Middlesex Marquee (again)

[jd-science.livejournal.com]

I just sent the following to the Middlesex Bank. I also e-mailed Rebekah about it. Does anyone else ever notice this trend on the marquee but me? It's annoying and depressing.


Hello-

I sent a comment on June 27, 2006 about the scrolling marquee outside your bank. I have not yet heard a response.

This is what I sent you then:

"I live in the Davis Square area and wanted to express my unhappiness with the new scrolling marquee above your bank. This weekend I was sitting in the square with some friends, and within five minutes we saw the words "death" and "kill" repeated several times. This does not seem appropriate at all for large, bright broadcasting in the middle of Davis Square.

I realize that the marquee was just scrolling news headlines, but I don't believe that news headlines - particularly those types of headlines - are really that important to building a truly informed public and in fact contribute to a destructive social atmosphere. If the marquee must be there (which I don't think it great, but I understand you've probably put a lot of money into it), I'd prefer it just to scroll the time, temperature, and maybe sports scores. And please nothing about death, killing, children being bombed, and so forth. We can get enough of that everywhere else."

Today, August 3, I was eating lunch in the square at around 1 pm, and one right after the other, I saw the following headlines scroll across, multiple times:

Iranian Woman Awaits Death By Stoning
New Surgical Procedure for Incontinence
Woman Afraid of Height Dies in Plane Crash
Israeli Bombing Kills 7
Welcome to Davis Square

There was another headline after the stoning that had something to do with death, but I don't exactly remember what it said.

This hardly seems appropriate to be displayed in large orange letters in the middle of Davis Square. Death, destruction, ridiculousness, and hey! Welcome to Davis!

I went into the bank to ask who to talk to about my issues with the sign, and the tellers told me Mr. Smoliss (?) was in charge. I asked if I could talk to him, and they said, “Well, his office is upstairs.” I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to just walk up and there and knock on the door, so I am writing via the official channel on your website.

At the recent Davis Square Task Force meeting, it was noted that the sign is only allowed, by law, to display the time, temperature, and public service announcements. The president also said he wanted the sign to promote community events and activities.

(for notes, see http://community.livejournal.com/davis_square/565301.html)

It hardly seems that what I saw today is in line with any of this. In addition, after all these useless, dramatic headlines were several about mergers and business acquisitions, also not of local community interest.

I would appreciate a response from you about this problem.

Comments

[komos.livejournal.com]

Thank the gods that we left-leaning suburbanites never demand censorsh....

Oh. Never mind.

[xuth.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I have trouble calling his request censorship. jd_science is merely making a request which the bank can pay attention to or not. OTOH, the fact that that bank is limited in what it can put on the marquee by law, quite definitely is censorship.

[komos.livejournal.com]

The entirety of the initial complaint that jd_science sent was concerning to what he/she feels is appropriate for "large, bright broadcasting in the middle of Davis Square." This is, in fact, largely what the most recent missive discusses as well: "Death, destruction, ridiculousness, and hey! Welcome to Davis!"

The poster's stated issues with the marquis are in regards to the violent headlines that are scrolling there. The restrictions upon the signs use are brought up only to support the "inappropriate" and offensive nature of the news headlines. I'm not certain that headlines fall within the rubric of "public service announcements," and I'm guessing that will be something that's determined through a much closer reading of the restricting ordinance. I do think, however, that two complaints about the offensive nature of news headlines and a visit to the bank to request to speak with its president over inappropriate words on the marquis does constitute a demand for censorship.

[komos.livejournal.com]

marquis=marquee

I are smrt

[ron_newman]

See my post further down, "City ordinance restricting content of flashing signs", for the appropriate law.

[komos.livejournal.com]

It's lacking a definition for "public service message." I'm of a mind that news headlines constitute public service messages, but then, I'm not an attorney representing the city or the bank.

[ron_newman]

When the law was mentioned in the meeting, it was because the sign's messages originally included advertising for the bank. That is definitely prohibited.

[komos.livejournal.com]

Advertising for the bank is expressly not what this complaint is about.

