Mary Richards and Me

Censorship: Alive and Kicking in 2010?

Posted on 1/27/2010 at 3:02:42 PM

This is probably the most I’ll ever say in my life about anything even remotely related to the Super Bowl, or football games in general, so feel free to savor this moment.

If you haven’t heard about the recent uproar over Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow, read this and watch this to get up to speed on the issue. NOW, the National Organization for Women, a pro-abortion lobby, is opposing the ad and pressuring CBS to keep it off the air on Super Bowl day. In a MSNBC interview, the obviously biased interviewer talks to Erin Matson, NOW Vice President, and Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life (AUL) President and CEO. Dr. Yoest responds very well to the interviewer’s aggressive questions and Ms. Matson’s objections to the ad.

Apparently CBS’s ad policy includes a guideline that ads must be “responsibly produced”. While CBS has already agreed to run Focus on the Family’s ad, NOW is assuming (without ever even seeing the ad) that it must be irresponsibly produced – which Erin Matson interprets as offensive to parents and their six-year-olds – simply because the subject matter touches on abortion. While Focus isn’t revealing the ad until game day (a “basic marketing” strategy, as Dr. Yoest points out, and not a reason to assume automatically that they’re trying to hide something truly offensive or subversive about the ad), all they intend the ad to do is tell the inspiring story of Mrs. Tebow’s decision to keep her baby (football player and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow) against the advice of her doctor and despite the potential for serious damage to the baby. She refused to abort and ended up with a healthy baby, who is now a very healthy and extremely successful man.

Why should NOW (and the MSNBC interviewer) assume that this particular ad will be any more offensive to parents with young children than, say, a beer ad? Or a scandalous music video? Their bias is obvious. Would anyone make such a fuss if NOW decided to run a $2 million Super Bowl ad depicting a woman’s choice of abortion and subsequently happy life? Most likely not. What NOW is suggesting is that freedom of speech only applies to organizations intending to speak out on politically correct topics and/or to take a stand on the liberal side of the fence. Otherwise, in their mind, censorship is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

Thankfully, CBS is sticking to its guns and running the ad. And thanks to Dr. Yoest for putting up with her NOW opponent and their aggressive interviewer in order to argue for the basic right of Americans – even conservative and/or Christian Americans – to participate in reasonable and civil public discourse.