I was at the Nats-Rangers game on Friday.  There was a good amount of protesters standing along the road that leads from the Navy Yard Metro stop to the ballpark.  They had anti-Exxon-Mob signs and were asking folks to boo during the 7th ining stretch, when Exxon-Mob announced some scolarship effort.  I heard about 3 boos in the stadium while everyone else stretched or went to get some chow.

I was there Friday, and didn't hear much booing either. People really don't care for one reason or another.

While I don't agree with Exxon Mobil on most issues, they and the Nats still have free speech rights and the ads are fine, in my book.

If there was such a problem with Exxon, then what about the beer ads? How many people have died at the hands of drunk drivers?

It's a slippery slope.

Exxon also has major ops in Fairfax, so, as the fan response shows, no one really cares about this...it's a non issue. It's a company and it can advertise where it pleases...it (unfortunately) has billions to spend.  

Hate to break it to you, but alcohol ads are regulated. And I don't remember where it mentions billboard ads in the first amendment, could you quote it for us?  

Not to be negative, but there is some First Amendment protection for commercial speech:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm

Basically, the Supreme Court requires that the government show that the advertising regulation directly advances an important interest and is no more restrictive of speech than necessary.

Also, the NYT has an article essentially saying Obama is very close to big ethanol interests.  Is this good?  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...  

You'll get many different answers from many different greens on ethanol. Basically, using existing farmland for ethanol results in a small but noticeable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels, but drives up food prices. And breaking open new farmland to grow crops for ethanol results in a massive net gain of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels.

Most greens seem to be looking the other way on ethanol for now, thinking Obama figures he needs to pander on ethanol to lock up Midwest states.

for the reply and the summary

as being regulated, when the FTC effectively regulates all advertising to some extent. Remember the Miss Cleo and Abdominal Belt ads that got yanked from the air because they were selling a crock of you-know-what?

And ZZTop more or less made the point below, but it strikes me  as absurd to expect that billboards have to be mentioned by name in the Constitution to be protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, held that commercial speech is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

Some choice quotes from that ruling include:

"The First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation."

and

"Commercial expression not only serves the economic interest of the speaker, but also assists consumers and furthers the societal interest in the fullest possible dissemination of information. In applying the First Amendment to this area, we have rejected the 'highly paternalistic' view that government has complete power to suppress or regulate commercial speech. '[People] will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and . . . the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication, rather than to close them...'" (ellipses and brackets in original).

I found out today that Obama is a smoker. guess he won't be going after big tobacco. :/