Opinion ID: 201356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 13 There are no disputed facts in this case, only disputes as to what conclusions are to be drawn from those facts. Although only the present 2003 MBTA advertising policy is at issue, we recount the history of dealing between the parties, which is pertinent both to the public forum claim and to other claims. Some facts are reserved for discussion as to the particular party. A. Facts as to the MBTA 14 The MBTA is a quasi-governmental organization whose purpose is to provide public transportation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 161A, § 5. The MBTA provides transportation to 1.2 million customers daily and to 2.5 million people in the Greater Boston area. For many riders, the MBTA is the only transportation option available. The MBTA operates approximately 170 bus routes, four subway lines, a 13-branch commuter rail network, and six ferry service routes. The MBTA has partnered with the Boston School Department to provide transportation to up to 60,000 Boston public school students annually. The MBTA distributed approximately 15,000 to 20,000 passes to Boston students, the vast majority of whom were in high school. 15 The principal purpose of the MBTA advertising program is to generate and maximize revenue. The MBTA has statutory directives both to maximize and increase total fare revenue and ridership, as well as to establish and implement policies that provide for the maximization of nontransportation revenues from all sources. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 161A, § 11. The advertising program effectuates this second purpose. The MBTA has about 40,000 advertising spaces, including interior car card displays in buses, trains, and trolleys, king size and tail-light exterior displays on buses, and station and platform displays. 16 Through a private advertising contractor, Viacom Outdoor of Braintree (Viacom), the MBTA attempts to sell all of its advertising space at the usual commercial rates. If all space is not sold at those rates, the MBTA policy is first that it may, without cost to itself, display advertisements or announcements calculated (i) to increase its revenue, public travel, or goodwill or (ii) as compensation to companies which provide beneficial services to the Authority or (iii) to be otherwise in the public interest. Only if there then remains advertising space unsold does the MBTA, as a third choice, sell advertisements at a reduced rate to nonprofit, tax-exempt public charities or governmental agencies to fill the remaining space. The MBTA charges a fee of 50% of the full commercial advertising rate to those nonprofit organizations. The advertisements at issue in both cases here fall into this last category. All advertisements, of whatever type, are subject to guidelines. 17 The MBTA recognizes that its two statutory directives, maximizing fare revenue and ridership and maximizing non-transportation revenue, can at times be at odds. In numerous instances over the years, the MBTA has received significant complaints from its customers about particular advertisements. The MBTA management was concerned such complaints would threaten ridership and fare revenue. Often those ads had been placed by the MBTA's advertising contractor without seeking prior MBTA approval. The MBTA then reviewed the advertisements; usually the contractor had violated the guidelines by accepting the advertisements. The MBTA has, accordingly, from the inception of its advertising program in 1992, adopted both substantive and procedural guidelines, described below, to limit the types of advertisements it would accept. Indeed, in attempting to increase ridership, the MBTA initiated a Courtesy Counts program and distributes a brochure that says: We're committed to courtesy. B. Facts as to Plaintiffs' Advertisements 1. Change the Climate 18 Change the Climate, a not-for-profit group, conducts provocative advertising campaigns in order to generate debate about the laws criminalizing the use of marijuana. It has conducted such advertising campaigns in Washington, D.C., in part using advertising on the Metro transit system. It sought to do the same in Boston, starting in 1999, by submitting three advertisements designed to catch people's attention and make them rethink the wisdom of the drug laws. 19 The first advertisement, (the Teen Ad), is a color photograph of a teenage girl with a baseball cap on backwards, with a caption saying: Smoking pot is not cool, but we're not stupid, ya know. Marijuana is NOT cocaine or heroin. Tell us the truth ... Change the Climate sought to place this advertisement on poster cards on the inside of buses. 20 The second advertisement, (the Mother Ad), contains a picture of an adult female who is writing on a white board, saying: I've got three great kids. I love them more than anything. I don't want them to smoke pot. But I know jail is a lot more dangerous than smoking pot. Change the Climate sought to place this advertisement in MBTA subway stations. 21 The third advertisement, (the Police Ad), is a color photograph of two policemen standing in front of an American flag, with text stating: Police are too important ... too valuable ... too good ... to waste on arresting people for marijuana when real criminals are on the loose. Change the Climate sought to run this ad on the exterior of buses, as it had done earlier in the Washington, D.C. transit system. All three advertisements also contain the web site address, www.changetheclimate.org. 22 The MBTA's marketing director, Lucy Shorter, rejected the ads in January 2000. The reasons stated were that (1) the three ads promote the use of marijuana, and (2) the three ads were really reform ads as part of an effort to legalize marijuana and as such were in conflict with the MBTA's policies on drugs and alcohol. She attached to her rejection letter the MBTA's workplace rules on drug and alcohol use, the advertising guidelines, and the prohibition on advertising tobacco products. It appears the MBTA's policies on drugs to which she referred were internal MBTA workplace rules. There were no advertising guidelines dealing specifically with marijuana or other drugs. The MBTA continued to reject the ads for different stated reasons at later times, as discussed below. In sum, the MBTA's 2003 revised guidelines prohibit advertisements which promote the use of illegal goods or services or unlawful conduct. The MBTA has stated that each of the ads promoted illegal use of marijuana by juveniles. 