Everything about this is disappointing.
It raises some interesting ethical questions. Should newspapers run unethical ads? The knee-jerk reaction is "no, I don't want my newspaper running anti-LGBT ads" or "I don't want to see a page on Nazism in my paper." But remember Free speech isn't necessary to protect the ordinary, acceptable. That kind of speech doesn't need protecting. It exists to protect what isn't. Because in the past, racial equality, gender equality, and homosexuality were considered "obscene." There's no easy answer. I don't want my children seeing Nazi propaganda on newspapers and billboards. But I also don't want my opinions censored. There are plenty of people who think anyone supporting Snowden should be shot. Newspapers that refuse to run anti-LGBT ads also mean newspapers that refuse to run anti–surveillance state ads (and everything else currently viewed as unethical by the public).Free speech exists to protect the obscene.
One caveat, the Star Tribune apparently failed to mark the page clearly as an advertisement, which actually makes it illegal (I think). So much for journalistic integrity. As for the rest -- they have the right to sell their ad space to anyone they please. I'm not calling for them to be shut down; I'm disappointed that they chose to make money off of hate speech. I also think that newspapers should hold themselves to a higher, unbiased standard; I don't believe in op eds any more than I believe in using ad space to push a controversial opinion. The Star Tribune is by nature a primary source of info for many in the Twin Cities; it should therefore remain unbiased. That no one does this is one of the reasons I hate and scorn essentially all media.
What's considered hate speech now was long considered good morals. So, how do we know what's considered hate speech or immoral now won't be societally acceptable in the future? But if no one can use ads to push a controversial opinion, how will it ever become uncontroversial? LGBT is a great example. It's been considered unacceptable in America much longer than it's been acceptable. Without ads, it's much harder to get opinions changed on things like that. Again, I'm not supporting hate speech. I'm saying, censorship is a double-edged sword. "Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one." — does that imply the Press is morally obligated to provide their press, and its freedom, to those who don't?I'm disappointed that they chose to make money off of hate speech
using ad space to push a controversial opinion.
In a different medium that isn't committed to getting people facts on a daily basis. That adage no longer applies, if it ever did. There are plenty of outlets for hate speech -- and yes, I do consider this ad hate speech and not an "uncontroversial opinion," because scientifically they're wrong, and being loudly and angrily wrong have caused suicides etc -- that don't come from places which have a duty to stick to facts. Journalism should not ever have become about pushing opinions, morally "wrong" or not. Unfortunately it only really exists because people did need political/social/racial mouthpieces. That's why everything about this is disappointing, not just the ad.But if no one can use ads to push a controversial opinion, how will it ever become uncontroversial?
"Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one." — does that imply the Press is morally obligated to provide their press, and its freedom, to those who don't?