Court OKs Ban on Anti-Islam Bus Ads

Should a public bus agency be allowed to reject this controversial ad on the sides of buses?

“Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got Questions? Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com”

The group behind the ads, AFDI (American Freedom Defense Initiative), attempted to place them on buses in Southern Michigan.  The bus authority,  SMART (the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation), a state transit agency in Southern Michigan, refused to display the advertisement, citing its policy prohibiting political content.

Can they do that?  What about the First Amendment?  Don’t people have the right to speak – or in this case, buy advertising stating their views – without government interference?

A First Amendment Violation?

That was the AFDI’s position.  In March 2011, it sued, claiming First Amendment violations.  A federal district judge agreed, finding SMART’s decision was likely arbitrary. In essence, the court found that the policy failed to provide adequate guidance about permissible and non-permissible advertisements. On October 25, however, the Sixth Circuit overturned that ruling, citing to what it believed was SMART’s practice in rejecting all political ads. The court found that, because the restriction was “reasonable and viewpoint neutral,” the ban did not violate AFDI’s First Amendment rights.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling Thursday that this ban does not violate the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.

The decision reinforces a key principle of the First Amendment: Governments may not discriminate against opinions or beliefs, even those they may disagree with or find downright offensive. City transit systems are, in fact, government entities, and as such, also cannot limit anyone’s freedom of speech. However, governments may set guidelines for the content of ads so long as they do not discriminate against their viewpoints. That means that a metro system, such as SMART, could turn down all political ads, but it must be consistent in its rejection. The Sixth Circuit here found that it was.

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not necessarily those of Avvo.com.