Yeah, I definitely understand being afraid to report the abuse, for all of the reasons you mentioned. But, like you said, if I hadn't reported the abuse, I'd be ashamed of myself.

All 3DS screenshots look like shit. Games on the 3DS look a lot better in motion. I think it's because of the relatively low pixel density of the screens.

We would never have heard of it.

I was dumbfounded when a guy took a BITE out of another guy during the world cup and he just got suspended for a few games. Really? In what normal (non-pro-sports) job would that not be an immediate termination/legal action?

Covering up the ads goes beyond 'more speech' and into the territory of 'criminal action silencing others' speech,' which is something you would oppose, if you actually cared about expression (even when it's not politically expedient)

Defacing private property is the first amendment in action?

lol it's so true. I can't wait to see what esport player is first to knock his wife out in an elevator.

Imagine if VALVE was in charge of the Tour de France or Goodell. (Spoiler: Tour de France now with trading cards and hats.)

Papering over a (legally purchased) ad expressing a political opinion with your own ad expressing a contrary opinion is not "adding more speech", nor is it protected speech. It's merely criminal vandalism.

See, eSports is just like 'real' sports!

No, it's vandalism. The people who sponsored the bus ads paid for them. The asshole pasting Kamala Khan over them isn't utilizing their First Amendment rights—-they're committing a crime.

They could also pay for ads on the buses just like whatever group paid for the ads in the first place. Free speech doesn't give license to deface private property.

Better use it while you still can, ladies.

While I agree with your sentiment, I'm not a fan of bringing the whole free speech angle into this. Free speech means you can't be arrested for saying something. It doesn't mean you're free from interpretation or critique. If the makers of these ads were arrested, then it's a free speech issue. This is just…

No, it's not the First Amendment in action. The First Amendment doesn't give you a right to cover up & deface other people's speech because you don't like it. It gives you a right to say other or better things. If they wanted to contradict the message, they could buy their own bus ads.

While I agree with your concept that covering this vitriolic filth is awesome and is a great solution to their hatred, one that even potentially mitigation any further instigation, I am going to slightly disagree with you on the far less important point of what is and what is not free speech. Arguably, the brilliant…

No, this is censorship. If you want to exercise your speech rights, buy another ad to place along side it. And then people can see both the good and the bad.

Stomping on somebody else's free speech isn't free speech, it's censorship.

Actually, since they are censoring the original ad, its not more speech. It's using censoring in a different form.