[RD] ACLU sues DC Metro to Publish First Amendment

[BvBPL]

The ACLU attempted to run an ad on DC’s Metro system (WMATA) that was the text of the First Amendment in three languages. Some 90 to 98% of people in the DC area are exposed to WMATA advertising, making advertising with the agency an excellent way to communicate one’s message. WMATA’s advertising manager, Outfront Media, rejected the ads under a policy that the WMATA does not take issue orientated advertising. That policy dates from a 2015 revision of the WMATA’s advertising guidelines, put in place after a controversy regarding anti-Muslim advertisements.


In response to Outfront and the WMATA’s decision not to run the ads, the ACLU is suing the WMATA on First Amendment grounds. The ACLU claims that the WMATA, as a governmental body, is prohibited by the First Amendment from exercising viewpoint discrimination in its advertising policies. The ACLU is joined by co-plaintiffs Carafem (a local reproductive health provider), PETA, and Milo Worldwide (Milo Yiannopoulos’s publisher), all of whom claim that the WMATA impermissibly discriminated against them by refusing to run their advertisements. The ACLU’s lawsuit notes that the Carafem, PETA, and Milo Worldwide ads were denied despite the fact that ads from similarly situated parties and about similar issues were accepted by the WMATA.


The First Amendment generally prohibits the government from exercising viewpoint discrimination when it comes to speech. However, government-owned mass transit systems have struggled to comply in their advertising policies. New York’s MTA system has a long history of being sued for running or refusing to run pro- or anti-Israel and pro- or anti-Palestine advertisements, culminating in a 2015 decision not to run any political advertisements. (An ad campaign that wrapped subway cars in Nazi and Imperial Japanese iconography for the Amazon TV show “The Man in the High Castle” was permitted under the 2015 rule, as were ads for the TV show “Mr. Robot” reading “CORPORATIONS OWN YOUR MINDS”.) The MTA also uses Outfront as its ad company.

 

[Commodore]

I don't see how this constitutes as WMATA exercising viewpoint discrimination. If their policy is that they won't allow any issue-related ads, then it's not discrimination because they aren't allowing any political messages, not just ones from certain viewpoints or ideologies.

If anything, I'd say WMATA's policy is completely in the spirit of the First Amendment since it is a government body refusing to engage in any type of political campaigning/advertising.

 

[BvBPL]

Indeed, and that's what NYC's MTA has done. However, the WMATA has some issues with this policy.

Specific to the ACLU's ad, the text of the First Amendment can't really be said to be an issue-related ad.
More broadly, all co-plaintiffs claim that other ads similar to their own were run by the WMATA making the specific discrimination against the co-plaintiffs impremissible.

As a point of clarification regarding the issue of a government body political campaigning and/or advertising, there is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits that behavior. Indeed various organs of the US regularly engage in such activities.

 

[Takhisis]

The ACLU is joined by co-plaintiffs Carafem (a local reproductive health provider), PETA, and Milo Worldwide (Milo Yiannopoulos’s publisher)

????????

 

[BvBPL]

All four parties are jointly suing to have their individual ads run by the WMATA.

 

[Takhisis]

I can understand that. However, to see Milo Yiannopoulos and the ACLU on the same side…

 

[plarq]

I can understand that. However, to see Milo Yiannopoulos and the ACLU on the same side…

Because both are fringe groups I guess...

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I can understand that. However, to see Milo Yiannopoulos and the ACLU on the same side…

This is the norm. We can debate the merits of this, but the ACLU has defended anyone and everything, from far left to far right and every ideology in between when it comes to a free speech court case. They're civil rights absolutists in every regard. It makes things a bit messy but they also did more than any organization in the country to fight the Muslim ban and NYC's stop and frisk.

 

[warpus]

I can understand that. However, to see Milo Yiannopoulos and the ACLU on the same side…

From my understanding of the ACLU, they will stand with anyone who's rights they feel are being violated. But that's just from what I've seen and I'm not an expert and so on

 

[civvver]

Specific to the ACLU's ad, the text of the First Amendment can't really be said to be an issue-related ad.
More broadly, all co-plaintiffs claim that other ads similar to their own were run by the WMATA making the specific discrimination against the co-plaintiffs impremissible.

That's what I was going to say. What about posting text of the first amendment is a political stance? Unless you think we should like abolish the constitution or something. Is it cus it's in different languages?

This reminds me of some ignorant people going off on twitter on independence day when a liberal site tweeted out the declaration of independence and they took it as a dig at the president.

 

[Berzerker]

They should advertise their schedules on the sides...

The ad is the text of the 1st Amendment, government cant advertise its own laws?

 

[Takhisis]

The ad is the text of the 1st Amendment, government cant advertise its own laws?

What about secret/classified laws?

