SF Weekly blogs reports that the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency doesn’t allow movie ads with guns in them:
While the official poster for [The Other Guys] features a maniacal Ferrell and the menacing Wahlberg sailing through the air, guns drawn, the version on Muni vehicles and in stations features Ferrell brandishing a vial of pepper spray and Wahlberg relying upon his bare fists. This is not a coincidence.“Well, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency does have an advertising policy that states ads should not appear to promote the use of firearms or advocate any violent action,” explains spokesman Paul Rose.
Sure enough, the policy says,
Advertising on Municipal Transportation Agency (“MTA”) property, or as authorized under any contract with the MTA, constitutes a nonpublic forum. No such advertisement shall:* be false, misleading or deceptive;
* concern a declared political candidate or ballot measure scheduled for consideration by the voters in an upcoming election, or an initiative petition submitted to the San Francisco Department of Elections;
* appear to promote the use of firearms;
* be clearly defamatory;
* be obscene or pornographic;
* advocate imminent lawlessness or violent action;
* promote alcoholic beverages or tobacco products;
* infringe on any copyright, trade or service mark, title or slogan
The policy is unconstitutional, at least as applied to movie ads, because it’s viewpoint-based. The government has broad authority to restrict speech on its own property (at least setting aside traditional public forums, which transportation ad space is not, see the linked-to opinion’s favorable citation to the Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights plurality opinion). But even in such a nonpublic forum that’s open for advertising purposes, it may not restrict speech based on viewpoint. And a ban on speech that “appear[s] to promote the use of firearms” — but not speech that appears to oppose the use of firearms — is viewpoint-based.
It’s possible that a ban on the advertising of nonspeech products, such as guns, might be treated more deferentially (a difficult question that I set aside here). But a general ban on speech that seems to promote the use of firearms would be unconstitutional (see the highlighted passage in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul), both as to noncommercial advertisements — e.g., political ads supporting private gun ownership and use — and as to the movie ads discussed here. And of course on top of this I can’t see how the ad here in fact promotes (or even appears to promote) the use of firearms or advocates any violent action.
But even if the policy were viewpoint-neutral — for instance, barred all depiction of guns, which might well qualify as viewpoint-neutral (depending on whether courts would focus on the agency’s possibly viewpoint-suppressive motivations) — and were thus constitutional, I think it would be pretty pathetic. Do the citizens of San Francisco really need to be protected from posters of actors pretending to shoot guns (with both hands yet, while jumping through the air)? Is the municipal government really worried that such ads, or any like them, will promote crime? Or is the government so absurdly pacifist that it just insists on not having anything on its property that seems to portray guns in a positive light? Let’s hope that San Franciscans drum some sense of perspective into their bureaucrats.
Thanks to Christie Caywood and Sebastian (Snowflakes in Hell) for the pointer.
San Francisco Transit Authority Bans Depictions of Guns? | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] very sure about my position because of the fact that this is a transportation authority. His opinion is that is it unconstitutional, but for different reasons than I laid [...]
August 9, 2010, 8:19 pmRobert says:
Would the “promote alcoholic beverages or tobacco products” section also infringe? I would think that it does.
August 9, 2010, 8:25 pmef says:
Or is the
August 9, 2010, 8:27 pmgovernmentleft soabsurdly pacifistentirely monopolistic on the ownership of lethal force?B.D. says:
Dirty Harry would not approve.
August 9, 2010, 8:30 pmJardinero1 says:
Well then, you won’t find me watching any movies in San Francisco anymore.
August 9, 2010, 8:35 pmCDR D says:
Our esteemed Professor sez:
Let’s hope that San Franciscans drum some sense of perspective into their bureaucrats.
hahahahaha
August 9, 2010, 8:35 pmrb1971 says:
How absurd. I wonder how much money the city spends enforcing this policy?
Also, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen MUNI ads for Bay-to-Breakers in the past, which must violate the prohibition against ads the advocate imminent lawlessness.
