{"id":735,"date":"2015-07-09T13:02:30","date_gmt":"2015-07-09T13:02:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=735"},"modified":"2023-10-02T14:24:53","modified_gmt":"2023-10-02T14:24:53","slug":"publicmedia","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/publicmedia\/","title":{"rendered":"Public media advertising"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"RollingStones.Exhibitionism\"<\/a>

Who would be offended? Not Rolling Stones fans. But in 2015, the people who run the London subway and bus services were not happy with it.<\/p><\/div>\n

Just how offensive is this ad for a Rolling Stones exhibit?<\/p>\n

Too offensive for the London tubes, <\/a>according to the transport authority of London, in July of 2015. \u00a0 The transport authority has the ability to decline advertising under some circumstances, even though it is owned publicly (by the government). \u00a0This is true of “public” (government-owned) media in both the US and the UK, and particularly with airport,\u00a0bus or subway ads.<\/p>\n

These public media regulated in ways that are different from\u00a0broadcast media, which are regulated by the FCC in the US and by the Ofcom in the UK. \u00a0 They are also quite different from print media, such as newspapers, magazines and private billboards.<\/p>\n

For example, there would probably be no decency issue problem for the Rolling Stones to advertise their “Exhibitionism” exhibit\u00a0\u00a0in newspapers, magazines or privately – owned billboards. \u00a0There might not be a problem on television. \u00a0But public media are free to define rules that are more strict so long as they are consistent and content neutral.<\/p>\n

Public media guidelines<\/h3>\n

In the US, consistency in advertising policy is a state by state issue. \u00a0A \u00a0similar case <\/a>opened over political advertising in Oregon in the fall of 2013 when an airport in Portland, Oregon, turned down an environmental coalition’s ad opposing clearcutting in forestry. \u00a0But state laws in Oregon meant that the airport’s decision could be over-ruled even if, under federal case law, such decisions could stand in other states.<\/p>\n

The main controlling public media case in the US is the 1974\u00a0 ** Lehman v. Shaker Heights<\/a> <\/strong>418 U.S. 298. Here a candidate for office wanted to advertise on a city-run bus line. The Supreme Court said that the city was free to limit its advertising to commercial products only so long as it did so consistently and from a content-neutral point of view.<\/p>\n

States are free to be less restrictive\u00a0—\u00a0but not more restrictive —\u00a0\u00a0when it comes to public media advertising, according to another supreme court case, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins,<\/a> 1980.<\/strong> \u00a0Because\u00a0California’s constitution has a positive right of free speech, the case was decided in favor of permitting a petition drive that a shopping center did not want to allow. \u00a0Oregon has a similar constitutional provision, which is why the clearcutting ads were permitted in the Portland airport. \u00a0However, most US states do not, and the European Court of Human Rights held in Appleby v UK<\/a>,\u00a02003,<\/strong>\u00a0that there is no right to advertise controversial subjects in public media in Europe.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"Applying Lehman v Shaker Heights <\/strong>\u00a0In\u00a0September of 2013, \u00a0a coalition of environmental groups in Oregon launched an advertising campaign to stop clear-cutting of forest lands. \u00a0They asked to buy billboards at the Portland \u00a0airport, and the airport authority refused, saying that they were political ads.The airport argued that political statements should not be permitted on government property (the airport). Oregon state\u00a0 courts disagreed<\/a>, saying that the US First Amendment was the most important factor, \u00a0and the airport was ordered to allow\u00a0the advertising. Although not a major case,\u00a0Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund\u00a0\u00a0v. Port of Portland exemplifies some of the value conflicts that can surround advertising.<\/p>\n

A similar case involving California’s Karuk Tribe <\/a>advertising on busses was also decided in favor of political issue oriented advertising a few years earlier.\u00a0And yet, \u00a0many\u00a0airports routinely reject politically oriented and religious advertising<\/a>. \u00a0 Washington DC Reagan\u00a0National even rejected ads encouraging people to keep their guns locked up<\/a> and away from children. \u00a0Yet a more controversial ad on Philadelphia busses would have to be allowed, the courts said.<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0These cases illustrate differences in state\u00a0approaches to public forum analysis and constitutional speech issues.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Is there a right<\/span> to place advertising in media?\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n

\u00a01.\u00a0 Maybe in public media<\/strong> with Lehman case<\/p>\n

2. Yes in broadcast med<\/strong>ia with Equal Time Rule (Section 313) when a political campaign for federal office is under way.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. No in print media<\/strong> — \u00a0Miami Herald v. Tornillo<\/a> <\/strong>1974 \u2014\u00a0 \u00a0Here the Supreme Court said that a Florida law imposing a \u201cright of reply\u201d on the print media was not constitutional. A candidate for public office insisted that the Herald print his advertisement responding to a Herald editorial, and the Herald refused. The court said that the print media had a right to control its contents without government interference. While the press should be responsible, Chief Justice Warren Burger said, \u201clike many other virtues it cannot be legislated.\u201d<\/p>\n

MORE<\/p>\n

BART allows Holocaust denier advertising<\/a>, 2018.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just how offensive is this ad for a Rolling Stones exhibit? Too offensive for the London tubes, according to the transport authority of London, in July of 2015. \u00a0 The transport authority has the ability to decline advertising under some … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-735","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/735","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=735"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/735\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5973,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/735\/revisions\/5973"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}