Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 11 2017, @12:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-bill-of-rights-for-you dept.

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.


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by linkdude64 on Friday August 11 2017, @12:45AM (6 children)

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday August 11 2017, @12:45AM (#551985)

    I hope the NRA then takes the hint and purchases a couple of ads with the Second Amendment on them. Not too many, because it's an utter waste of money, and liberal news outlets will do all of the advertising for them via outrage anyway.

    Funny enough that they would need to take ads out to inform their target audience about this, though - ask any American who loves their country to quote the First Amendment be they Muslim, Christian, or Athiest, in any field of employment, and they will likely be able to directly quote it. Immigrants and citizens of any race or creed who live here only for our wealth and welfare, yet care absolutely nothing for the culture, history, or future of the country are the ones who need reminding, I would imagine.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:09AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:09AM (#551998)

    You're going to be greatly dismayed at the number of people who will pass your test.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @01:30AM (1 child)

      Truth. I can't do it myself. My brain doesn't organize that way. It only files the relevant/important information rather than all of the information. Like I couldn't tell you verbatim anything anyone has ever said to me in my entire life but I could summarize interesting conversations I had nearly thirty years ago while astoundingly drunk.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:49PM (#552370)

        Yeah, sorry, the first amendment is pretty long, I can't quote it directly, but the second I'd have an easier time with.

  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 11 2017, @02:59PM (2 children)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday August 11 2017, @02:59PM (#552318) Homepage Journal

    They used to teach the constitutions (US and Illinois) in school here. I'm not sure if they still do, considering the number of people on the internet (some of whom are journalists) who seem to be ignorant of grammar, I'm pretty sure they no longer teach grammar in grammar school so they may no longer teach the constitution, either.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday August 11 2017, @08:02PM (1 child)

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday August 11 2017, @08:02PM (#552546)

      Liberals would say that teaching the Constitutions in school is likely Nationalistic and non-inclusive of other countries' constitutions, yet for this, out come the lawsuits.