Indianapolis has agreed to let some school buses have advertisements on them. The money raised will help pay some of the school system costs. I know some people are outraged but if schools can make a few bucks and not need to raise taxes it's a source of revenue that needs to be looked at.

Ohio voted down down a similar idea earlier this year.

Here's an article:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/johnson-county/2014/03/02/indiana-lawmakers-may-allow-ads-on-school-buses/5952517/

I don't have a problem with it, though I would like to see the advertisements sold as part of a class or club project.

Who gives a fuck

1-800-call CCR 309 is buying up all the spaces

The only problem I have with it is if the ads mask that is a school bus. School buses are bright yellow for a reason - other drivers are supposed to take unusually high care around them (not that they shouldn't with any vehicle).

Oh, the irony of local parochial purchasing ad space on these buses. It certainly would be hitting their target market!

Con_Alma;1587093 wrote:Oh, the irony of local parochial purchasing ad space on these buses. It certainly would be hitting their target market!

That sort of thing should obviously not be an ad that gets approved.

The school might not have a choice, it is a government entity that is Constitutionally afforded a lot less protection in "discrimination" than a private business.

Manhattan Buckeye;1587088 wrote:The only problem I have with it is if the ads mask that is a school bus. School buses are bright yellow for a reason - other drivers are supposed to take unusually high care around them (not that they shouldn't with any vehicle).

I agree with this. As long as it is still very clearly a large yellow school bus I have no problem with this. I actually think it's a fantastic idea.

Manhattan Buckeye;1587096 wrote:The school might not have a choice, it is a government entity that is Constitutionally afforded a lot less protection in "discrimination" than a private business.

And this is where it becomes a problem. The ads are a great idea until they encounter a situation where they need to deny an ad but risk legal costs for doing so. At that point they'd probably have to just stop using the ads. Likely worth it until then though.

Lets put Ad logos on sports teams uniforms too and quit fund raising stupid shit.

"but risk legal costs for doing so."

That wouldn't happen if morons didn't object to it, and start up frivolous lawsuits to prove a point that the supermajority couldn't possibly begin to care about.

I don't understand the problem...if you can offset cost to the tax payer by selling sponsorship...FUCKING DO IT

No junk food ads .... the community organizer wife has spoken

Manhattan Buckeye;1587138 wrote:"but risk legal costs for doing so."

That wouldn't happen if morons didn't object to it, and start up frivolous lawsuits to prove a point that the supermajority couldn't possibly begin to care about.

Would you object to anything being advertised?

I Wear Pants;1587144 wrote:Would you object to anything being advertised?

Political issue ads, Politicians campaign ads, any group or organization that receives federal, state or local gov. funding ... I would not support being advertised on school bus.

Belly35;1587143 wrote:No junk food ads .... the community organizer wife has spoken

They've been serving junk food in cafeterias for years. Not sure why they'd deny an ad.

Not to mention Channel One News showing junk food ads during their episodes.

Belly35;1587149 wrote:Political issue ads, Politicians campaign ads, any group or organization that receives federal, state or local gov. funding ... I would not support being advertised on school bus.

I get political issues and campaign ads, and would add things like churches and other schools to the list. Churches because that opens obvious issues and other schools because that would only harm the school. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for not wanting anything that receives gov't funding. Something like a park district, recycling initiative, etc would seem to be a good fit. Sure something like the Healthcare Exchange that's controversial wouldn't make sense but I don't think a blanket ban on anything with gov't funding makes sense.

I Wear Pants;1587144 wrote:Would you object to anything being advertised?

Sure, non-Constitutional "speech" in this arena. Obscenity, speech that satisfies the scrutiny test in various situations (i.e. hate speech), etc. - by putting speech in quotes that means that what may apply in some circumstances may not apply to others. Public schools have a bit of leeway on how they run their day to day operations, but on the other hand are still public, and have a considerable hurdle to jump when they provide a public accommodation.

Back to Con_Alma's point, I don't see a black-white issue for advertising on public school buses - there are tons of gray here, there are good arguments to allow and restrict on both ends. But as far as having a parochial school advertise on a public school bus - well, I think that contesting that is a big loser, on legal and ethical grounds. This isn't the Klan, or any other hate group, and ideally they wouldn't be using obscene speech. I thing we can all agree that if the Westboro idiots wanted a "G-d h---s f--s" banner it should not be allowed.

amiright?

sportchampps;1587069 wrote:Indianapolis has agreed to let some school buses have advertisements on them. The money raised will help pay some of the school system costs. I know some people are outraged but if schools can make a few bucks and not need to raise taxes it's a source of revenue that needs to be looked at.

Ohio voted down down a similar idea earlier this year.

That is a damn good idea. Thinking outside the box. I am sure the school system will not advertise beer and cigerettss . Maybe cereal or gatoraid . Your still going to have some element complain because some people will find something negative in anything.

Manhattan Buckeye;1587162 wrote:Sure, non-Constitutional "speech" in this arena. Obscenity, speech that satisfies the scrutiny test in various situations (i.e. hate speech), etc. - by putting speech in quotes that means that what may apply in some circumstances may not apply to others. Public schools have a bit of leeway on how they run their day to day operations, but on the other hand are still public, and have a considerable hurdle to jump when they provide a public accommodation.

Back to Con_Alma's point, I don't see a black-white issue for advertising on public school buses - there are tons of gray here, there are good arguments to allow and restrict on both ends. But as far as having a parochial school advertise on a public school bus - well, I think that contesting that is a big loser, on legal and ethical grounds. This isn't the Klan, or any other hate group, and ideally they wouldn't be using obscene speech. I thing we can all agree that if the Westboro idiots wanted a "G-d h---s f--s" banner it should not be allowed.

amiright?

I'd agree that there are lots of things, alcohol, Westboro Baptist Church, sex companies, etc that are easy to rule out. I also agree that there are lots of gray areas that would be more difficult to say one side of the argument is correct and one is wrong.

Overall though as long as the ads don't present a safety hazard in lessening the identification of a school bus as a school bus then it seems like a solid way to make a little bit of extra revenue for the school. Perhaps it pays for an extra aide or something. Can't hurt.

I dont see a problem with it.

Cannot be worse than when pepsi and coke make huge pushes to be in schools...gave them $$$$ and such to allow them to put pop machines in the schools.

Maybe the OC can advertise on it, or even better yet, branch out and start an online dating website linking students with teachers.

^

I see what you did there.

Maybe a good policy would be to only allow advertisers that already sponsor various school things (t-shirts, yearbook ads, etc).