August 9, 2010, 8:40 pmSteve says:
But even in such a nonpublic forum that’s open for advertising purposes, it may not restrict speech based on viewpoint. And a ban on speech that “appear[s] to promote the use of firearms” — but not speech that appears to oppose the use of firearms — is viewpoint-based.
Why aren’t restrictions on cigarette and alcohol advertising – in places where it’s ok to publish anti-smoking or anti-drinking ads – similarly unconstitutional?
August 9, 2010, 8:46 pmKamal says:
Good question. I’m personally more annoyed by the anti “obscene or pornographic;” provision. I rationally find both obscenity and pornography acceptable, and not something we need to protect anyone (even children) from. Depictions of firearms or violence are obviously more dangerous than obscenity or pornography (though I’m not saying that’s very dangerous). I don’t think we should ban either. So Eugene, why aren’t you addressing those? Are they more acceptable, legally? If so, why?
August 9, 2010, 8:51 pmHm says:
what if the advertisement is showing how EVIL guns are
August 9, 2010, 8:53 pmKamal says:
That wouldn’t “appear to promote the use of firearms;”, unless they are worried about you targeting people who wish to be EVIL.
August 9, 2010, 8:57 pmJustin says:
Am I mistaken that I’ve seen ads/posters for actual law enforcement on MUNI, even recruiting for law enforcement agencies that picture men and women wearing sidearms?
August 9, 2010, 8:58 pmSebastian the Ibis says:
The California state budget could not be hung on the train since it is:
* false, misleading or deceptive;
August 9, 2010, 8:59 pm* concerns a ballot measure scheduled for consideration by the voters in an upcoming election;
* will inevitably require the use of firearms when law and order breaks down;
* is obscene;
* advocates lawlessness;
* and certainly promotes the use of alcoholic beverages or tobacco products;
Kamal says:
They would probably disagree that it would “appear to promote the use of firearms;”. The item in question is showing people acting out seemingly random violence with firearms. While it’s stupid to ban that, there is a distinction.
August 9, 2010, 9:01 pmPerseus says:
He didn’t say that he expected San Franciscans will do so, only that he hoped they will do so. Keep hope alive!
August 9, 2010, 9:03 pmKamal says:
Hopefully once we can pass budgets with a simple majority (Prop 25, which is going to pass), things will improve. At least this way we won’t be hostage to Republicans who are trying to protect Big Business.
August 9, 2010, 9:05 pmMalvolio says:
True that. We San Franciscans are, tragically, getting the municipal government we deserve.
A few years back, I went to a PTA meeting. Two items on the agenda: first, the success of the “harm reduction” approach in the school’s drug-awareness program; second, two freshmen boys had been apprehended by city police, on a Saturday, firing a BB gun at a dumpster near, but not on, school property.
The BB incident was treated as the second coming of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. I made the suggestion that since harm reduction had been such a buffo success with drugs, the school should run a similar program of education students in the proper use of firearms.
Wow, what a hornets’ nest that kicked over. A dozen other parents were screaming at me simultaneous, I was a lunatic, I was trying to get children killed, yadda yadda. A ban on guns in movie posters was crystalline sanity compared to what these people felt, and expressed, on the subject.
That’s not even a little bit right.
The average movie’s depiction of violence is approximately as accurate as the physics in The Core. No, you can’t shoot an AK-47 hundreds of times without reloading; no, if you take a 20mm round in the chest, you won’t have time to tell the hero how important he is; no, cars don’t blow up when they crash.
But you know what? I don’t care. I don’t care if my kids are vague on the details of bullet-torso interaction, so long as they file it in the general category of “bad”. Ditto with how things explode, how to hold a pistol, the time to recover from a knife wound, and so on.
Porn is similarly inaccurate, but sex is important. Next time you’re watching a porn movie, think about how horrible would be the life of anyone who took any of it as representative of reality. No, boobs are not supposed to look like that; the pizza-delivery girl will not have sex with you; yes, pizza-delivery boy might, but you don’t want check; and so on.