[xuth.livejournal.com]

So you're saying that is is censorship... In non-stationary illumination you may only say x, y or z.

[ron_newman]

I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just pointing out the relevant city law.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Good God, thank you. Aren't there enough places to bury your head in the sand in West Somerville?

[komos.livejournal.com]

Reality. just. keeps. breaking. through...

[jd-science.livejournal.com]

I actually think that you, komos, have a good point about censorship. it’s funny, i was wondering why i felt like a grumpy old-timer as I was writing those comments to the bank. I guess it’s because I’m becoming the cranky neighborhood watchdog / busybody (i am notorious for calling The Authorities when i notice things out of whack in the neighborhood, e.g. a leaking transformer, strong smells of gas, beeping smoke alarms).

Regarding claims of censorship, though, the term obviously can be and is interpreted widely. i was just thinking the other day about the relationships between personal opinion, public opinion, morals, and laws. They all blend into and inform each other in such a messy and interesting way. When does a complaint about something become a demand for censorship? How strongly does each party need to feel in order for a situation to change from discussion to disagreement to conflict to oppression?

I’d like to think we’re still in stage 1. Taking into consideration what everyone has written, I think now that my objection is not, at its heart, to the content of the sign, though I can see how my written complaint(s) lead to that conclusion. Your comments have made me realize that to be more clear about my position, I should state what it is that I would like to have happen.

I would like to talk to someone from the bank about why the sign says what it does. Is it just an automatic AP-type feed that whoever's in charge of the content threw on there just because they wanted something that was automatically updated? Does it reflect any personal filtering or bias? If so, what is the relationship between the filter and the perceived needs of the community? Does the filter take into consideration the fact that anything displayed is very big, very bright, and very orange?

I want to know that someone has thought about this, and I want to know what it was that person was thinking. The emotional motivation behind my comments, then, was something like, “Do you even know what you’re doing? If not, please think about it. I really think this is a bad idea. Here’s why. Taking that into consideration, do you still really think this is a good idea?” (An added emotional motivation for the second note to them was that I was annoyed that no one ever responded to me).

Therefore, what I really want is not censorship, but to know 1) if someone is really insisting for a thought-out reason that these headlines should be broadcast, and 2) if someone is, what that reason may be. If it turns out that this person truly believes that these headlines are useful, then we’ll have a slightly different discussion on our hands.

In that case, I believe that the final solution lies in zoning laws. As xuth mentioned, good zoning laws don’t restrict content of expression, but rather the intrusiveness of the medium by which one expresses oneself. Since the relevant Somerville law is backwards, the final solution probably doesn’t lie in *our* zoning law. But the reasoning behind such laws still stands. So while I do personally object to the content of the messages, I’d say the validity of my complaint as more than just being a pushy grump lies in the intrusiveness of the sign. With great (illuminatory) power comes great responsibility, and all that...

[komos.livejournal.com]

I have no issue with the idea that the marquee is an eyesore. On the other hand, the claim that news headlines make it more offensive or (as was suggested by numbersnletters) that the headlines constitute a step towards "social desolation" goes well beyond what's necessary to demonstrate that point. It is likely a feed, and I'd anticipate that the bank would take the position that the headlines are provided as a public service. Essentially, without violation of the city ordinance, the content of the marquee is largely irrelevant to the central idea - that the marquee is an eyesore - and may actually detract from the argument.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

It's really not censorship to complain about a bank marquee. Censorship involves an authority preventing another party from expressing/communicating/publishing something. [Unknown site tag] is making a complaint. He has no power to force them to change their sign. By definition, not censorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship). If it's censorship to express an opinion that you dislike or disagree with someone else's form of communication, one could probably argue that your comment is, too, because you're suggesting that he shouldn't have sent the letter. But of course you have no power to prevent him from doing so, any more than he has the power to force the bank to take down the sign.

[komos.livejournal.com]

Ok, one more time... I have no issue with complaining about the marquee as an eyesore.

