St. Pete Pride Cancels Contract with Clear Channel Over Censorship of Gay Couple Billboards

Two of Clear Channel's "approved" images:



Peter Schorsch at Saint Petersblog writes

"In other words, Clear Channel approved the artwork depicting the, um, transvestite and the couple adopting a child, which, thanks to the backwards mentality of the rednecks in North Florida who voted for the constitutional amendment doing so, is prohibited in Florida. But the pictures of gay men and lesbian women — gasp — embracing each other is just too frightening to show in public. The rejection of the artwork for the billboards has the organizers of St. Pete Pride contemplating not only pulling their business related to their event, but also organizing a larger boycott of Clear Channel."


  1. jamesintoronto says

    What year is it exactly? In Toronto, where I live, it is 2010 and every major corporation and media outlet is clamboring to be an official sponsor of our Pride celebrations. We have so much to be thankful for in Toronto and Canada, from the freedom to marry whoever we want, to a citizenship that celebrates diversity in all its many forms. So it is with a heavy heart that I see what others, especially in the United States, must go through. Keep fighting, one day you will overcome.

  2. says

    Regardless of politics, the bottom two ads are better anyway. The top two look like the ads from a 1999 issue of the Advocate.

  3. candideinnc says

    If they were in swim trunks on a beach, fine. Otherwise, why shirtless and in negligees? I am not aroused by it, and it is no big deal, but it seems needlessly provocative.

  4. Gridlock says

    candideinnc, take a look at ANY clothing advertisement advertisement on a billboard, magazine, or in a MALL for gods sake and you’ll see heterosexuals grinding each other, laying on top of each other, making out with each other, or showing off the goodies.

    This is more tame than ANYTHING you see every damn day involving the hets, and OURS is provocative?

    Please deprogram yourself.

  5. TONI says

    The two dudes and the two woman were mostly showing skin … without context of location.

    The designer of the billboards was really not thinking …

    Obviously shirtless men and women wearing very little are everywhere on billboards – BUT we are talking homo SEXUALITY why push the skin ???

  6. Snowlowe says

    Clear Channel is evil – way before this. Take the billboards to a competing company.

  7. wtf says

    Oh Toni and Candide, you both need to REALLY get with the fucking program here. This is about equality. I am INUNDATED with HETERO SKIN every FUCKING day. You both need to STFU and fuck off apparently since you can’t wrap your tiny pea brains around this concept. Ugh. People like you make me want to fucking puke. Fucking homophobe apologists. VOMIT.

  8. Rowan says

    Weird, I thought the couples look harmless and as if they’re at the beach. The bottom two don’t make any sense but the top two do because you think of PRIDE as a festival and when you think of Tampa, you think sun, beach etc….so surely the above two make sense of the way you would dress to go to a sunny festival near the beach lol!!??

    Or is this festival in a home so they should be all covered up?

    Some comments are mad.

  9. SFshawn says

    It’s an anti-sexuality world we live in folks! Touch,physical intimacy and nudity are TABOOOOOO! Especially between two beautiful ADULTS of the same gender. If it wasn’t so sad and pathetic and childish it would be laughable. Clear Channel Florida might want to have a conversation with Clear Channel San Francisco since they obviously have different criteria about what is “appropriate”. It is 2010 in the United States of America isn’t it?

  10. johnny says

    I’m puzzled by the approved ad showing a drag queen in chains. It most likely matches what Clear Channel’s comfort level is: they are OK with gay men as long as they aren’t touching ~or~ are in some kind of glitzy “entertainment” mode on stage.

  11. pete says

    It is sad how some comments are aimed at appeasing the anti-sexuality community. Part of what freedom is is being able to show affection in public. By putting these affectionate, not sexual, images out there we are getting people use to seeing happy, adult, gay people expressing affection for each other. Remember when straight guys couldn’t even hug?

  12. walter says

    these bill boards are no different than ones i seen advertising for straight couples to visit florida. but horrors of horrrs they show couples of the same sex and it immediately throws the corporate world into a dither. i am willing to bet clear channel has run more revealing bill boards with straight couples or with individuals. maybe it is time for the u.s. to join the rest of the western world in the 21st century.

  13. Chal says

    You’ve got to wonder about the actual human being at Clear Channel who is making the decision to refuse to run the couple ads. What standards can they possibly be defending that aren’t rife with discrimination?

  14. peterparker says

    This should surprise no one. Clear Channel had a very cozy relationship with George W. Bush. Many of Clear Channel’s top brass had been friends with Bush since his days as Governor of Texas. As Bush prepared for war, a group called Rally for America organized pro-war rallies that were heavily promoted on Clear Channel stations. Many people believe Clear Channel was behind “Rally for America”. In the 2004 elections, Clear Channel executives donated $42,200 to Bush compared to a mere $1750 to John Kerry. Clear Channel is the devil.

  15. Peter says

    Provocative? As with most cities in Florida, St. Pete depends on its access to the beach for tourism. I mean, it’s called St. Pete’s Beach for crying out loud! These two couples are clearly at the beach. The blue sky in the background of the gay couple suggests this, as does the sand in the background of the photo featuring the lesbian couple.

  16. Dairyqueen says

    Of course they would approve the clown like drag queen and the non touching gay family.
    One is the court jesture and the other could be just friends with a nephew.

  17. Mr. E says

    Uluwehi is right. Clear Channel has always been evil. Remember when they banned all anti-war songs on all of their radio stations just after 9/11? They even banned Imagine by John Lennon. They’re bigoted ass holes. Stop doing business with them.

  18. contragenic says

    The Pride Committee of St. Pete should be replaced for it’s irresponsible solicitation of the uber evil Clear Channel. That company has never and will never be a friend to the GLBTQ Community and not being aware of their policies of discrimination is over the top irresponsible. Fuck clear channel and the shoddy memory of Our Community.

  19. says

    It’s very clear that as long as we are shown as stereotypes (drag queens) and asexual (parents with a kid between them) we are okay to look at. But give us some sort of sexuality and take away the stereotypes that surround us and suddenly everybody is all up in arms.

    It’s very reminiscent of the Civil Rights era and even before that. Show us as servants or eating watermelon and tap dancing for pennies and everybody’s okay. But once you showed us black folk as actual HUMAN BEINGS suddenly everybody gets up in arms.

    I don’t blame them for wanting to sever ties with Clear Channel. I don’t blame them one bit.

  20. Apesofmath says

    @Snowlowe I live in Tampa, and I think most large billboards are owned by Clearchannel, along with most radio stations.

  21. Craig says

    We wouldn’t want to expose our young children to this. Giant billboards about erectile dysfunction, sure. But not this.

    Heaven help us. What idiots at Clear Channel.