August 9, 2010, 9:20 pmbel says:
So No Tora- Tora. Midaway Battle, Guadalcanal. The longest day in history, posters
August 9, 2010, 9:31 pmbee says:
EV: “Or is the government so absurdly pacifist that it just insists on not having anything on its property that seems to portray guns in a positive light.”
Volokh posted some really cringe-worthy stuff in the run-up to the Iraq war. He’s in a poor position to mock pacifists.
August 9, 2010, 9:32 pmtvk says:
Deferring to your expertise on the first amendment, I nonetheless want to question the viewpoint neutrality point. So can the city ban advertising that “promotes alcoholic beverages or tobacco products,” as one commentator noted.
What about a ban on advertising that “promotes teenage sex” (which is not imminent unlawful action), or “promotes unlawful drug use” (again, not imminent)?
August 9, 2010, 9:50 pmrfg says:
Leaving aside the issue of content-based restrictions, the standard is too vague to apply consistently.
Also, there are things that are appropriate for adults to do or watch in a public space, but porn is not one of them. I see no valid purpose in allowing pornographic ads in the public space (note I’m trying to distinguish between an ad for porn, and an ad that contains or is porn). While children may not “need” to be protected (in terms of causing harm to them), perhaps we as adults need protection from the inevitable questions (imagine discussing this with a four-year old!).
August 9, 2010, 9:55 pmB.D. says:
I think it’s interesting as hell when the left and the right share the same hypocrisies. Social conservatives go on and on about the dangers of sex education encouraging irresponsible behavior. The SF liberals you encountered basically came to the same conclusion regarding firearms safety training.
August 9, 2010, 9:57 pmJian says:
I’ve the same cleaned-up version of the movie poster in New York. Specifically, it was on the side of a building, probably residential, in view of the road to the Lincoln Tunnel entrance.
August 9, 2010, 10:18 pmbaby in a social justice carriage says:
The policy is clearly racist and animationist.
August 9, 2010, 10:24 pmShelbyC says:
Wow. When I was little I used to take my BB gun on my paper route and shoot at all sorts of things.
August 9, 2010, 10:26 pmLarryA says:
Well, it’s San Francisco. What can you say?
Our rural Texas school board recently held a hearing on a proposed FBI shooting range. Part of the discussion was that the range might be close enough to the high school that someone might be able to hear gun shots in the distance. (I doubt it, unless they were outside, no one was making any noise, and there was no traffic on the nearby main road.) There was great concern that the students might hear shooting and be terrified.
These are the same teens who live in a county where hunting is a major industry. They can hear “gunshots in the distance” throughout the year. (There are no closed seasons on hunting exotic game.) In fact, many if not most of them are themselves hunters.
Hopolophobia.
August 9, 2010, 10:28 pmShelbyC says:
I’d imagine that the constututional doctrine of obscenity makes those less clearly unconsitutional.
August 9, 2010, 10:35 pmShelbyC says:
The commerical speech doctrine would complicate the issue wrt alchohol and tobacco advertising. To the extent that it would prevent sombody from expressing their non-commercial opinion that smoking and drinking is cool, sure it would infringe.
August 9, 2010, 10:40 pmAnon says:
Have you considered that they have the policy in place to avoid a public outcry? Just as you take exception to this rule being in place, I imagine that there would be one of those annoying “get the guns out of our transportation!”-type groups cropping up if guns started appearing in ads. I just say this because your article ridicules the authorities for having the policy, but they may feel they had no choice given the population they’re serving and went this way to avoid major troubles from the population.
So, though I agree that these sorts of restrictions are really silly, I don’t think (solely) blaming the public transportation authority is going to help any. Trying to convince people that these restrictions are ridiculous will go a lot further. Also, trying to convince people to understand that just because ads appear on X doesn’t mean that X supports the ads would be great (though this might be a loooong stretch in our society).
Reference this earlier comment for a great demonstration of what I’m thinking of, and what the authorities may be trying to avoid:
August 9, 2010, 10:40 pmOrenWithAnE says:
For those angry socons, remember that the shoe was on the other foot just recently.
