Atheists sue over bus ads on God-free lifestyle
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110610/od_nm/us_atheist_ads

By Suzi Parker Suzi Parker – Fri Jun 10, 2011

LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) – A coalition of atheists is accusing Little
Rock's city bus line of violating their rights to free speech in a fight
to place ads on public buses praising a God-free lifestyle.

The Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason alleged in a lawsuit that the
Central Arkansas Transit Authority and its advertising agency are
discriminating against the group because they're being required to pay
tens of thousands of dollars to put $5,000 worth of ads on 18 buses.

The ads would read: "Are you good without God? Millions are."

Other groups, including churches, have not been required to pay the fee,
which amounts to $36,000 in insurance in case of an attack on the buses
by angry Christians, according to the lawsuit.

The insurance was requested by the transit agency's advertising firm, On
The Move Advertising, officials said.

Because a handful of similar ads had been vandalized in other states,
the ad agency required the payment for insurance reasons, said Jess
Sweere, an attorney representing the transit authority.

"To my knowledge, OTMA has not requested this in the past because no
other advertiser told them their ads were vandalized in other markets,"
Sweere told Reuters.

Sweere said the transit authority was all set to accept the ads, but
that the advertising firm raised the concerns that lead to the insurance
requirement. Negotiations were still going on when the lawsuit was filed
last week against the transit agency and the ad firm.

"We were planning to run the ads as soon as the contract was worked
out," Sweere told Reuters.

An attorney for the ad agency did not return calls seeking comment.

LeeWood Thomas, a spokesman for the atheist group, quoted an email from
the advertising agency obtained by the coalition that read: "Arkansas is
the buckle of the Bible Belt and I can easily envision zealots or
upstanding citizens with a strong faith acting out."

Thomas said it's clear his group is being punished for the actions of
others.

"The insurance money needed from us basically says CATA and On The Move
trust the atheists in this community more so than the religious,
otherwise the churches that advertise would have that extra insurance
premium added to their total cost," Thomas said.

The coalition is asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction
forcing the bus company to accept the ads while the suit moves forward.

The transit authority and its advertising agency were served with the
lawsuit on Monday. They have 21 days to respond.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Arkansas group by UnitedCoR, a
Washington-based national organization that focuses on organizing local
atheist and agnostic groups into coalitions and funding their bus and
billboard ad campaigns.

UnitedCoR has placed such ads throughout the United States since 2008.

Out of 36 markets where ad campaigns have run, four have been
vandalized, including bus ads in Detroit last year, according to
UnitedCoR's website.

Last year, UnitedCoR placed ads on outdoor billboards and buses in
Fayetteville, Arkansas, without incident.

In 2009, the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, a group of atheists who
are also involved in the bus ad campaign, successfully sued the state of
Arkansas to erect a 'Winter Solstice' display on the grounds of the
Arkansas State Capitol near a nativity scene.

(Editing by Karen Brooks and Jerry Norton)

Sort of casts a bad light on Christians if you ask me.

The Insurance companies trust Atheists more than Christians to not resort to violence.

Definitely does! And I hope the atheists win!

vandalism and violence arent the same

assumes that it must be christians who do it

there are non christians who have christian loved ones
just like there are straight people who have homosexual loved ones who may be offended by an 'anti homosexual' campaign enough to do such things,,,

if they have to pay more for insurance, the request is reasonable

if not, what is the difference between that ad and any other 'offensive' ad out there

advertising isnt about morals, its about profit,, unfortunately

Unless they're charging everyone equally for the insurance and more money, then it is a problem.

People need to learn to control themselves, no matter what beliefs you have. Vandalism is not the answer. Period. The Vandalism is very obviously a strike out at the atheist ads, and the company paying to put their ads up shouldn't be punished or forced to hide what they are because it offends others.

this could be true

it could also be true that the company risking the ads shouldnt be FORCED to risk a loss that otherwise might not be incurred,,,

That does not give them the right to charge outrageous prices for an atheist add. It makes them look like they themselves are objecting to the content of the add, which is a possibility.

The vandalism might be just an excuse.

it could be. Id say that legally they would have to show precedent where they had applied that pricing criteria in another case.

Perhaps in highly heated politial contests, or ads which may have a racial undertone,,,,

Well personally I don't think any of them need to advertise. But since they do, all should be treated the same.

Spirituality is a personal thing, done at home. Not saying we don't apply it in all of our life actions, the practice of it needs to be done at home or in the church if they have one.

The public arena needs to stay neutral to respect all religions, beliefs and those who have none.

I hope that they win so that it will be fair across the board. Maybe the bus people should step out of advertising for religions or lack ofs so they can remain neutral.

I didn't notice any referral to a specific group that vandalized the previous ads. I would say that this accusation without facts represents a bias against a certain religious group. I would be willing to bet that these types of things would be viewed offensive in a place like Dearborn Michigan which has a very large Muslim population. I would love to see the outcome of an atheist event held there. The simple fact is it is easy to beat up on Christians because the chance of retaliatory violence is slim.

I totally agree.
But Christians advertise all over the place.
I think some Atheists wanted to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Its true, you can't really say the vandals were "Christians" but its more than likely that they were, unless the Bus was in a largely Muslim neighborhood.

Of course if it was Muslims they would be calling it "terrorism."

No thats incorrect. Lets take car insurance. Statistically young males have a higher rate of accidents thus they have to pay way more on care insurance. I know first hand. My sister didn't have to pay that much when she had her first car. When I got mine the insurance was more than the note. Same company and same value automobile. Guys will pay more.

But you are talking about CAR INSURANCE. Not advertising.

An insurance company can charge the higher risk persons more, because that is what there business is all about.... insurance.

Advertising is not insurance. The cost of damages, no matter where they supposedly came from, should not be passed on to the Atheists just because the advertising agency 'thinks' that they are at a higher risk of vandalism from Christians.

Instead, why don't the charge a higher rate to the Christians who are the ones who are most probably doing the damage.

Would that be fair? No it would not. Hence they should either charge them both higher rates or neither.

Understood. I do hope they win so it can be fair.

No kidding.

No kidding.

Its not whose doing the damage its whats provoking the damage. Like cars that are more likely to be stolen having higher insurance do to theft. Sure the thieves steal it but the insurer pays the fees. If you are taking a higher risk than you need to be compensated accordingly. How much more I don't know but if statistics show that those signs are vandalized more often than I would agree with a higher costs. Now if atheists want to start vandalizing religious signs the same amount then I would agree to raise costs for religious signs.

As I said before, an advertising agency is not an insurance company. They are making a false judgement call and they are probably being prejudice themselves. There insurance expenses should not be unfairly passed on because of illegal acts by NON-atheists.

The atheists are not the bad guys. They are not doing the vandalism. Charge the religious ads more money.

I see no reason not to since THEY ARE THE ONES suspected of the vandalism.

I am not saying they are bad I am just saying if the property of the advertising agency is facing extra risk because of what is being advertise no matter what it is they should be allowed to charge a higher rate based on the risk of damages involved. Just like I think the rate of say a concert hall for an opera versus that of a band known to have mosh pits and violent fans should pay more. That being said I think 36k for 5k worth of adds to be excessive and they have a right to bring it to trail, but if they can prove that the fee is justified based on the percentage of signs vandalized and costs of repair than I think it shouldn't be considered wrong.