Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
19. The First Amendment applies to ALL governmental entities
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 03:11 PM
Apr 2015

The Constitution contemplates the federal government and the state governments. That's all. Any state that wanted to could abolish all local governments and run everything out of the state capital. It would be lunacy but it would comply with the Constitution.

Instead, of course, the states choose to create local governments. What the state may not do directly it may not do indirectly. That's why municipal and county governments, as creatures of the state, are also bound by the First Amendment.

In New York, as in other states, the creation of other governmental entities isn't limited to county and municipal governments. There are assorted unified school districts, bistate agencies, and, as here, public benefit corporations. The form of the entity doesn't matter. If it's created and ultimately controlled by the state government -- as the MTA most assuredly is -- then it's a governmental entity and it's subject to the First Amendment.

There can be gray areas about how the First Amendment applies to particular policies that restrict speech. As to whether the MTA is bound by the First Amendment, however, I assure you that there is absolutely no gray area.

On your view, the MTA would be within its rights to say "We'll accept campaign ads from Republicans but not from Democrats or anyone else." That is not the law. You're right that a private company like Breitbart could adopt that policy but the MTA could not.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

excellent decision still_one Apr 2015 #1
Horrible decision... brooklynite Apr 2015 #3
This isn't banning speech Cal Carpenter Apr 2015 #5
Yes, it is banning speech, but it may be permissible. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #9
No it is not. This is a company policy. The government does NOT tell a business what it can or still_one Apr 2015 #14
This is not a private company. It *is* the government. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #16
It is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that determines advertising policy, not the local still_one Apr 2015 #18
The First Amendment applies to ALL governmental entities Jim Lane Apr 2015 #19
The MTAs list of banned items include: violent images still_one Apr 2015 #20
You seem to be signing on to the absolutist viewpoint, which is not the law. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #22
I hear you, but if those believing their 1st amendment rights arr still_one Apr 2015 #23
This new policy was just adopted. There might well be litigation over it. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #24
Well then it is going to be interesting still_one Apr 2015 #29
The MTA is a "public benefit corporation" - LiberalElite Apr 2015 #31
Thanks. That has been explained to me still_one Apr 2015 #32
ok - LiberalElite Apr 2015 #33
The MTA still has a policy on what ads they will accept, so it will be interesting to see if that still_one Apr 2015 #34
it's not discriminating against any particular viewpoint. nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #8
It is reducing the outlets for speech... brooklynite Apr 2015 #10
I don't think political messages have any place on city property. nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #12
This is a public transportation system, that serves the public. Are you saying that the government still_one Apr 2015 #13
Good decision LeftishBrit Apr 2015 #2
Smart move. Behind the Aegis Apr 2015 #4
Hamas is an anti-Jewish group. We all know this, they don't exactly make it a secret. Archae Apr 2015 #6
Everyone knows what Coca Cola tastes like, and that it's cold and refreshing... brooklynite Apr 2015 #11
because it sells Coke.. frylock Apr 2015 #17
And she should have every right to do so... brooklynite Apr 2015 #21
First of all, there's a huge difference between advocating hate and advocating rights LeftishBrit Apr 2015 #26
All -you- have to do is turn your head and look at another ad. brooklynite Apr 2015 #27
Poor Pam Geller. All she has to do is find somewhere else to peddle her bigoted garbage. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2015 #30
This has everything to do with a company being allowed to set a policy on the types of ads it will still_one Apr 2015 #15
Exactly LeftishBrit Apr 2015 #25
Good. Very happy to hear this. closeupready Apr 2015 #7
"No politics" is common ad policy for ManiacJoe Apr 2015 #28
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»MTA Votes to Ban All Poli...»Reply #19