[ FWIW personally I think all those ads are just fine. It's the rampant 'for me but not for thee'-ism that just boils the blood. ]
August 9, 2010, 10:53 pmSarcastro says:
[San Fransisco is to liberals as where is to Conservatives?]
August 9, 2010, 11:08 pmSoronel Haetir says:
So does the sanitized action actually appear somewhere in the movie or did they shoot promo material specifically for such situations?
August 9, 2010, 11:25 pmKamal says:
Somalia?
August 9, 2010, 11:38 pmSarcastro says:
Not enough military spending.
August 9, 2010, 11:45 pmSoronel Haetir says:
How about Alabama?
August 9, 2010, 11:53 pmSteve says:
Well, I’m not saying I disagree with your distinction, but arguably a movie ad is commercial speech as well.
August 10, 2010, 12:08 amSarcastro says:
[My thoughts went to states first as well. Wyoming is super conservative, Arizona is in the news lately, Missouri is going nullification crisis on us. But they are all too big to be the pure sort of crazy SF gets up to. I think you need a city.
Las Vegas maybe for the libertarians.
Though upon reflection, cities by their nature are not going to be conservative. It's smaller towns, I'd guess, that best represents conservative impracticality.]
August 10, 2010, 12:10 amdisintelligentsia says:
Wasilla, AK?
August 10, 2010, 12:42 amSoronel Haetir says:
Sarcastro,
I would say the important thing is the absolute complete capture of government. California as a state is not captured the way SF is as a city (though it’s not a lot better). There are plenty of states however that demonstrate just as much of a conservative capture.
August 10, 2010, 12:47 amdisintelligentsia says:
OK, it’s commercial speech – a movie poster. So let’s apply the “Central Hudson Test”.
Does the speech have the following attributes?:
1. The regulated speech concerns an illegal activity,
2. The speech is misleading, or
3. The government’s interest in restricting the speech is substantial, the regulation in question directly advances the government’s interest, and
4. The regulation is narrowly tailored* to serve the government’s interest.
1. Well, bearing guns openly in San Fran is illegal. At least until we get a decent case before SCOTUS on the “bearing” part of our rights
2. The speech is misleading – as Eugene noted, it shows ACTORS pointing guns, with both hands yet, while jumping through the air. If that’s not misleading about how responsible police would handle firearms, I don’t know what is.
3. The government’s interest in restricting speech relating to firearms is substantial – at least in a leftist muni like San Fran. They want to make sure the
subjectscitizens, know their place and rely on Nanny for everything – including self-defense. It’s a shame you can’t carry a cop in your pocket.4. It’s narrowly tailored to meet the muni’s purpose. For them all guns are evil and anything less than a total ban would not meet their purpose.
There you have it. It’s now constitutional.
August 10, 2010, 12:51 amDavid Schwartz says:
Is this supposed to be a defense of the policy or the people who adopted it?! I think it’s one of the strongest reasons to condemn them. (Didn’t they take some kind of oath to uphold the Constitution?)
August 10, 2010, 1:18 amJustin says:
I’m sure they would disagree with my suggestion that their own law enforcement ads would violate their policy if the movie ads do, but I’m not sure I see the distinction you suggest. Actors playing cops holding guns versus depictions of actors/real law enforcement officers who are armed seem very similar to me, particularly since the movie ads don’t show people acting out seemingly random violence. I’m not sure where you assume that since the movie ads don’t provide any context…just a picture of two actors playing cops holding guns. In this situation, I don’t see how the movie ad promotes the use of firearms any more than a bland law enforcement recruiting ad.
August 10, 2010, 3:25 amStephen Lathrop says:
Sarcastro, Houston.
August 10, 2010, 6:25 amAnon says:
It’s “I think I understand where they’re coming from, and I feel a little bad that they’re not only caught up in a wider systemic issue to which they’re likely just reacting but are also getting vilified for picking what they felt was the better of two evils.” That part wasn’t meant to support or condemn the policy, just a general comment of something I felt people weren’t considering much here. I detest rants that fail to incorporate any reasonable explanation for someone’s actions, however much one may agree or disagree with the reasons. I also keep seeing the liberal conspiracy theory type of “logic” in some of these comments, so it seemed like a good idea to propose motivation that wasn’t so conspiratorial.
