Moving Words

Today the ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance plan to announce a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on mass-transit ads critical of the war on drugs. They've got a good case: Federal courts generally have looked askance at content-based restrictions in the "public forum" of a transit system's ad space. In this case, ads in favor of drug prohibition are OK, but a transit system that accepted an ad "promoting the legalization or medical use" of a currently proscribed drug would lose federal money.

Last week Washington's Metro system refused to sell space for an ad sponsored by the ACLU, DPA, the Marijuana Policy Project, and Change the Climate. That rejection is the basis for the lawsuit.

Similar issues were raised in Change the Climate's battles with transit authorities leery of the group's ads. The Metro system had agreed to allow the messages after it was threatened with a First Amendment lawsuit. Clearly, federal money trumps the Constitution.

Comments

[Warren]

Pete,
I agree with every word. Now I'm so fucking depressed. If only I could alter my mood with a few puffs of pot, I'm sure I'd be much more cheerful and productive. God, I need a drink.

[JimInNoVA]

Given the size and scope of the federal budget, one would think that the commerce clause would cease to apply at some point. One would be right. One would also have to undo decades of entitlements in order to begin to repair the damage that loose reading has caused.

Good luck getting a supreme court justice (let alone a full bench of them) with the cojones to declare Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, the NEA, and every other little non-defense or transit pet project unconsititutional. I'll probably see it right before I'm eligible to start bankrupting the system myself.

[garym]

Since the Supreme Court has ruled, in upholding "campaign reform" legislation, that advertising criticizing the government isn't constitutionally protected, all free speech is now in doubt. Before the McCain-Feingold ruling I'd have said it was a clear case against Congress, but now I'm not so sure.

Our government takes our freedom away a slice at a time, and all the voters care is which candidate puts on a better public performance while doing it..

[Ruthless]

Kindly suspend all deliberations.
A friend whom I've not seen since high school very recently retired from DC Metro, and is now able to speak his mind and set us straight.
I'm bringing him up to date forthwith.

[dj of raleigh]

> if this is allowed to stand, it will set precedent for other controversial ads to be removed.

[Sniper]

Always nice to see the ACLU cross over to the right side of an issue now and then.

[joe]

You can't really blame the people running DC's Metro. The Republican Congress would be happy to screw up the life of the typical DC resident in order to score a few points back home. The people running the system have a duty to keep the trains, and the city, running.

[chthus]

This comes at the same time as Metro talking about raising prices for the second year in a row, and cutting back service. If they can afford to turn away ad revenue, why not try jacking up the ad costs a bit?

Joe, you have a point, and perhaps it would be better to have the courts set congress straight rather than have Metro punished for its officials directly telling the offending congressmen to go to hell. Although, a few properly timed "track malfunctions" near congress several mornings in a row could impress upon some members the importance of metro when half their staff is late.

I worry that if this is allowed to stand, it will set precedent for other controversial ads to be removed. I was pleased to recently see consumerfreedom.org has put up some pro animal testing ads critical of PETA (and further pleased to see only one defaced in the week and a half since i noticed them). While I fully support PETA's right to buy their own ad space to respond or put out their own message, I cringe at the thought that they might instead use a ruling against the pro-drug ads as leverage in trying to get the CF ads removed.

[Sniper]

It's the same principle as the annual Christmas-tree-in-the-public-square debate. Publicly owned entities must accomodate either everyone, or no one. There is no middle ground.

Except regarding the drug war. Then it's "Screw the Constitution. Full speed ahead!"

[neo]

When did the federal government begin to give money out to the states? It seems qwe could really end all pork barrel nonsense, and the ever increasing federalization of the country if the feds could only keep the mopney they make in taxes.

Maybe allows some out for natural duisasters, or something.

[Pete Guither]

The Feds are notorious for using fiscal coercion to browbeat states and local entities into taking away rights. States, like Utah, that have attempted to change asset forfeiture rules so that law enforcement doesn't profit from their activities, have lost federal funding.

Federal funding of drug task forces has been hard to resist in cash-strapped local governments, and now more often you find that law enforcement will disobey state and local directives to follow their federal masters who hold the check book (as in the Colorado medical marijuana case where law enforcement refused a judge's order to return the marijuana).

Ad to that various funding-tied "gag orders" that Congress has passed or attempted over time. Plus you've got schools losing funding if they teach certain things.

The feds LOVE giving money to the states. It puts them in a position of overwhelming power. And, of course, the Feds can do it all they want -- they just borrow more money in our name -- while the states have to attempt to be fiscally responsible.

This is a good opportunity for the courts to remind the Congress that not all of our rights can be sold.

[Pete Guither]

As I read the details further, it really seems like the lawsuit should be very easy to win. Even the legislative history is ammunition for the coalition. Istook and the other conferees were downright arrogant in their flaunting of the First Amendment in the conference report:

The conferees note with displeasure that public service advertising space in Washington, DC's Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rail stations and buses has been used to advocate changing the nation's laws regarding marijuana usage. WMATA has provided $46,250 worth of space to these types of ads; therefore, as a warning to other transit agencies, the conferees have deleted funding totaling $92,500 from projects and activities for WMATA in this bill...

...the conferees remain concerned that the opportunity exists nationwide for transit properties to run similar advertising. Therefore the confererence agreement includes a provision (Section 177) that prohibits Federal transit grantees from obligating or expending funds that would otherwise be available in the Act, if the grantee is involved directly or indirectly with any activity, including displaying or permitting to be displayed advertisements on its land, equipment, or in its facilities, that promote the legalization or medical use of substances listed in schedule 1 of section 202 of the Controlled Substance Act.

Ridiculous.

[kevrob]

How would they like this ad:

Fight Dope.
Fire Your Congressman.

Kevin