 

[Berzerker]

I imagine they wouldn't want to advertise them, but how can they charge us with violating a law they're keeping secret?

 

[metatron]

The ACLU is joined by co-plaintiffs Carafem (a local reproductive health provider), PETA, and Milo Worldwide (Milo Yiannopoulos’s publisher),

Brilliant. I love this so much.

They're civil rights absolutists in every regard. It makes things a bit messy

No! No, it doesn't!
And no, it's not absolutist.
What is wrong with you?

Rights should apply to everyone. And they should be defended for everyone. If anything a defense should start with the worst offender against moral norms and decency, the pedophile, the sub-criminal fraudster, the peddler of hate.
With whom else should it start after all? White homemakers in Anaheim?
This is kind of the point of a right, that everyone has it. Even bad people.
Else it would be an entitlement, not a right.

I shall remind you at times in regards to what rights you yourself are an "absolutist" with cooky ideas about really bloody everybody having them, all the boring damn time.

Muslim ban and NYC's stop and frisk.

You are aware that the NYPD has by now made a significant number of arrests and enforced countless fines, for "manspreading"?
You are aware that virtually all the "transgressors" are men of color?

So, yeah, the reckless, entitled, sexist, hateful talk of your friends and allies did actually have consequence.
More work for the ACLU, i suppose.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

No! No, it doesn't!
And no, it's not absolutist.
What is wrong with you?

It does in America. For instance, are 100 people carrying assault rifles at a protest subtly stifling speech of others? I know I would feel unsafe in a situation like that about speaking out or counter-protesting. That's where things get complicated. They universally apply constitutional rights. I'd argue that a massive armed militia at a gathering is a very not-so-subtle threat to to the 1st Amendment's establishment of free speech, but since the guns fall under the 2nd Amendment, the ACLU will defend their right to carry them.

 

[metatron]

It does in America. For instance, are 100 people carrying assault rifles at a protest subtly stifling speech of others? I know I would feel unsafe in a situation like that about speaking out or counter-protesting. That's where things get complicated. They universally apply constitutional rights. I'd argue that a massive armed militia at a gathering is a very not-so-subtle threat to to the 1st Amendment's establishment of free speech, but since the guns fall under the 2nd Amendment, the ACLU will defend their right to carry them.

What does this - whatever this is - have to do with anything?
You are vaguely aware that carrying arms is no right whatsoever, anywhere, are you?
It's a somewhat mal-interpreted constitutional provision in the US, arguably somewhat absurdly. That doesn't make it a right.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

What does this - whatever this is - have to do with anything?
You are vaguely aware that carrying arms is no right whatsoever, anywhere, are you?
It's a somewhat mal-interpreted constitutional provision in the US, arguably somewhat absurdly. That doesn't make it a right.

That's what I am saying though. It is a right in the US, as defined by the courts... and sort of the ACLU. So yeah. You can say it's not a "civil right" but as defined by the courts here, and the ACLU themselves, it absolutely is, and they go to bat for it sometimes. Their platform on it isn't cut and dry (and references a militia) but they have litigated against plenty of gun control laws in their time. Including a recent Obama era one.

 

[metatron]

That's what I am saying though. It is a right in the US, as defined by the courts... and sort of the ACLU. So yeah. You can say it's not a "civil right" but as defined by the courts here, and the ACLU themselves, it absolutely is, and they go to bat for it sometimes. Their platform on it isn't cut and dry (and references a militia) but they have litigated against plenty of gun control laws in their time. Including a recent Obama era one.

I'm still confused as to what's supposed to be the point here or what you are asking of me:

You want me to say that your constitution is stupid and you also don't follow it well?

You want me to make a point of the 330 million of you - obviously - being completely high on PCP as virtually the best explanation for a) how you made up a fake right b) elected to make it a really dumb one c) the fecalshow you call feminism d) your hideous quarkless cheesecake?

You want me to concede that it is the ACLU's job to make the above two judgements, decide them the way i would and be like "Nah, bro, that a dumb right, we don't defend that."?​

You know me well enough to predict that my answer is going to be "yes, yes, and hell no".
So where are we going with this?

 

[Bugfatty300]

It does in America. For instance, are 100 people carrying assault rifles at a protest subtly stifling speech of others? I know I would feel unsafe in a situation like that about speaking out or counter-protesting. That's where things get complicated. They universally apply constitutional rights. I'd argue that a massive armed militia at a gathering is a very not-so-subtle threat to to the 1st Amendment's establishment of free speech, but since the guns fall under the 2nd Amendment, the ACLU will defend their right to carry them.

Carrying guns in public is not a constitutional right. It's just not illegal in some jurisdictions and in others it is. But even if it were, the ACLU doesn't advocate 2nd amendment rights at all. It would be nice if it did.