As for the policy itself, I said I thought it was silly. I leave constitutional questions to those more knowledgeable than myself, though I’m personally inclined to agree that banning depictions of “promoting firearms” is likely to be unconstitutional.
August 10, 2010, 9:04 amPersonFromPorlock says:
That isn’t so much the left and right as it is the left-flavored and right-flavored branches of Puritanism. There are many of us who disagree on what’s right and wrong, who still agree that government has no business discouraging ‘wrong’ thoughts.
August 10, 2010, 9:18 amKatahdin says:
I’m not sure ‘super conservative’ is an accurate description of the WY mindset. For example:
“The first territorial legislature of the Wyoming Territory granted women suffrage in 1869.[32] … In 1890, Wyoming was admitted to the Union as the first state that allowed women to vote.” (source)
IMHE, as a former resident, the low population density engenders both tolerance and self reliance, leading to a slightly libertarian, vice conservative, outlook. There are exceptions of course; federal pork is a tasty dish nationwide.
August 10, 2010, 9:31 amAmphipolis says:
On the one hand, liberals are opposed to even the suggestion of gun use for any reason.
On the other, Hollywood inundates us with depictions of gun violence – indeed, that is the only place most of us ever see guns.
August 10, 2010, 10:23 amSarcastro says:
[I stand corrected, Katahdin. I based my opinion on that fact that WY was the only state to get more conservative in 2008, and the fact that Dick Cheney came from there. Hardly strong evidence, and I cede to your experience.]
August 10, 2010, 10:31 ambaby in a social justice carriage says:
Houston’s not so bad. I spoke civilly with a Democrat in town the other day… who works in D.C… on progressive issues…
He didn’t call me a cretin creationist christianist from the land of many bushes, so I didn’t pull a gun on him.
August 10, 2010, 11:00 amBarbara Skolaut says:
Given those two choices, Eugene, I’ll take Door #2.
A more accurate answer is, they’re idiots.
August 10, 2010, 11:37 amchoral larry says:
Guns don’t kill people, movie ad depictions of them do?
August 10, 2010, 11:54 amchoral larry says:
Guns don’t kill people, movie ads do?
August 10, 2010, 11:57 amzippypinhead says:
We have a winner!
August 10, 2010, 1:42 pmthirdeblue says:
The phrase ‘appear to promote the use of firearms’ seems unconstitutional. I wonder if something less issue oriented as ‘brandishing a firearm’ would survive.
August 10, 2010, 2:57 pmBuckoux says:
The gun. The un-credited “co-star” of more Hollywood movies than any other implement of human invention. It’s use, as such, by Hollywood is protected by the 1st. Amendment. The guns mis-use in real life, often the result of Hollywood educated ignorance, threatens the 2nd. Amendment. Therefore, as long as Hollywood issues no disclaimer regarding the use, mis-use and the impossible feats of marksmanship and violence that are carefully crafted stunts and not possible in the “real” world, then I favor the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s stand banning guns in movie posters. And before you R2KBA’rs jump my post, I’m a member of the NRA and my state rifle and pistol organization and I think Hollywood is a bigger threat to the broad interpretation of the 2nd. Amendment that I favor along with other R2KBA’rs.
August 10, 2010, 3:41 pmRich Rostrom says:
ISTM the problem is that the state is intruding into the private sector.
If a privately operated transit company decided it did not want to carry some category of ads, there would be no question of its authority in the matter.
Normal governmental operations don’t include taking on advertising.
It is only because the SFMTA is a state controlled body doing what should be a private activity that there is a dispute.
If the city of San Francisco legislated what ads the SFMT Corporation could display on its buses, then there would be another 1st Amendment issue, but one I think SFTMC would win easily.