Discussing the news feed on the marquee as some kind of poison of the mind is sufficiently similar to arguments used by right wing wonks that it should have free-thinking liberals taking a second look. If we're going to get pedantic, it's not "censorship" that requires science classes to teach intelligent design or sex-ed to be focused on abstinence education, either.

So, go ahead and complain about the sign, but do not tell me that you're complaining about a news feed being offensive "mind control" unless you're willing to have a harder look at what it is that you are suggesting.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

>Do not tell me that you're complaining about a news feed being offensive "mind control"

Uh, what?

No, really. What? Are you responding to a different comment? Where are you getting all this "poison mind control" stuff? Keep in mind that I haven't read the other 100+ comments on this thread, and I don't think I should have to in order to observe that writing a letter to a bank complaining about a sign -- whether you're complaining about an eyesore or about seeing headlines you don't like -- is simply not censorship. Passing a law that forced them to take down the sign would be censorship. Writing a letter and posting it on LJ is not.

Parents complaining about their kids being taught stuff they don't like in schools is not censorship. Parents absolutely have the right to express their opinions about their child's schooling, even when they're ignorant. School boards forcing teachers to change what they teach? That's censorship. States passing laws saying what teachers can and can't teach? That's censorship. Mrs. Smith yanking her child out of school because she disagrees with the curriculum, and/or writing a letter to the teacher/school board/local newspaper to complain? Not censorship.

It isn't a petty matter of semantics. It's just a basic misunderstanding of the concept and/or misuse of the term. I didn't say I think the bank ought to take down the sign. Or that we ought to pass a law against the bank having the sign. Or support an existing law that controls what the bank can put on the sign. I really haven't expressed an opinion on that at all, so I don't know where you're coming from, implying that I have.

Until the government or another authority who has the power to regulate what a given party can and cannot say enter the picture, it's not censorship you're talking about.

[komos.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind that I haven't read the other 100+ comments on this thread

Well, for one thing, you've missed that jb_science has softened his position at this point: "I think now that my objection is not, at its heart, to the content of the sign."

Thanks much for your input, though.


Parents absolutely have the right to express their opinions about their child's schooling, even when they're ignorant. School boards forcing teachers to change what they teach? That's censorship. States passing laws saying what teachers can and can't teach? That's censorship. Mrs. Smith yanking her child out of school because she disagrees with the curriculum, and/or writing a letter to the teacher/school board/local newspaper to complain? Not censorship.

People have the right to express their opinions about the marquee being an eyesore. People also have the right to mobilize a grass-roots effort to force a bank to cease displaying a news feed they find offensive or inappropriate through threat of lost business. To say, however, that such action is not a demand to restrict the flow of information is patently false. No one is talking about turning their backs on the marquee or avoiding the Square because they find the information it displays offensive. They're talking about how news headlines are somehow inappropriate because the information disturbs their other halcyon summer days in the Square.

Frankly, I have no issue whatsoever with the idea of the sign as an eyesore. Complaining over the offensiveness of content that is useful and may well be within city ordinance immediately makes me think of the tactics used by the fundie mcnuggets as justification that school boards to require intelligent design in biology courses. You'll note that I'm not saying that the fundie mcnuggets are engaging in censorship... they're merely demanding it.

And see, that's precisely why we're at this impasse. You have utterly missed the distinction I made at the very beginning of this thread. Yes, it was tongue in cheek, but I pointed out not that jb_science was censoring the bank, but rather that the impression he gave was that he was demanding that the bank censor a news feed.

So, um, yeah... What? Seriously, what?

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

>People also have the right to mobilize a grass-roots effort to force a bank to cease displaying a news feed they find offensive or inappropriate through threat of lost business. To say, however, that such action is not a demand to restrict the flow of information is patently false.

Indeed it is, and it's bad, and it's something to fight against, but it's still not censorship, because censorship doesn't mean "to restrict the flow of information," although people certainly use it that way. Censorship means that someone in a position of power suppresses the speech/communication of someone who is not.

If somebody puts around a petition demanding that Middlesex take down the sign or everyone will boycott the bank, it ain't censorship. You can argue that the consumers are in a position of power over the business, but I don't really buy it. Boycotting is not a form of oppression.

