"Battling for America's soul": the ad

A two-page ad in Thursday's print Times has brought more than 50 e-mails and calls of protest. "Battling for America's Soul," said the headline from the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (or TFP). The organization's ad went on to describe its topic as "How homosexual 'marriage' threatens our nation and faith -- the TFP urges lawful and conscientious resistance."

In 10 columns of text on pages A11 and A12 the ad -- which ran also in the New York Times -- outlined the "battle" it says is going on nationally, from Point A ("The acceptance of same-sex 'marriage' is incompatible with Christianity") to Point E ("We are opposing the homosexual 'moral revolution' ").

Reader Randall Gellens in San Diego wrote: "I was dismayed to see that The Times accepted and printed a two-page ad from 'TFP' calling on Californians to oppose same-sex marriage. Would The Times have done so if the ad attacked equal rights on the basis of skin color or religious preference, or is only sexual orientation fair game?"

Nick Duretta of Pasadena wrote: "How jarring it was to see in my morning Times, between the usual Macy’s and Verizon ads, a two-page paid diatribe essentially calling for the denial of my rights and devaluation of my very existence. I wonder if you’d run a similar paid ad from a Holocaust denial or white supremacist group attacking other disenfranchised minorities (with appropriate Biblical justification). Probably not. Gays and lesbians are truly the last group in our country that it’s still okay to hate."

Jack Klunder, who as Los Angeles Times president oversees the advertising department, wants to make this clear: The Times' decision to publish an ad does not mean the Times supports or endorses the ad's point of view.

Ads that weigh in on controversial issues are allowed, though, and the one from the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property was such an example. (The newsroom doesn't approve ads but typically editors are advised of unique or controversial ones.)

Says Klunder, "It is a long-standing policy to not reject ads simply because their message is controversial or might offend some people. Even though some readers may personally disagree with an ad's position, we do not reject it solely on that basis."

Klunder emphasizes that hate speech isn’t allowed, and says The Times would not “knowingly accept an ad from the KKK or a Nazi group.”

Also prohibited, says Klunder, are ads promoting issues or objects that are illegal or discriminatory.

There are other, subjective factors on which ads are evaluated before being published: Ads are judged for taste -- both visual and written -- and some elements (partial nudity, or a vulgarity) might make an ad inappropriate for a general-interest newspaper.

And The Times' ad department requires a point of contact be included: In this case the advertisement had TFP's address in Pennsylvania, its phone number, e-mail and  website.

Klunder's department felt that the two-page spread did not cross the line to hate speech or attacks on individuals, but rather saw it as taking a stand on a controversial, topical issue and giving TFP's reasons for why it opposed same-sex marriage.

A box in the middle of the ad's first page says in part, "Taking a principled not a personal stand: In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual." The organization's website describes itself this way: "Founded in 1973, the American TFP was formed to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and property." It identifies itself as "but one of many autonomous TFPs that now exist around the world dedicated to the same ideals and at the service of Christian Civilization."

Ultimately, says Klunder, the TFP ad was an opinion piece that showed how ad space can serve as "a marketplace of ideas."

Along those lines, reader Jeanette Hanisee Gabriel of San Pedro wrote: "My first response at seeing the TFP 'ad' opposing gay marriage was to cancel The Times for printing such tripe. Then I realized that by printing it, The Times was demonstrating its advocacy of precisely the personal rights that the TFP suggests we abolish."

Comments

[tracy k]

How can you possibly claim this is not hate speech? Don't backpedal here and say the surrounding context makes it less than what it is - the mention of Nazism clearly establishes the ad as a hate piece. Carrying this ad was simply unconscionable.

[Joseph Pacatte]

The excuse-making is pretty sad. What reason is there not to accept an ad from the KKK or the Nazi party if there is reason to accept this one? Certain hatreds are "topical" and certain ones aren't?

Then you have the nerve to add that you wouldn't print anything "...promoting issues or objects that are... discriminatory." Nice. What do you think this amendment campaign is about?

Absolutely shameful, and this column makes it worse.

[Larry Seiferth Jr.]

I think the Times is being really naive, or just making weak excuses. Do you really expect that groups like this would admit to hating gays? As a matter of fact the first thing out of these groups' mouths is usually that they don't hate gays. Then they go on to say all the other things that people who hate gays or homosexuality say. What a trick! I don't think the KKK or the Nazi's even say they hate blacks or jews anymore.

[Anonymous]

It took me 30 minutes just to realize that this was really what it was. All of me wanted to deny that a newspaper I so respected would advertise something so ridiculous. "No, it's because they shouldn't discriminate between different viewpoints," I thought. But no, I can't excuse it like that. This is indeed hate speech, and I'm absolutely appalled.

[Colin Wood]

The Times is drawing an arbitrary line between sexual orientation-based speech, and race-based speech. If the Supreme Court extended equal protection to cover sexual orientation (as it has not done yet, but is bound to do eventually), will the Times change its position on the issue? I do respect the Times's position on the issue, but its justification for that position is arbitrary and, basically, BS.

[J. Scott Coatsworth]

"Also prohibited, says Klunder, are ads promoting issues or objects that are illegal or discriminatory."

Doesn't the fact that the state Supreme Court established gays and lesbians in California as a suspect class make this ad de facto discrimination speech, or is the LA Times covered by a different state's laws and courts?

I'm just sayin...

[Kevin]

What nobody has mentioned here is the revenue the Times received from this ad. It's impossible for me to believe that the amount of revenue the Times received for this 2-page spread didn't factor into their decision to accept it. Had this been a 1/4 page ad in the lifestyle section, I have little doubt it would have been rejected. But given the prominent placement of these 2 pages, it was sure worth a small fortune.

Couple that with the arbitrary justification provided for running the ad, and I am sickened by the result. Sorry, but you just lost my subscription. But worse, you lost my respect.

[Randall Gellens]

So any group can run paid ads advocating against equal rights for anyone we decide our religion hates, if we follow two few simple steps: add a box that says the views are not personal; we despise all members of the target group (all y'all are sinners), and include a P.O. box contact address.

[Ari S.]

A few months ago when 14 year old Larry King was shot to death in school, the LA Times did an article trying to decipher how such a tragedy could take place. Thursday's ad "Battle For America's Soul" by the TFP is exactly how. Such hate speech and bigotry directed towards homosexuals only results in intolerance and violence. The next time a gay person is harassed, abused, or killed you need only look to the issue of June 5th to see why. I know newspaper subscriptions are down and ads help pay the rent, but this was blood money.

[John H]

It seems all those who commented did not read the ad.
All the ad did was reiterate the position of the Catholic Church. I think it was well done and found absolutely nothing wrong with it. I was put off by the hatred of those who commented.

[John Stephens]

This ad was hate speech. To hide behind the tired excuse that they do not endorse the message in an ad is ridiculous. I have been a subscrber to the Times for 15 years and have now cancelled my subscription. I urge all those offended by this reckless decision to publish this hate message to do the same. I am also organizing a boycott of the paper. It must be held accountable.