August 10, 2010, 4:19 pmLarryA says:
Seen any SWAT training lately?
Houston is actually dark blue. The current mayor, Annise Parker, is an out lesbian, and the former mayor, Bill White, is the Democrat running for governor. Back before the Legislature rapped their knuckles, Houston prohibited concealed carry on their transit system and in many parks.
In Texas the better choice for reddest city would be Tyler.
I think there’s a school in Hollywood that teaches the wrong way to use firearms. It can’t all be accidental.
August 10, 2010, 5:20 pmnun in a black abaya says:
Buckoux, the SFMTA should ban cars in movie posters, too, given those irresponsible, impossible near misses or gratuitous death and destruction causing, (certainly maiming and killing if mimicked in real life,) car chases.
August 10, 2010, 5:43 pmotto preminger says:
Hollywood’s implicit disclaimer: People, this is a MOVIE. A fictional work of art in which the laws of physics and common sense don’t have to hold. No one actually dies, except in occasional set accidents. Suspend disbelief, enjoy, and quit being ninnies about the pretend sex and violence for idiots and sophisticates alike.
August 10, 2010, 6:03 pmKatahdin says:
Every family has a black sheep.
August 10, 2010, 6:27 pmgullyborg says:
Ads that are misleading are also prohibited… so… if the movie poster is edited to show fighting with bare hands and pepper spray, when the actual film shows fighting with firearms, isn’t the ad MISLEADING??? What happens when concerned parents take little snowflake to see the movie, believing it will show that justice can be served in a world without guns, only to have little snowflake scarred for life by depictions of firearms in use? I would sue.
August 10, 2010, 6:50 pmgullyborg says:
this is an example of what a movie advertisement in San Francisco might be like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7h6o3I8yw
August 10, 2010, 6:52 pmDan says:
I love how federalism and respect for local mores seems to end when it is a liberal-oriented policy. Would conservatives and conservative libertarians be as condescending if a southern city incorporated fundamentalist christian policies, thus touching on the establishment clause to the same degree as this touches on free expression/speech? While I’m not saying Eugene wouldn’t be equally critical (I’d like to think I respect his views a lot more than that), I do think the tone would be decidedly different. Just a pot-meet-kettle moment for some conservatives out there.
August 10, 2010, 7:50 pm??? says:
Not that I favor this as censorship, but I actually like the replacement ads better. The regular movie poster screams “stereotypical buddy-cop movie!” to me. The replacement, if only because of the sheer ridiculousness of it (particularly Will Farrel holding the pepper spray like some cowardly idiot), is far more compelling. If they did that as part of the national campaign, it would have been far more interesting to see.
August 10, 2010, 8:04 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Dan, many conservatives on this site where quite happy that Boston got smacked down in their refusal of pro-marijuana ads, despite their general opposition to decriminalization.
August 10, 2010, 8:05 pmJames Grant says:
Is this much different from the New York
August 10, 2010, 8:41 pmMetropolitan Transit Agency policy related to 9-11 imagery? They were recently sued for rejecting an advertisement, and they settled today.
Jon Wiener says:
The policy is unconstitutional and wrong, but this seems like a bit of piling on. If I’m going to start taking time out of my day to write letters to MUNI officials about the problems with their agency, it’s going to be a few months until I’m penning one about my freedom to see guns in bus ads.
August 11, 2010, 1:21 amded parrot says:
As a long-time SF resident, I regretfully must second this analysis. More colloquially, the SF Muni policy is “ideologikly korrekt”, which is a VERY IMPORTANT THING for public policy to be here.
August 11, 2010, 1:56 amJohn T. Bennett says:
Another hopeless progressive effort to alter the violent behavior of the underclass.
If the progressive ideology produced good results, wouldn’t SF have already managed to change the attitudes and behavior of its underclass?
The ultimate cause of this poster is the high prevalence of violence within certain demographic groups. This violence can be expected to lead to sinister and utopian efforts to use official rules and power to alter the pathological behavior of the underclass. The dynamic is at play any time elite liberals are in positions of authority. The dynamic transcends race, but obviously the question of crime will usually implicate certain ethnic groups.
