The Center for Investigative Reporting recently conducted an into the disproportionate rate at which African-Americans and Latinos are denied conventional home mortgages compared to their white counterparts. The year-long investigation found that modern-day redlining 鈥� the discriminatory practice of denying a service to residents of certain areas based on racial or ethnic characteristics 鈥� has persisted in 61 areas across the country, even when controlling for applicants鈥� income, loan amount, and neighborhood.
CIR hoped to advertise its findings in Philadelphia bus shelters, newsstands, and other spaces where audiences potentially affected by the investigation could explore CIR鈥檚 work. Yet when CIR submitted its advertisement to the state-run local transportation authority 鈥� Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, or SEPTA 鈥� the group received a puzzling response: The advertisement was 鈥減olitical鈥� and expressed 鈥渁n opinion, position or viewpoint on matters of public debate.鈥� It would therefore be rejected, CIR was told. 鈥淒isparate lending is a matter of public debate and litigation,鈥� SEPTA explained, citing the American Banking Association鈥檚 criticism of CIR鈥檚 report and methodology.
Today, CIR 鈥� represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Pennsylvania, and the law firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller 鈥� sued SEPTA over its policy, which violates the First Amendment. The policy discriminates against speech that SEPTA deems offensive or controversial, and it gives sparse guidance on how to determine whether an advertisement might be rejected for being 鈥減olitical鈥� or for touching on a 鈥渕atter of public debate.鈥�
In 2015, SEPTA adopted an advertising policy that prohibits 22 categories of advertisements, two of which are relevant to the CIR ad. It prohibits advertisements 鈥渢hat are political in nature or contain political messages, including advertisements involving political or judicial figures and/or advertisements involving an issue that is political in nature in that it directly or indirectly implicates the action, inaction, prospective action or policies of a government entity.鈥� SEPTA also prohibits advertisements 鈥渆xpressing or advocating an opinion, position or viewpoint on matters of public debate about economic, political, religious, historical or social issues.鈥�
SEPTA purports to ban all 鈥減olitical鈥� and 鈥減ublic debate鈥� advertisements in order to avoid any controversial ones. The ban originated after SEPTA tried to reject an offensive ad proposal from anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller but that the transportation authority could not, under the First Amendment, pick and choose between ads it liked and didn鈥檛 like. In response, SEPTA tried to take itself out of the pick-and-choose conundrum altogether, disallowing any advertisement on a matter of public debate or politics.
But the new policy ends up giving SEPTA too much power to pick and choose. SEPTA officials now have standardless discretion to reject advertisements they deem too controversial for publication. Is a movie poster depicting fictionalized military technology considered an advertisement on a matter of public debate? What about a different poster advertising a new documentary on military technology spending in the United States? Or a Lockheed Martin poster promoting an F-16 fighter jet? It is up to SEPTA officials to decide which of these advertisements is 鈥減olitical鈥� or on a 鈥渕atter of public debate,鈥� and therefore banned from its advertising spaces.
We know what happens with vague policies like this one from experience. The 老澳门开奖结果 is currently engaged in a legal battle with WMATA, the transit agency in Washington, D.C., over its rejection of several advertisements ranging from ads promoting Milo Yiannopoulos鈥檚 new book to 老澳门开奖结果 ads depicting the text of the First Amendment in English, Spanish, and Arabic. These ads were rejected because they involved 鈥渋ssue[s] on which there are varying opinions,鈥� per WMATA鈥檚 guidelines. Yet WMATA has frequently approved ads that feature issues on which there are varying opinions. For example, the transit agency approved an ad for a play commemorating the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, with passages promoting a conservative judicial philosophy. It also approved an ad showing a crowd of demonstrators holding signs saying 鈥淏lack Lives Matter鈥� and 鈥淪tand for Justice.鈥� Such inconsistencies are inevitable when officials are given the discretion to censor whatever seems to them too controversial.
Good intentions may have initially motivated SEPTA to reject a bigoted, anti-Muslim message from its advertising spaces. But the predictable consequence of SEPTA鈥檚 policy is arbitrary censorship over critical matters of public debate. That鈥檚 a consequence the First Amendment does not allow.
CIR鈥檚 proposed ad would have featured a version of this graphic about its report on racial disparities in the conventional home mortgage market. It can be found .
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.