[Peace-discuss] Adams Billboard *Vote Yes to Impeach* a precise political statement

[John W.]

At 10:27 PM 5/24/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Announcing that we're suing because our political statements are being 
>censored, as of course they are, can itself be a valuable bit of publicity.

Perhaps, but risky.  Legal opinions almost always seem to be negative, 
telling you what rights you DON'T have.  On a more positive note, there's 
nothing I know of to prevent AWARE members and supporters from posting 
signs in their yards, businesses, etc. saying "Vote Yes to Impeach".  You'd 
be, in essence, creating your own billboards.  I don't know how the costs 
would compare.

John again


>John W. wrote:
>
>>At 07:50 PM 5/24/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>>If they insist on censoring our message -- if they won't sell
>>>us the space -- I think we should take them to court.  A call
>>>to our legal advisor would be in order -- or see if we can
>>>find someone to sue them (altho' I admit that access to this
>>>particular medium will probably not make much headway against
>>>"private enterprise").
>>>But what they're willing to post is the Bush administration's
>>>position -- see
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052200115.html 
>>>
>>>
>>>AWARE funds should not be spent for that!  --CGE
>>
>>At the risk of wasting my time replying to this because I lack 
>>"credibility" or something, here is what your legal advisor will tell 
>>you:  A privately-owned newspaper is under no obligation to accept a paid 
>>advertisement from any particular individual or interest group.
>>
>>Radio and TV are held to a SLIGHTLY higher standard than are newspapers, 
>>because they utilize airwaves (frequencies) that are finite and are 
>>regulated by the government.  (There's something called the Fairness 
>>Doctrine that requires radio and TV stations to give political candidates 
>>equal time, as Carl experienced, but that wouldn't apply to paid ads by 
>>special interest groups.)  The idea is that if someone wants to propagate 
>>his/her ideas, he/she can start his/her own newspaper.
>>I couldn't find any cases quickly that pertain specifically to 
>>billboards, though I'm sure they're out there if someone cared to hunt 
>>for them.  But I'm betting that legally, billboards are considered more 
>>like newspapers than like TV or radio.  In any case, none of the media 
>>are required to accept paid ads from anyone who wishes to purchase one.
>>
>>A relevant case is _Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc._ (476 
>>U.S. 488, 1986).  William Rehnquist, the author of the majority opinion, 
>>says, "The power of a privately owned newspaper to advance its own 
>>political, social, and economic views is bounded by only two factors: 
>>first, the acceptance of a sufficient number of readers - and hence 
>>advertisers - to assure financial success; and second, the journalistic 
>>integrity of its editors and publishers.  A broadcast licensee has a 
>>large measure of journalistic freedom but not as large as that exercised 
>>by a newspaper.  A licensee must balance what it might prefer to do as a 
>>private entrepeneur with what it is required to do as a 'public 
>>trustee'."   Later he says, "...so long as a licensee meets its 'public 
>>trustee' obligation to provide balanced coverage of issues and events, it 
>>has broad discretion to decide how that obligation will be met."
>>
>>As we know from the example of Fox News, even that minimal requirement to 
>>provide "balanced coverage of issues and events" is not terribly well 
>>enforced.  :-)
>>
>>There's lots more, but I won't quote it as the case pertains primarily to 
>>a cable TV company.  Suffice it to say that the Independent Media Center 
>>came into existence as a consequence of just such jurisprudence as the 
>>case cited above.
>>
>>John Wason