1.0老澳门开奖结果老澳门开奖结果Center for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA | 老澳门开奖结果rich600338<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="kS5yU8Xc4g"><a href="/cases/center-investigative-reporting-v-septa">Center for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="/cases/center-investigative-reporting-v-septa/embed#?secret=kS5yU8Xc4g" width="600" height="338" title="“Center for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA” — 老澳门开奖结果" data-secret="kS5yU8Xc4g" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">
/* <![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]> */
</script>
In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Philadelphia metropolitan transit system’s ban on “political” and public issue advertisements violated the First Amendment because the policy could not be applied in a logical, consistent manner.