SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Can the government ban the text of the First Amendment itself on municipal transit ads because free speech is too "political" for public display? If this sounds like some ridiculous brain teaser, it should. But unfortunately it's not. It's a core claim in a lawsuit we filed today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) restrictions on controversial advertising.
[...] Earlier this year, following President Trump's repeated commentary denigrating journalists and Muslims, the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too — to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.
The ACLU inquired about placing our ads with WMATA, envisioning an inspirational reminder of our founding texts, with a trilingual twist, in the transit system of the nation's capital. But it was not to be: Our ad was rejected because WMATA's advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" or "intended to influence public policy."
You don't have to be a First Amendment scholar to know that something about that stinks.
Source: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/first-amendment-literally-banned-dc
Also at NPR.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11 2017, @12:14PM (2 children)
Look, if there's nothing legally binding, as strong as it may be, the assurance is not a foolproof guarantee.
Now, when it comes the S/N, I'm not actually asking for it - S/N alone is inconsequential for the larger ctx of the entire social phenomenon.
But if you remember, this has been raised as an example for the larger context of the "underlying ideal" - without casting this ideal in a law, the ideal as valuable as the paper of a verbal contract - nice to have, but not a reliable reality (long gone are the times when two gentlemen shaking hand over a deal was all that was needed).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @12:24PM (1 child)
Legally binding isn't a guarantee either. The board can always vote out any rule they don't like because a majority of them are also the only shareholders. Granted it's more difficult than just ignoring or "interpreting" the First Amendment but if it's good enough for the government it's good enough for private entities.
Which ties in with my point. Guarantees by the government not being worth the paper they're printed on, all you really have is the unwillingness of the people to put up with certain types of shenanigans. Thus it's absolutely crucial to this society that we maintain a majority of people who carry that unwillingness.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11 2017, @03:33PM
I meant to say legally binding has better guarantees than just a verbal promise (maybe marginally better, but better anyway).
I have a saying that I hold dear: "a cat can be skinned in more than a single way" (to any given problem, there ain't a single solution). So no, I can't believe that's "all you really have".
What other solutions are there? I don't know, I'm not living in your country.
For example, change the way you elect a government and/or what power the govt has, so that shenanigans are not even possible in the first place. Look, the Switzerland's direct democracy seems to make them less prone to govt misbehaviour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford