OK, yesterday (Saturday) morning I was over my uncle's house. It was raining and as usual the local newspaper was double bagged to protect it from the water. Well after removing the first, clear bag wrapper there was another but this one was white and had something spelled on it. It stated "Vote fo George W. Bush 2004" on the cover. My uncle was furious and called the paper's HQs and had his name put on a list around 10:00 AM, the person he spoke to said there had been a steady stream of calls since 6:00 AM, when most receive their paper around here. My girlfriend's parents also received their paper with this wrapper. So, isn't this illegal? Aren't news sources supposed to be unbiased or at least give equal coverage. I mean if "Vote for John Kerry 2004" would've been on the other side it would've been right, correct? Is this illegal. And no, the newspaper today didn't have a Kerry wrapper.
let me find out for you... the issue is clearly one that competes freedom of speech and whether a state can legally restrict that freedom if such speech needs to be confined to the limited public forum [does some legal research] ok, i found out, this is the courts rationale in a case Husain v. Springer "Although discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional, see Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., 512 U.S. 622, 641-43, 129 L. Ed. 2d 497, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1943), where the State creates a limited public forum, it may reserve it for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, at 829, 132 L. Ed. 2d 700, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995). "Once it has opened a limited forum, however, the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set." Id. HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.In the context of a limited public forum, then, the State may engage in content discrimination in order to preserve the purposes of the limited public forum and, in doing so, may not only exclude certain groups from participating in the forum, but may also exclude the discussion of certain topics. [*13] Id. at 829-30. The States's power to restrict speech, however, must not be used to discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint and must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum. Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 106-107, 150 L. Ed. 2d 151, 121 S. Ct. 2093 (2001)." Now while we expect newspapers to be unbiased, there is no law that says they have to. Now, depending where you live, whether or not it constitutes a "limited forum", which it likely does not, the newspaper can endorse who it wants. Such a tactic is allowed, however most newspapers put it in its editorials, reason being is that if one newspaper swings to a certain group, other alienated groups may choose to switch newspapers.
nyquil82, no disrespect, and I have not looked into the issue for more than five seconds, but that case seems completely irrelevant to the question at hand. The newspaper will normally be published by a private entity, not the government, and as such, in principle, it should be free to endorse whoever the hell they want and to do it whichever way they feel like. No need to look up a case for that, I guess.
eh, i know it was extensive, but im polishing up my research skills, its almost fun to do research on anything but the assigned memo i have due.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound rude. It's been a few years since my law school days, but could you help me out...just out of interest - I cannot see the connection between the case you quoted and the question whether newspapers can endorse a candidate... Thanks in advance .
ok, ill try, in husain v springer, a college newspaper sued their university for postponing a school election because the newspaper endorsed certain candidates. The students claimed a violation of first amendment rights, the school said that they could censor things they deemed to be unfair towards the situation. basically, it plays with the issue of whether the local authority can make claim that the newspaper shouldn't write biased news. Obviously the newspaper can do endorse who they want, but the court mentioned that in certain situations, specifically in a limited public forum, freedom of speech can be curtailed. let me know if my legal analysis here is wrong, im still fresh!
I have to run, so perhaps one of the other lawyers can have a stab at that . Will be back online in a few hours, depending on my state of intoxication, I'll try to comment!
The public forum thing and time place and manner restrictions has to do with governmental restriction of protected speech. This is just a newspaper presumably selling advertising space to the Bush campaign -- if that is indeed who bought it. There's no government or state action here that comes into play that would cause that analysis to be employed if I am reading it right.
You forgot FOX NEWS. You know, I did a research to see which News outlet is the between Al Jazeera and FOX, to my surprise, I found out that Al Jazeera is a better outlet than FOX. I will release the full reach of my research later complete with bibliography.
It doesn't surprise me. I can't wait to read your research. I have often wished that the U.S. had a news outlet like Al Jazeera in that it's free from a lot of the controlling influences that most main stream media face.
