The New York Times is reporting, and the campaign of Green Party Presidential nominee Jill Stein is confirming, that Google TV Ads is lifting its block on an ad for Stein featuring a partially bleeped “obscenity”.
Google TV Ads, which, according to the Times, “fills advertising slots for television stations”, had “initially rejected the commercial…citing the use of ‘inappropriate language'”.
After a “Tell Google TV Ads Not to Censor Our Ads!” campaign by the Green Party, the “hundred thousand dollars worth of airtime” that the campaign had purchased to run the ad mostly on cable TV in targeted markets, will move ahead as scheduled this week.
“Never mind that these ads already comply with F.C.C. regulations regarding appropriate content,” the Green Party had argued, “what Google does not seem to understand is that federal law prohibits broadcasters from censoring ads submitted by candidates for public office.”
The Times reports that Ben Manski, Stein’s campaign manager, explained that the “ad was primarily intended to be shown on cable and satellite channels, like MSNBC and Comedy Central, which, like the Internet, are not subject to government regulation of objectionable language in the way that words and images broadcast over the airwaves still are.”
Here is the shocking ad. Be sure to remove all young children, or the faint of heart, from the room before hitting the play button…
In the meantime, there continues to be no prohibition against blatant lies being told in campaign ads by Presidential candidates or any others. Go figure.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and I’ve yet to hear the end of it…
I voted for Nader in 2000 (in CA) and Obama in 2008. Guess which vote I regret.
I like Jill Stein. I’ve been lucky enough to talk to her at length in the past, including giving her the whole don’t-trust-the-machines speech when she was running for Massachusetts Secretary of State (I still wear my “Got Democracy?” T shirt from that campaign). She’s no LBJ wheeler-dealer type, but I think she’s got more of a spine than most of the Democrats out there.
Great! A vote for Jill is a vote for Mittens. She’s already a Lefty! Or a plant.
Nope.
A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein.
Our owners have already decided that Obama will be reselected.
Nothing at this stage can change that. Obama is in because he’s doing such a fantastic job for the super-elites.
The Dem vs. GOP mirage is a rigged game… a protection racket in which it is certain that whoever “wins” we will lose
The GOP simply serves as the muscle behind the threat while the Dems serve as the corporate bagmen.
A vote for Obama is literally a vote for letting the terrorists win.
While, for numerous reasons, I’d disagree with Zap’s assertion that there’s no substantive differences between these two corporate candidates and their parties, I do agree that a “vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein.”
Given the irreparable harm to our judicial system if Romney were permitted to Bork the Courts, not to mention the number of Americans who could die if Romney repealed the Affordable Care Act, I, for one, am not prepared, on this occasion, to take the third party route.
But, I also agree with Chris Hedges that a vote for a Green Party candidate constitutes an act of political courage. I’d much rather see those third party votes, then an election boycott which plays into the hands of the voter suppressing ALEC/GOP.
Go Jill! A vote for Obamney is depressingly defeatist. It’s a vote for nothing ever changing. If you added up all the people who won’t vote out of disgust, divide them up into left and right, have the left vote for Jill and the right vote for Gary Johnson, Bam, we’d have a new president who was better then Rombama, regardless of who won. But with a corporate media and rigged elections, it would be absurdly difficult to get such a message out, and trust the results even if it did.
What do you greenies not understand about 2000? The Green Party egomaniacal candidate took enough votes in Florida to make it close enough that SCOTUS was able to do its coup d’etat. Thus we got Roberts and Alito and subsequently Citizens United. I’m as disappointed as anyone that Obama never became the transformative president that I hoped for. However, to not vote for him against a craven Willard who would let the T party control American policy is the height of irresponsibility.
Kenfolk@8: Sigh. I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I understand everything you say and acknowledge the reality of it all. We argue with each other, maybe Obama wins, maybe Romney wins. We lose and the machine wins. Again. And again and again and again. Maybe I should have never read Zinn and seen the utter futility of changing the system from within the two-party paradigm. It just keeps sliding right. Sure, maybe we can slow it down just a little bit by voting D. But they are sliding nonetheless. They have declined opportunities over and over again to stop the slide, much less reverse it. Part of me really wouldn’t mind seeing the GOP push it too far, too fast with such profound arrogance, that they finally precipitate the revolution we so desperately need.
What do you greenies not understand about 2000?
I understand plenty, thanks. That Gore ran a crummy campaign and then folded like wet paper. That thousands of registered crossed party lines to vote for Bush. Also that Roberts and Alito were waved through by Democrats after only the most token resistance.
I understand that your party is as much concerned with real “opposition” as I am with Sumo wrestling. But you can’t face that, so you’ll keep blaming everyone for its failures but its money-grubbing, war-worshipping leaders and your own unlimited ability to swallow any abuse from them, no matter how barefaced it is.
Yes, I think we understand you pretty well, Ken. Don’t worry about that at all.