2. Ridley 23 Good News has advertised in the past on the radio, in the Yellow Pages, in the newspaper, and via posted messages on vehicles, including a motor home. 24 On November 29, 2001, Ridley submitted the first of what would be three advertisements to the MBTA's advertising representative, Viacom. The copy read: 25 Christians in the Bible never observed Christmas neither did they believe in lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer elves and drunken parties. How can you honor Jesus with lies? prophet-andre.com 26 Viacom initially balked at running the advertisement, saying it fell afoul of the MBTA's then-guideline (since replaced) permitting it to exclude any advertisement that is indecent as to child viewers, or is of a nature to frighten children, either emotionally or physically. After a delay of two weeks and after Ridley's ACLU attorneys contacted the MBTA, the MBTA decided to allow the advertisement on December 15, 2001, for a four week contract. The advertisement was displayed at the Park Street and Downtown Crossing MBTA stations, two major stations. 27 On December 26, 2001, Ridley asked the MBTA to change the content of the advertisement that was posted in the MBTA system for the last two weeks of her existing contract. The new copy stated: 28 The Bible says in Rev 12:9 And Satan which deceiveth the whole world. Yes, Satan set up over a thousand false religions in the world causing wars, racism and hatred in the world. There is only one true religion. All the rest are false. www.prophet-andre.com 29 The MBTA rejected the advertisement, finding both that the advertisement's own text conflicted with a guideline and that the text referenced a website which, upon examination, contained text that violated that same guideline. 1 The then-extant guideline read: The MBTA will not accept advertisements ... that denigrate groups based on gender, religion, race, ethnic or political affiliation for display in and upon the Authority's transit facilities. 30 Ridley sought a preliminary injunction to force the MBTA to post the second advertisement. The district court denied the request on January 28, 2002, and Ridley filed an interlocutory appeal with this court. As recounted below, that appeal was mooted. 31 The MBTA promulgated a new set of Interim Guidelines Regulating MBTA Advertising on April 12, 2002. One of the 2002 guidelines provided that the MBTA shall not display or maintain any advertisement that is: 32 Demeaning or disparaging. The advertisement contains material that demeans or disparages an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. 33 The revised 2002 guidelines also reflected the results of an MBTA internal debate over when the MBTA would look at the contents of a website listed in an advertisement. The MBTA had considered the listed website when initially rejecting Ridley's second advertisement. Under the 2002 guidelines, the contents of a referenced website would only be considered and judged under the guidelines when the message or sponsorship of the advertisement cannot reasonably be determined without reference to that website. The 2002 guidelines formalized a more comprehensive review procedure with four different layers of scrutiny (by Viacom, the MBTA Contract Administrator, the MBTA General Counsel, and the MBTA General Manager) before any advertisement could be rejected based on the guidelines. 34 The MBTA told Ridley on April 25, 2002, that under these new guidelines, it would accept her second advertisement. Based on this change of stance, this court dismissed Ridley's appeal as moot on July 26, 2002. 35 By this time, Ridley no longer wanted to post her second advertisement. On June 13, 2002, she submitted a third advertisement to the MBTA, the one now at issue. The ad stated: 36 The Bible teaches that there is only one religion. There are no scriptures in the Bible that teach that God set up the Catholic religion, the Baptist religion, the Pentecostal religion, the Jehovah's Witness religion or the Muslim religion. These religions are false. The Bible says in Revelation 9:12, And Satan, which deceiveth the whole world. The whole world is going to hell if they do not turn from their ungodly ways. God sent Prophet Andre into this world to teach the people the Truth. www.prophetandre.com. 37 The MBTA rejected this third advertisement in writing on August 14, 2002, after the full review procedure, on the basis that the ad demeaned or disparaged a list of specific religions in violation of the 2002 guideline. 38 On January 17, 2003, the MBTA issued a revised third set of guidelines. 2 Under the 2003 guidelines, the MBTA shall not display advertisements that are: 39 Demeaning or disparaging. The advertisement contains material that demeans or disparages an individual or group of individuals. For purposes of determining whether an advertisement contains such material, the MBTA will determine whether a reasonably prudent person, knowledgeable of the MBTA's ridership and using prevailing community standards, would believe that the advertisement contains material that ridicules or mocks, is abusive or hostile to, or debases the dignity or stature of, an individual or group of individuals. 40 The MBTA concluded that the third advertisement did not comply with the 2003 guidelines. 41 The 2003 guidelines explicitly articulated other prohibitions as well: the MBTA will not accept advertisements for tobacco products or ads containing a depiction of firearms or graphic violence, or ads that promote use of illegal goods or services or unlawful conduct. The guidelines also prohibit ads containing profanity, obscene or sexually prurient material or nude images (as those terms are defined in state law), false or misleading commercial speech, libelous speech, or copyright infringing speech. The guidelines further prohibit political campaign speech, defined as: speech that (1) refers to a specific ballot question, initiative, petition, or referendum, or (2) refers to any candidate for public office. Finally, the 2003 guidelines prohibit any advertisement that contains, implies, or declares an endorsement by the MBTA or the state.