I'm a big supporter of Southern heritage, but I don't think this group has a legal or ethical leg to stand on. The property owner has a right to do whatever he or she wants with his or her property. Period. Calling this "a blow against the First Amendment" strikes me as being a bit disingenuous.
As big a son of the South as I am, I have to agree. Yes, the railroad knuckled under (quite possibly under blackmail from some of the local NAACP-style race pimps) but it's private property and they have the right to ask that the billboard be removed. It's not a First Amendment issue.
Besides, if NASCAR has their way, it sure looks like they won't be racing at Darlington much longer anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if they yank the one remaining race away from their loyal South Carolina fan base in pursuit of mythical fans up north. As went North Wilkesboro, so may go Rockingham and Darlington.
}:-)4
"The Sons of Confederate Veterans bought the billboard this spring ... Officials of the S.C. Central Railroad, which owns the land where the billboard stood, said the message was “controversial” and needed to come down. (because) “It is not in our commercial interests to have billboards on our property displaying messages that might be controversial in the local community... (despite) An outdoor advertising company, hired by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, installed the sign just before Darlington’s annual Mother’s Day race. It was removed permanently June 16..."
There are at least a couple of contract issues (breach) as well as the judgement call the RR claims not to have made, plus outside pressure by someone not noted in the article.
You must presume that the advertising company had leased the property or contracted with the RR to use it (otherwise ANY sign would have been a violation of other rights).
So the whole thing goes back to "commericial interests" which the average passer-by would not even recognize as connected;
unless some other party went directly to the RR and threatened a boycot.
Most of the comments are from people that do not even know the whole story behind the billboard and the railroads decision. The railroad had a contract that plainly stated that the sign company would have to remove any sign that was 'offensive'. To remove a sign for any other reason was not included in the contract. The railroad admitted it was not offensive they felt it was 'controversial'. ‘Controversial’ is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements. The railroad has another billboard up the road from where the ‘recruiting’ billboard was placed. This billboard was anti same sex marriage and place by a church. Why was the sign left up? This has been a much more controversial subject in this country over the last year or two. If the railroad wants to refrain from controversial signage, the other sign should come down too. So with that maybe it is discrimination? We can’t have that in this country, can we? The SCV was only trying to recruit with the sign and the railroad, after being coerced by elected officials (Darlington county Council) removed the sign. It was only controversial to certain people. So now elected officials can discriminate at will?
This has potential to be a freedom of speech (First Amendment issue) because of one factor that everyone overlooks. The railroad receives subsidies from the federal government and tax breaks. The government does not condone First Amendment violations. There also may be a violation of Civil Rights, because the railroads receive Federal Aid. Under the Civil Rights Bill there is a section:
Nondiscrimination
Nondiscrimination provisions apply to all programs and activities of Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients, and contractors, regardless of tier. The obligation to not discriminate is based on the objective of Congress to not have funds, which were collected in a non-discriminatory manner used in ways that subsidize, promote, or perpetuate discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, or retaliation. Primary recipients are responsible for determining and obtaining compliance by their sub-recipients and contractors.
The railroad did this. The railroad flagrantly discriminated by removing one controversial sign, and left the other. They censored one organization but not the other. They allowed one organization to free speech, but not the other.