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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @04:08AM (2 children)
Not a single person has proposed a law that would violate the first amendment. The ACLU running this ad is implying that, for instance, the proposed ban on nationals from various nations would be against the first amendment. Or that Trump speaking negatively of sensationalistic journalists is against the first amendment. This is in no way true.
If the ACLU had simply run a plain text ad of the first amendment in English without attaching their name to it let alone having it translated into Arabic, I have no doubt it would have been accepted. The ever so tolerant group this is targeted towards may have even become confused and vandalized such evangelism of 'freeze peach.' In any case, it is not an ad the ACLU would have run - because it would not have portrayed a clear political position. This ad, however, does. I generally tend to side with the ACLU, but I think this is one where they've clearly lost their way. Politicizing a non-political item is still politicizing, which is against the standards of advertising for the D.C. Metro.
Imagine the NRA tried to run ads with the second amendment and their name attached. That alone would likely be rejected for the same reason, even though that's vastly less political than the implications of the ACLU translating the constitution into Arabic.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday August 11 2017, @08:39AM
It is bizarre that you seem think that stating who funded the advert, or translating it in another language somehow politicizes it because of (I presume) what other people might read into it.
So quoting the constitution is only allowed in English and anonymous?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11 2017, @05:10PM
Politicizing a non-political item is still politicizing, which is against the standards of advertising for the D.C. Metro.
I think they probably did that on purpose. This advertising ban has been on their radar for a while. I wouldn't be surprised if they submitted a purposely borderline ad so they would have standing to sue.