When I read Kathy Kinsley's rant about this story, I immediately jumped on the bandwagon about the actions of Oklahoma Republican Congressman Rep. Ernest Istook in introducin' legislation to deny federal fundin' to transit agencies that are "involved directly or indirectly with any activity ... that promotes the legalization or medical use" of illegal drugs in response to advertisements promotin' the legalization of marijuana as bein' patently violative of the First Amendment right of free speech. Then I read the story. It appears that the ads were Public Service Announcements, free ad space donated for public service use. So, now it seems that maybe the Metro was a Federally funded public entity promotin' the repeal of law. Does the right to free speech apply to Federally funded public entities? If the ads had been bought and paid for by some foundation promotin' the legalization of marijuana, surely any action by the government to curtail their ability to advertise might be suspect under the 1st Amendment, but such is not the case surrounding this incident.
Are not Public Service Announcements, by their very nature, often a mere promotin' of one political agenda over another? Does the government owe to the public the right to have positions that are adversarial to the current law funded by the government? Is there a right to equal time for the opposin' viewpoint, so that for every anti-DWI ad there has to be a ad promotin' drunk drivin'?
The proposed legislation, like most of what comes out of Congress and every other law makin' body, will probably be so overbroad as to step on protected rights, but as far as it attempts to cease the promotion of any stance adversarial to the government position done at government expense, I concur.
Posted by notGeorge at December 3, 2003 07:31 PM | TrackBackIn this particular case it was public service announcements but the way the law is worded would seem to preclude them taking paid ads as well.
Posted by: Kathy K at December 4, 2003 05:38 AM