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 frojack on Friday August 11 2017, @02:42AM (4 children)
When federally funded institutions start shutting down one side of the discourse, rather than policing the tyrants, the government has acted in contradiction if it's duty.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11 2017, @02:52AM (2 children)
Which maybe applies** to WMATA case, but not to private citizens shouting down speakers of other citizens.
Or were you having something else in mind?
(remember? I was replying to the "Well with liberals shouting down conservative speakers" - that was the context. I made no generalizations to others)
---
** probably, I don't know if WMATA receives federal funding
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:37AM (1 child)
"Federally funded" is irrelevant. The First Amendment applies to all governments in the U.S.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:42AM
Not all institutions are govt.
Private institutions aren't bound to allow free speech in the space they control unless, in my understanding (which might be wrong), they receive govt funds; in which case the most govt can do is to cease funding them.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11 2017, @05:03PM
When federally funded institutions start shutting down one side of the discourse, rather than policing the tyrants, the government has acted in contradiction if it's duty.
They aren't doing that, though. They banned a PETA ad, an ACLU ad, a Plan-B birth control ad, and a Milo Yianopolous ad. That's all across the spectrum and possibly leaning a bit left (depending on how you classify the ACLU).