In the case of SF, (fill in the ethnicity) liberals desire to decrease (fill in the ethnicity) lower-class violence.
This reasonable liberal desire is shared by all sensitive people, but the liberal is different in that they are motivated to use the power of the state to ameliorate the self-destructive tendencies of the underclass. This motivation stems from an exaggerated belief in the efficacy of social workers/policy, with an attendant belief in the malleability of underclass norms. That is what sets liberals apart- the false hope that officials and the government can bring about a change in underclass habits by legislating or censoring.
August 11, 2010, 6:06 amBuckoux says:
Automobiles, that is, “personal transportation devices”, do not have a Constitutional amendment that protects the “right of the people to keep and bear” them. Any other “implement”, other than “arm” is irrelevant. If media, to include the movies, do not influence popular behavior than why is so much money spent on advertising everything from iPhones to impotence pills? Why is so much money spent on political campaigns to buy media time to influence voters? Because it works! The depiction in movies of gun violence – especially the realistically impossible and abuse-to-excess of firearms – that are protected under the 1st. Amendment, place a heavy burden upon the supporters of the 2nd. Amendment. It is a “truth in advertising” issue to me.
BTW, two of the the first feature “movies” to be made are: “The Great Train Robbery, made in America in 1903, and “The Story of the Kelly Gang”, made in Australia in 1906. As their titles suggest, there is going to be “gun play”. If the “gun” wasn’t present, there would be no story. So, I present these very early examples of cinema in support of my opinion that the visual media overwhelmingly and historically exploits gun violence to the real detriment of a Constitutional amendment. The movies do have influence upon popular culture and upon political thought and opinion. To deny that film, or posters depicting scenes from films, cannot have a malevolent influence is to be naive and would be news to Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl.
August 11, 2010, 12:16 pmstop cigarette says:
I gave up cigs last week and it’s beginning to hit me today. My partner says I probably will not get it done but I am so sure about it I will be successful. Today I started getting aches in my tummy and I truly want a puff. I won’t give into the craving mainly because I am making this effort for our young ones. I am blessed to have the e cigarette. It’s been very helpful to me.
August 11, 2010, 1:15 pmChris Travers says:
Or maybe the movie ad with guns is a part of a right-wing plot by NRA groupies to kill the aspirations of many San Francisco residents to be legally married to a member of the same sex….
Either way it’s not Constitutional IMO.
August 11, 2010, 1:15 pmFour Cities May Violate the First Amendment With Restrictions By Restricting Bus Advertisements | Popehat says:
[...] by which it apparently means “depict” them. Hence, despite the fact that its stance is obviously unconstitutional, San Francisco requires horrible posters for horrible movies to be rendered even more horrible by [...]
August 11, 2010, 4:43 pmRich Rostrom says:
otto preminger says: Hollywood’s implicit disclaimer: People, this is a MOVIE.
Right. And Birth of a Nation, Jud Süss, Mrs. Miniver, Gentleman’s Agreement, Inherit the Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird, and The China Syndrome were just movies.
But let’s get a little subtler than that: ever heard of “Starsky and Hutch syndrome”? In police action shows on television, it was common to show an officer holding a gun near his head in close-up. Having the face and the gun both in the shot made a powerful image.
Unforutnately, more than a few officers consciously or unconsciously imitated what they saw, instead of holding their guns down, at arms length and pointed away from the head. And when an officer, say, breaks through a door, his gun may go off, and it may have wobbled around to point at his head. An Indiana state trooper was killed that way.
I’ll agree that “cartoon violence” is less dangerous, because it’s so obvioulsy unrealistic. But there’s a lot of other territory to stay out of.
August 11, 2010, 5:10 pmmadmen do sexual and racial stereotypes, too says:
To nun in a black abaya who said, “Buckoux, the SFMTA should ban cars in movie posters, too,” Buckoux replies:
Buckoux, your comment is so self-contradicting, disjointed and nonsensical as to be fine farce. Oh, let’s not forget your Nazi refs. Satirical knife play, ya?
