The AATA has no legs to stand on. As others have noted before, AATA gets very little in advertising revenue, so a better decision would be to stop taking advertising rather than trying to sharpen their exclusions from “offensive” ads to “political” ads.

Let’s hope they end up with a net loss of $0.

It could be argued that the ad in question does not hold any person up to scorn or ridicule as it attacks a putative system of discrimination employed by a foreign government. Nor more than boycotting South Africa was scornful to Afrikaaners – many who themselves loathed apartheid imposed by their government.

I would argue that “political” or political campaign advertising” is unduly vague and ambiguous. Unlike support for a candidate for office or a ballot proposal, boycotting Israel or its policies may be viewed as a civil rights initiative – much like the Montgomery Bus Boycott championed by Martin Luther King. I have never heard of King’s marches or boycotts termed “political” even though the targets of his protest were often governmental in nature.

I am flabbergasted there have not been serious attempts initiated by the AATA to resolve this lawsuit given the large amounts of attorney fees it is generating that will have to be satisfied with public funds.