I honestly don’t think it is, Jim. It’s how people organize themselves.

Of course they don’t want the message to get out, however ultimately the state has the real power to silence which we libertarians are concerned about.

However if I can convince you to stop playing an ad, it doesn’t have an bearing on free speech issues.

Others refused, with Free us Now being scathing:

Oh please give it a rest – you are making women look shallow and stupid- I have lost all faith in you and the other liberal so-called women’s groups. Give me a break- for the love of Pete what the hell are you afraid of? Women’s rights include freedom of choice which apparently you are trying to prevent. …

Where are you with that soap box that you are so privileged to have on the real problems women face? You are a damned hypocrite- and you are making women look ridiculous with this hissy fit. The ad is not anti choice it is all about choice – I repeat it is all about choice Jehmu -the choice your mother made to have you and the choice Tim’s mother made to have him is not anti choice, what the hell is wrong with you?

The abortion issue was settled in 1973 with Row v. Wade, so it is difficult to understand why the fuss over an add that simply advocates choosing not to, and in no way attempts to challenge that decision. If CBS makes a bad commercial decision they will pay for it in the same way any other company does, unless they can get a bailout.

Using pressure group politics to silence other opinions especially by substantially state funded organisations is an attempt at denial of free speech.

No of course not. However the courts are there to settle disputes and if people think they have a case they can bring them forward. Similarly the court can summarily throw the case out if it has no merits.

I think free speech has strong enough under pinning to withstand attacks in courts. We just saw SCOTUS stand up for free speech most recently.

Don’t get me wrong, they are pricks for taking it to court.

No, but it is the case of one party threatening to use the state against the other… if it were just a boycott, I’d agree with you – but it’s a bit more than that.

“If it goes to court so be it”

And if the court chooses to restrict freedom of speech you’d be OK with it?

This isn’t the case of the state intervening but people squabbling against each other.

If it goes to court so be it.

The only logical conclusion is that some of them are pro abortion.

“There were calls for the banning of statements by Sheikh Hilaly after his ridiculous rant about women being to blame for being raped. The man has by his own statements been thoroughly discredited and is now seen as a laughing stock. Were he unable to make those statements he would still be considered credible owing to his idiocy not being exposed.”

Well said Jim.

This question isn’t asking about the legality of the situation so I don’t think you can draw any conclusions about people’s understanding of free speech. The question is asking do you agree with the CBS executives decision, not their right to make a decision. – Although I would say I think it’s a stupid question unless you work for CBS marketing department.

“Fifty-four percent (54%) of Indianapolis Colts fans agree with the network’s decision, compared to 41% of New Orleans Saints fans.”
- this stat also raises some questions IMO about the survey.

“The ad was prepared by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family and features Tebow, a star footballer and his mother, who talks about the difficulty she had when she was pregnant with Tim and how a doctor advised her to consider an abortion.”

Actually, the ad didn’t even go that far… she referred to him as her “miracle baby,” but never mentioned abortion (or the doctor’s advice) in the ad at all. Not that it would change anything if she had, but it makes the complainers look rather silly.

It’s strange that people so opposed to an alternate point of view being heard can consider themselves, “pro-choice”.

People will always find some bleeding heart life-boat example of why speech should be controlled by government… and then this will inevitably expand as other groups use other excuses to restrict some more speech. I think freedom of speech is too important to play these games. Freedom of speech should be absolute (so long as you’re using your own property, or the property of people dealing with you voluntarily).