General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader [View all]onenote
(42,581 posts)It's hard to generalize, but broadly speaking, certain areas are considered "public fora" where there has to be a a compelling state interest to limit speech (and when it comes to limiting speech based on its point of view, that test rarely can be met). The side of a bus almost certainly is not such a public forum. However, there also are "designated public fora" -- areas that aren't traditional public fora like a public park, but have nonetheless taken on some of the qualities of a public forum through the way it is used. Whether a side of a bus (or space inside the bus) meets that standard may depend on how the bus compnay (and we're talking publicly owned buses so we're talking about state action) has dealt with these areas in the past. Some argue that where the bus company has limited the content of advertising on or inside a bus to "commercial speech" -- ads for products -- they are free to reject issue-oriented advertising. Others say that position turns the first amendment on its head, elevating commercial speech over political speech. They also argue that so long as the bus company is using the space inside or on the bus as a revenue generating tactic, it cannot distinguish between those who are willling to purchase that space based on its content (any more than they could agree only to sell ad space to propoents of one policy or candidates of one party).
Obviously, if a bus company has been selling (or giving away) space for issue-oriented messages, it is going to have a hard time justifying the refusal to sell based on the content of the message being delivered. Which means an opportunity for groups to reach transit passengers is stifled.