Let’s not forget that knives, while not firearms, certainly qualify as 2nd A “arms” and can be devastatingly lethal, and yet their depiction isn’t banned by SFMTA policy.
Please allow me to match your obsession with train films with Thomas the (cheeky) Engine, and ante up with stabbing feminist angst hook-up culture Looking for Mr. Goodbar.
August 11, 2010, 7:39 pmLarryA says:
According to an updated story:
August 12, 2010, 1:10 am“Update, Aug. 10: Interestingly, while the stars are disarmed in the posters within Muni stations, Wahlberg and Ferrell are packing heat on the sides of Muni vehicles — an interesting, if nonsensical, double-standard.”
Buckoux says:
I take all that as a compliment. Farce can be illuminating or, as Thos. Pain put it: “One step below the sublime makes the ridiculous and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again”. And I must plead guilty to the use of “Nazi’s refs”, but not for lacking depth or I would have lowered myself to the onerous and ubiquitous Hitler reference. No, I picked these not-so-well-known propagandists to support my point. Films and posters do influence SOME people and can, and do, influence many people! Graphic depictions attract the human brains attention or there would be no Picasso or porno. To mostly otherwise “sane” persons the image (not text), malevolent or benevolent, is taken with a grain of salt and due consideration to source and intent. But not all persons are sane, reflective or skeptical.
In a 1993 Wesley Snipes film entitled; “Boiling Point”, its poster showed Wesley holding a chrome, large-bore revolver, pointed slightly off the viewer and most prominent in the posters foreground with Snipes “determined” face behind the revolver in the background. I remember this poster well as it was on just about every bus bench that I passed in the city where I live and, at the time, the Los Angeles Times was running a two page editorial series on how all firearms in the USA could be confiscated without violating the Constitution, including the 2nd. Amendment (their opinion, not mine). These were the days of Shelby Coffey III as editor of the LA Times. The LA Times refused to run the same poster image of the Snipes movie ad in the movie section of the paper. Before long, the poster was changed as well to delete the gun.
I was admittedly relieved. But not for this de facto suppression of the 1st. Amendment by the LA Times, but because there are no images with which to argue, with the same intensity, any opposite meaning to these purposely menacing images of a gun. What, a poster of a “Minuteman” and his Brown Bess rifle? Most Americans associate that image with the NRA more than they do the liberty that was the result of armed Colonists.
As for knives. I agree with you, they too are arms and California law restricts their size and form in as many ways as they do firearms. It was an error only of omission to achieve some brevity of post. However, in my defense, the 1950′s TV series “Jim Bowie” was never resurrected again in film, TV or even as a cartoon. Big knives don’t sell movies.
August 12, 2010, 3:34 pmLarryA says:
Really?
August 13, 2010, 12:15 amSue Charlton: [guardedly] Mick, give him your wallet.
Michael J. “Crocodile” Dundee: [amused] What for?
Sue Charlton: [cautiously] He’s got a knife.
Michael J. “Crocodile” Dundee: [chuckles] That’s not a knife.
[he pulls out a large bowie knife]
Michael J. “Crocodile” Dundee: Now THAT’s a knife.
njhc says:
Why did they put all that effort into making a poster that nobody can even read? Whoever chose that font needs to be out of the decision-making process.
September 1, 2010, 12:24 pmS.F. Municipal Transit Agency Accepts Ad for Gun Rights Conference, Depicting a Woman with a Gun | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] is so despite Muni’s earlier refusal to allow a movie ad showing police officers wielding guns, apparently on the grounds that it “appear[ed] to promote the use of firearms.” The new ad, for [...]
September 1, 2010, 11:22 pmFriday Morning: Links Edition | Whiskey and Car Keys says:
[...] Yet another reason to make fun of San Francisco [...]
September 3, 2010, 9:32 amThomas says:
So I guess Buzz Lightyear is screwed.
September 3, 2010, 10:39 pm