Was only a matter of time, to be honest, no-one worried about 'The Day After' etc, and they were quite horrific, but then they weren't those dratted 'Vidja Games'...

You'll always get people who will be oversensitive, purely because they can be.

lol its so daft.

How many films have been advertised in the metro that feature terrorists, washington, bombs, etc etc

I mean ban adverts for '24' , that show is all about the terrorists. So completely daft.

I say, just for spite, place MORE ads! /joke

 Uninformed moron is uninformed.

If the works of Andrew Pollock and Andy Warhol are protected by the First Amendment (and they are) then so is this. The art itself express viewpoints and ideas in our minds.

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Next thing you know, people will start saying "Stop reporting about deaths in the news, we do not need reminders that we will eventually die."

So, apparently it takes almost three weeks to cook up a complaint? 

What's amusing is the sense of false accomplishment this guy will have in a couple weeks.  I'm assuming that the ads were probably supposed to run through the end of the month, which is next week.  If that's the case then another week will go by and then the ads will be replaced by something else and then this guy will think "Look at that, I did that with my keen misunderstanding of the First Amendment."

And who, may I ask, is Joseph Anzalone? He has no credentials, no title, no law degree. So, what makes him qualified to make pronouncements about what the First Amendment protects, or doesn't protect? Right, then.

Also, I was a little put off by this comment:

"The ads should be removed, and the appropriate office at Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority should be directed to exercise better judgment regarding what can be displayed in our transportation system." [my emphasis]

So, he wants to chill free speech by making rules about what can (not "should") be displayed in the subway? Y'know, I don't think that the ads are that great - they're obviously presenting a provocatively frightening image in order to get people to look - but I don't think they should be censored. Pretty soon they'll be complaining that the ads in the subway are pro-immigrant (schools for learning English) or that they're immoral (that woman advertising the new NBC show is revealing too much cleavage) and then we're on a slippery slope to Censorship Land.

I though the whole concept of free speech is that you can talk about anything you want. It doesn't limit to political messages. As far as I know, the only time the the first amendment is excluded is "Clear and present danger" like yelling bomb at a airport.

I bet if 9/11 never happened, people wouldn't mind the ad anyway as much as they do today.

@ronnoc

If I find the time, I will try to write something. I use DC metro weekly and have seen the ads, but from an objective standpoint, I can't see why anybody would complain about them. Honestly... ffffffffffff, great, now I'm raged.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now compare to:

"Since any First Amendment objection would be irrelevant (the ads do not present a true viewpoint or political message and would therefore not be protected), there is no reason for these ads to be part of our daily panorama."

Ok...so his arguement is that because the ads to not have any form of political nature or viewpoint to them, that they're not covered under the First Ammendment.  He apparently doesn't read much.  Where in the First Ammendment does it give any sort of requirement that speech has to be political in some way for it to be protected?

The answer is no where.  To be concise, it says that the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  That's is it.  It means all speach and any speach, you shallow, narrow minded, insecure jackass.  And now you've written something to the paper that's been published, and now everyone can see you're an idiot as well.

I hope they tell the guy to shut the hell up, and quit being a dumbass.

Wow that is just so stupid.......

Vegeta what's his fail level.....

Vegeta what's his fail level.....

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!

Okay, as much as I hate it, I have to agree.

Those shouldn't be in D.C. or other places where people feel they are high priority targets for attack.

It's negative PR, and unlike the ATHF stuff (which this instantly reminded me of), it won't boost sales, and might turn public opinion further against video games.

It'd be like putting a huge big mac sign outside of a clinic that specializes in bulemia. As hilarious as it might sound, it'd do harm, and would cause people to want to avoid the product.

Now if it was like a commercial advertisement for one of the vaults, it might be a bit more tolerable. heh.

yeah, i can't believe someone wanted to write in about an ad for a game based on 1.) a past that didn't happen, and 2.) a future that is 200 years in front of us. what a joke. take up a nobler cause, dude.

also, the metro was filled with all kinds of ads for this game, beyond the reported screenshots by the clown who wrote to the washington post. vault boy makes several appearances, as do fake cereal box ads. it is a pretty phenomenal campaign that will end just in time for the guy who complained to think he was responsible.