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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:04AM (4 children)
The only folks making a controversy here are the folks claiming they don't want one.
That is, folks running the transit company.
To say that running it will affect public policy is nuts.
The 1st amendment is public policy.
Not running it is what they hope will affect public policy.
The ACLU may be extreme sometimes, but this time they seem to have found a proper cause.
Hopefully the courts will educate the transit company.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:28AM
I wholly support extreme support of the Bill of Rights because it is being eroded at an ever accelerating pace -- that's one reason I'm a card carrying member of the NRA _and_ the ACLU. No joke. If there was an "in your face, not a single inch" group for the 4th and another for the 5th, I'd carry their card too.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11 2017, @02:42AM (2 children)
Can you name one instance of ACLU "extremism"?
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:58PM (1 child)
"Can you name one instance of ACLU "extremism"?"
From their wiki, how about these?
The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns rather than an individual right, despite the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such, "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:11AM
That's extremism?? Wow, people really are getting soft!
Just so you know, I agree with them on the spam thing. Anonymity is an essential freedom, spam or not. And the forced labeling obviously wouldn't work because it is based on somebody's opinion. Whose? Who knows? But we all know where such a thing would lead.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..