Pro-pot ads protected by First Amendment?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by 235clear *
I’ve been lurking around here for years, and found much enlightenment on these pages. (OK, I confess, I always read The Pit first. Doesn’t everybody?)

I read it second. I read Great Debates first.

DC council member Jim Graham is quoted as saying, “These ads are intolerable, and we need to review our policies so that First Amendment considerations are not allowed to compel us to accept this type of advertising.”

Graham is an idiot. If the ads are not violating any laws, and the advertising agency/outlet is willing to run 'em, why the frag not? And “because he finds it offensive” is not an option.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by 235clear *
**SuaSponte, it seems to me (granted, I have limited knowledge of case law) that most cases of this nature are filed as ‘violation[s] of First and Fourteenth amendments’. Clearly, the Fourteenth applies, given that the Metro (MBTA, etc.) is arguably a government actor for the state and therefore subject to the equal protection clause. But how does the First apply, being only an admonishment that Congress shall make no law…?

D.C. ain’t a state; it’s run by Congress.
In any event, if one wishes to be technical, the First Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the 14th.

Or, as my friend has presented his rebuttal to me in light of Lebron and Lehman:

“I am waiting to be shown how the abridgment of a governmentally granted privilege can be considered to be on a par with the abridgment of an inherent right.”

Stubborn jackass.

(Good point, though, and one that I can’t address.)

That one is easy to address: the case law makes clear that once the governmental actor decides to grant a privilege, it may not pick and choose to whom it will grant that privilege.

IOW, once a governmental actor grants the privilege, the forum in question is now a “free speech zone.” The First Amendment now applies to the forum.

Toss this alternative legal argument at him, ignoring the First Amendment - to allow one organization to use a public forum to advocate their opinion, and to deny it to another means that the two organizations are being treated differently under the law. Equal Protection violation.

Sua

[235clear]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
D.C. ain’t a state; it’s run by Congress.

But Massachusetts is, and we’re arguing about the (almost identical) MBTA case now, too.

IOW, once a governmental actor grants the privilege, the forum in question is now a “free speech zone.” The First Amendment now applies to the forum.

:smack: OK, I get it now. Thanks.

[wendya]

*Originally posted by 235clear *
On a more personal note, I think that councilman Graham’s comment just reeks to high heaven of self-serving selectiveness. ‘Intolerable’? Uh huh.

And this surprises you?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Sorry for the distraction, but I had to say that everytime I see this thread title, I think “Pol Pot ads protected by the First Amendment?” Why would anyone even want to advertise for Pol Pot at this point?

Additionally, thanks for spelling “amendment” with two m’s and not three. Apparently no small feat these days.

[235clear]

wendya:

And this surprises you?

I should think you’d know better.

Hentor:

Additionally, thanks for spelling “amendment” with two m’s and not three. Apparently no small feat these days.

No problem. Thanks for spelling ‘apparently’ with an ‘e’.