However, if people organized a movement to pass a law to prevent the bank from putting up a sign, then while they might be within their civil rights, yes, I would absolutely agree that they would be calling for censorship.

Thus, I did not miss the point of your earlier comment, because the poster was only talking about asking the bank to take down a sign he didn't like, and wondered if the community was in agreement with him -- he wasn't talking about passing laws against banks having signs, and I still maintain that you were misusing the term.

Really, I wouldn't feel the need to belabor this point if you hadn't felt the need to get personally insulting, and imply that I'm too stupid to understand what you've been saying, or that I'm somehow endorsing fundamentalist-politics tactics (and thus too stupid to understand what I'M saying). Come on, komos, you've met me. You know better on both counts. Correcting your use of the term on semantic grounds may be irritating, but it's not a personal insult to you, it's not a defense of the objection to the content of the sign, and it's not an endorsement of right-wing politics, for heaven's sakes.

[komos.livejournal.com]

I have not accused anyone of censorship. I have said that a complaint based on the idea that a news feed was somehow offensive was a demand on the part of the complainant that the bank censor the type of information they display. It is an appeal to the persons in power to shut the news feed off, and is based on their conception of what is and is not appropriate in a public space. The actions that lead to the discontinuance of the news feed are not censorship, but if people are demanding that a simple news feed should be shut off because it is "inappropriate" and "offensive," then they are attempting to effect the same sort of change using methods and arguments that have been utilized and been proven effective by fundamentalist Christians.

I am taking issue because you are belaboring a point that is irrelevant to what I've said. You are being pedantic based on the assumption that I've accused someone of censorship, when in fact I have not. It's irritating not because you're standing up for right and proper use of the term, but rather because you have completely mistaken my meaning. You've continued to do so, apparently willfully, which leads me to think that it's likely time to let this thing die the horrible death it deserves.

I stand by my statement. You have issues with it. Hoooray, impasse.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

And you continue to be insulting! Good heavens. Well, I stand by my statement as well, and I guess I might as well echo your exact words that you are belaboring points that are irrelevant to what I've said, made assumptions about what I've said that are incorrect and completely mistaken my meaning, and continued to do so for several comments; as I'm not misunderstanding your comments "willfully," I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not misinterpreting mine willfully, either

I have a feeling that if we could actually understand one another's arguments, we might not even be in disagreement.

>using methods and arguments that have been utilized and been proven effective by fundamentalist Christians

This will probably strike you as beside the point, which it is, but truth be told I hate statements like this, and insulting terms like "fundie mcnuggets." I promised myself that I would not just let these things go by any more without comment, so here goes. It is unfair and incorrect to associate right-wing politics and fundamentalist Christianity as if they were one of the same, and in fact is a form of religious intolerence.

I know why people believe this -- the media tells us that this is the case, all the time -- but this is what the right-wing politicians want Americans to believe, and they want the evangelicals to believe that the liberals despise fundamentalist religion and all who practice it, and you can see why they believe this, too, given that this is what the media tells us again and again, and frankly I know a lot of liberals only too happy to agree.

But in fact many of the ideals and goals of true evangelical Christianity are fundamentally opposed the main agenda of the right-wing radicals. Some evangelicals actually realize this. (http://ayelle.livejournal.com/183792.html) And some liberals, including me, will continue to insist that if we do not make this distinction between evangelicalism and radical politics, we fall into a trap that the right-wingers have set for us -- one that the evangelicals have largely fallen into already, unfortunately, but we should be trying to help pull them out. It is a trap, and thus by calling each other enemies, evangelicals and liberals both fall victim to another trick of the facist political movement overtaking the country.

You may not have fallen into this trap. I don't really know where you stand on the issue, and I'm not trying to accuse you of intolerance, because you have not specifically expressed anything offensive. I just feel a strong need to generally object to the demeaning terminology and the equating of the two movements.

[komos.livejournal.com]

I get the feeling you just feel a strong need to generally object.

'Sok. You're welcome to it.