MTA sued after ad refusal

A federal judge said the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority violated a group’s free speech rights by refusing to run potentially offensive ads.

American Freedom Defense Initiative sought to place an ad that said, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” The New York Times reported.  The ad also called for people to “Support Israel” and “Defeat Jihad.”

The MTA refused to run the ads, saying it violated their policy against running derogatory ads against, among other things, people’s race, religion and nationality. They told the initiative they could revise and resubmit.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative instead sued in 2011, claiming the transit authority’s policy violated their free speech rights.

Federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled Friday, July 20,  in the group’s favor.

The proposed ad represents political speech and falls within First Amendment protections, Engelmayer said.

Engelmayer said the MTA’s policy, though well-intended, violates free speech rights; they cannot allow some types of negative ads and not others.

He praised the transportation agency’s effort to minimize harmful speech, but said it cannot selectively allow some types of discriminatory speech and not others.

Engelmayer suspended the ruling for 30 days, during which the MTA can attempt to make their policy constitutional.

Read Reuters and The New York Times coverage of and New York Daily News opinion on the ruling.

MTA asked to take down other ads

In a related incident, an elected New York official asked the MTA to take down ads showing the shrinking geography of Palestine and growth of Israel.

Assembly member Robert Castelli wrote a letter to the MTA saying the ads were offensive to the Jewish community and created disharmony. His letter appealed to the authority to take down the ads. However, given Englemayer’s recent ruling, Castelli may not have success with his petition.

The Center for Peace in Israel and Palestine paid for the ads.

Read more here.

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with the Society of Professional Journalists. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email –  wevans@hq.spj.org –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to wevans@HQ.SPJ.org. It may be featured in a future post.

A small town in Massachusetts has imposed a $20 fine for swearing in public. In order to make punishments for offenses more actionable, residents of Middleborough, Mass., voted to make profanity in a public area punishable by fine, along with public marijuana smoking, drinking and dumping snow in roadways.

A similar measure has been on the books in Middleborough since 1968. However, while swearing was a crime in the 1968 ordinance, the new measure is an attempt to “decriminalize” and make it more likely for the police to enforce.

Rather than limit all swearing, this ordinance aims to curb loud profanity in the parks and downtown areas, city officials said, according to the Washington Post.

I’m really happy about it,” Mimi Duphily, a store owner and former town selectwoman, said after the vote, according to the Asociated Press. “I’m sure there’s going to be some fallout, but I think what we did was necessary.”

The First Amendment is an obvious concern. Court cases such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Cohen v. California helped establish freedom of speech. Profanity is allowable under the First Amendment except in cases of true threats, fighting words or an incitement to imminent lawless action.

“If the Massachusetts attorney general approves it, the ordinance would encourage police to ticket speech that is, and likely will eventually be found to be, constitutionally protected,” a Washington Post editorial said.

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with SPJ. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email –  wevans@hq.spj.org –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to wevans@HQ.SPJ.org. It may be featured in a future post.

Whether you have your own blog or report stories for online production at a newspaper, you now have an easy-to-use reference guide for all your legal concerns.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press released its legal guide for digital journalists this week, and it touches on some of the major issues that journalists face when working online.

Each topic is divided into sections that include the history of a legal issue, quick answers to common concerns and links to other helpful resources.

The guide is also integrated with other RCFP Web materials, such as its state and federal guides to open government and The First Amendment Handbook.

Some of the topics covered in the digital guide focus on FOI issues, such as open records concerns and court access problems, but other covered topics that may be of help include privacy invasion issues and Internet regulation rules.

So if you run into a legal quagmire, mosey on over to the RCFP website and take a look at their handy guide.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).