's true, but everyone knows that the events in movies aren't real.

Then again, it WAS Boston, you know how badly those people overreact to the simplest of things *coughLITEBRITEcough*

http://www.feelingame.com

rolex replica