Moving Messages

Yesterday a federal judge in Washington blocked enforcement of a law that threatens to withhold funding from transit systems that accept ads criticizing drug prohibition. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that the ban was a clear example of viewpoint discrimination: It allows transit systems to accept ads supporting the war on drugs (such as those sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy) but demands that they reject messages expressing a contrary view. Friedman said the First Amendment means that Congress "cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences."

[Thanks to Pete Guither at DrugWarRant.com for the tip.]

Comments

[garym]

Congress routinely ignores the rest of the Constitutional limits on their powers; why was it any surprise to anyone that they'd ignore the First Amendment?

But it's good to hear that Judge Friedman didn't let them get away with it.

gary: It doesn't have to make sense, it's government policy.

[Highway]

gary, maybe he means that since the governments are subsidising WMATA (and other transit systems) they're subsidising the advertisements that are placed on the transit system. It's kinda roundabout, but I'll bet that's what he means.

[Pete Guither]

The Metro would be worse off financially if it refused advertising. The advertising is an outside source of revenue.

The only way to possibly construe this as subsidized (in Istook's limited intelligence) is to assume that without the extra federal funding, the Metro system would be in such bad shape it would have to shut down (taking its advertising options with it), so that the federal government's financial propping up made it possible for the forum to exist.

The judge even anticipated and shot down that notion.

There can be no legitimate argument that the government is "speaking" through its funding of capital improvements to mass transit facilities or that the grant of funds for mass transit is "designed" to facilitate private speech.

[Dan]

I don't know why this isn't painfully obvious. The guvmint interfering with free speech is clearly a violation of the 1rst Amendment.

It's clearly a violation of the Constitution for Congress to be funding public transportation at all, actually. The proper, Constitutional solution here wasn't for the court to force the government to fund transit systems that carry pro-drug ads; it was for the court to force the government to cease funding transit systems in general. This ruling is just another case of the courts affirming the "right" to suck at the government tit with no strings attached; I see little reason for libertarians to be happy about it.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I don't know why this isn't painfully obvious. The guvmint interfering with free speech is clearly a violation of the 1rst Amendment.

I look forward to these ads spicing up the daily commute, but worry that it will be another distraction to the tourists. They seem to have enough problems with escalators, turnstiles, and closing doors..

[Feqmxa]

Score one for liberty!

Lets hope the Supremes dont overturn it, or our elected representatives don't pass a Constitutional ammendment making it a crime to have opinions against current government policies.

[Pete Guither]

Mr. Nice Guy,
I think it IS painfully obvious. But you've got to realize that we're dealing with Congress here, and Istook in particular, and they haven't quite grasped how the 1st Amendment is applicable to their work. (You mean, it applies to Congress, too?)

[SteveInClearwater]

Hey Pete, thanks for getting this to attention of H&R so quickly.

You mind dropping me an email? I think you can help us with a project we're working on at LEAP.

[e-mail] (that's a Zero, not an Oh)

[Highway]

Pete, come on, "everyone knows" the first amendment only applies to the things YOU want to say, not the garbage those other people want to say. Oh oh, it also means that saying anything contrary to someone else is violating their free speech!

[Patriot]

Is it just me or could this ruling be transfered to the case of online gambling ads as well? Granted, these advertisements are about an issue rather than a product, but still. Is there anyone out there who could shed some light on this?

[OL]

Let's not forget that Congress can, and probably will, take the weasel way out, and simply stop the ONDCP ads in order to keep from being forced by the court to run the opposing view. Problem solved (at least according to the dimwits in Washington)

[rst]

Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), who said he was furious last fall at seeing marijuana legalization ads in Metro shelters and stations.

That is the crux of the matter. It's not about some application of legal or moral theory, rather that Istook got his panties in a bunch over something he didn't like seeing on his morning commute. This toke's for you, bitch.

(You mean, it applies to Congress, too?)

Those nancies don't even contribute to social security, instead drawing a pension equal to their pay as representatives...with COL increases. Given the B-line that some of our fearless leaders have made (or should have made...Teddy...) to prison, it is apparent that they do not consider themselves to be subject to the same laws as we. Some of them even wanted a process by which governors would nominate congressional positions in the event that too many of them died, because you know, we just *couldn't* live without the fuckers for a few weeks, so we might as well have our representation appointed for us.

Is it just me or could this ruling be transfered to the case of online gambling ads as well?

I think the right is highly offended at fags getting married. There seems to be this concerted effort between the government and the Catholic church in response to crack down on our favorite vices. Fuck 'em.

stop the ONDCP ads in order to keep from being forced by the court to run the opposing view

I don't think they'll do that. This has emboldened the Change the Climate types; they want a Coca-Cola 'n' Pepsi style advertising war. There is the rampant if errant belief in D.C. that these ads are actually turning kids away from drugs, when really the core message in those ads has little to do with drugs and more to do with general responsibility...just tell her parents you as babysitter were doing *anything* other than keeping their child under close watch. Getting stoned has nothing to do with it. It's a quality message to be sure, were it not wrapped up in the anti-drug propaganda: be responsible, and smoke when you're done with your homework.

[gary]

"I'm confident that ultimately the courts will agree with the long-standing principle that Congress is free to decide what we will or will not fund," [legislation sponsor R-Okla] Istook said. "We provide major funding to combat drug use, and tax dollars should not be used to
subsidize contrary messages."

Help me here. If I pay from my own pocket to place an ad in a subway station, how is it the taxpayers are subsidizing my message? Are local governments selling advertising space at a loss and making up the shortfall with tax money? Are taxes being used to subsidize advertisers? What kind of a deal is that?

[Amy Phillips]

These types of ads get the highest level of protection because they're political speech. Ads for online casinos, cigarettes, beer, whatever, are commercial speech, and thus get less First Amendment protection. It's strange, but that's our judicial system...

[Walter Wallis]

Elliminate public subsidized transportation and ne problemo.

[Walter Wallis]

Eliminate subsidized public transportation and hair trigger posts and no problemo.

[David Nieporent]

It's clearly a violation of the Constitution for Congress to be funding public transportation at all, actually.

Not in DC, it isn't. Outside of DC, yes.

[Walter Wallis]

Silly me - I was looking at the front of the constitution, not on the back where all those other powers are enumerated.

[Dan]

Not in DC, it isn't. Outside of DC, yes.

Yes, within DC Congress can do whatever the heck it wants. However, the bill in question was a bill to withhold funds from transtit systems all over the nation, unless they banned pro-drug ads. *Those* transit systems clearly have no business receiving federal money in the first place, which means I have very little sympathy for the first-amendment argument against the bil.

[Internet-Recht]

Internet-Recht http://buch.preiswert.eu.com/liste_1201078/Buecher_Kategorien_Computer_Internet_Internet_Ratgeber_Internet_Recht.php

Kinder im Internet http://buch.preiswert.eu.com/liste_1201070/Buecher_Kategorien_Computer_Internet_Internet_Ratgeber_Kinder_im_Internet.php

Modems http://buch.preiswert.eu.com/liste_1201054/Buecher_Kategorien_Computer_Internet_Internet_Ratgeber_Modems.php

Online-Banking http://buch.preiswert.eu.com/liste_1201074/Buecher_Kategorien_Computer_Internet_Internet_Ratgeber_Online_Banking.php

Online-Broking http://buch.preiswert.eu.com/liste_1201076/Buecher_Kategorien_Computer_Internet_Internet_Ratgeber_Online_Broking.php

Online-Dienste http://buch.preiswert.eu.com/liste_1201080/Buecher_Kategorien_Computer_Internet_Internet_Ratgeber_Online_Dienste.php