Opinion ID: 201356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nature of the Forum and Its Compatibility with Expression

Text: 178 It is also necessary to examine the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity to discern the government's intent. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802, 105 S.Ct. 3439 (citations omitted). This inquiry involves examining the relationship between the reasons for any restriction on access and the forum's purpose. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Reg'l Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 351 (6th Cir.1998). The district court in Change the Climate found that [t]he principal purpose of the MBTA using some of this space for advertising is to earn revenue in support of the MBTA's goal of providing transportation. 214 F.Supp.2d 125, 132 (D.Mass.2002). In general, the courts will infer an intent on the part of the government to create a public forum where the government's justification for the exclusion of certain expressive conduct is unrelated to the forum's purpose, even when speakers must obtain permission to use the forum. United Food, 163 F.3d at 351. Forum analysis must therefore involve a careful scrutiny of whether the government-imposed restriction on access to public property is truly part of `the process of limiting a nonpublic forum to activities compatible with the intended purpose of the property.' Id. at 351-52 (quoting Perry, 460 U.S. at 49, 103 S.Ct. 948). Courts will hold that the government did not create a public forum only when its standards for inclusion and exclusion are clear and are designed to prevent interference with the forum's designated purpose. Id. 179 The Supreme Court has indicated that [i]n cases where the principal function of the property would be disrupted by expressive activity, the Court [has been] particularly reluctant to hold that the government intended to designate a public forum. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 804, 105 S.Ct. 3439. The MBTA can hardly argue that its advertising space is generally incompatible with expressive activity, or that the MBTA's principal function of providing transportation would be disrupted by the expressive activity proposed by Change the Climate or Ridley, since it has routinely made its advertising space available to both commercial and public-issue advertising on a wide range of issues without any disruption. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood, 767 F.2d at 1232 ([S]ince CTA already permits its facilities to be used for public-issue and political advertising, it cannot argue that such use is incompatible with the primary use of the facilities.). It is clear that the MBTA created a forum that is suitable for the speech in question.... Christ's Bride, 148 F.3d at 252. 180 The majority wrongly emphasizes the MBTA's proprietary role with regard to its advertising space. In an early case addressing advertising on public transit systems, the Supreme Court held that because the city is engaged in commerce, and [t]he car card space, although incidental to the provision of public transportation, is a part of the commercial venture, a city transit system has discretion to develop and make reasonable choices concerning the type of advertising that may be displayed in its vehicles. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 303, 94 S.Ct. 2714, 41 L.Ed.2d 770 (1974). Since Lehman, public forum analysis has developed considerably but has continued to find that [w]here the government is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal operations, rather than acting as lawmaker with the power to regulate or license, its action will not be subjected to the heightened review to which its actions as a lawmaker may be subject. Lee, 505 U.S. at 678, 112 S.Ct. 2701. The district court's finding that [t]he principal purpose of the MBTA using some of this space for advertising is to earn revenue in support of the MBTA's goal of providing transportation, Change the Climate, 214 F.Supp.2d at 132, would suggest that the MBTA is acting as a proprietor. In Lee, however, it was the commercial and restricted nature of an airport concourse which suggested that the government did not intend the concourse to be primarily a forum for expression. Christ's Bride, 148 F.3d at 250 (We do not read Lee ... to mean that every time the government runs a commercial enterprise it has, by definition, decided not to create an open forum.). While the primary purpose of the MBTA's advertising space may be to generate revenue, it is clear that the MBTA's policy of allowing and, in fact, encouraging non-commercial advertising (by offering a discount) demonstrates its judgment that such advertising does not conflict with its proprietary interests. Air Line Pilots, 45 F.3d at 1157 (finding no indication that permitting public interest groups to advertise would threaten the vitality of the City's commercial interests in deriving revenue from the advertising displays.). Having opened its advertising space for non-commercial discourse, the MBTA now wishes to act as a lawmaker, and not as a proprietor, in attempting to regulate the content of that discourse, which indicates that it has designated its advertising space a public forum. New York Magazine, 136 F.3d at 129 (Where the government acted for the purpose of benefitting the public, ... the Court has found a public forum.). 181 In some contexts, however, limiting advertising space has been found consistent with a proprietary purpose. In Uptown Pawn & Jewelry, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 337 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir.2003), discussed by the majority, Maj. op. at 80, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the City's prohibition on pawn shop advertising on park benches evidences an intent, not to create a public forum, but to act in a proprietary capacity to manage a commercial venture. Id. at 1281. Here, however, there is no evidence that posting Change the Climate's or Ridley's advertisements would have any adverse effect on the MBTA's ability to generate revenue through its advertising space, regardless of whether their messages are controversial. As previously described, the MBTA has posted a range of commercial and public-issue advertising that would undermine any argument that advertisements like those now proposed could be excluded in the interests of protecting the revenue-generating capacity of its advertising space. Here, then, the purpose of the forum does not suggest that it is closed, and the breadth of permitted speech points in the opposite direction. Christ's Bride, 148 F.3d at 253. 182 Moreover, the Supreme Court has considered the government's practice of excluding speech from a forum not because the exclusion of categories of speech creates a non-public forum, but because the nature of the excluded categories sheds light on whether the government was acting as a proprietor or a regulator. New York Magazine, 136 F.3d at 130; Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 805, 105 S.Ct. 3439 (The decision of the [g]overnment to limit access to the [forum] is not dispositive in itself; instead, it is relevant for what it suggests about the [g]overnment's intent in creating the forum.). In Lehman, the Court found that the 26-year, consistently enforced ban on non-commercial advertising was consistent with the government's role as a proprietor, because [r]evenue earned from long-term commercial advertising could be jeopardized by a requirement that short-term candidacy or issue-oriented advertisements be displayed. 418 U.S. at 304, 94 S.Ct. 2714. Other courts have followed Lehman to hold that a total ban on non-commercial speech may be consistent with the government acting in a proprietary capacity and have found transportation advertising spaces to be non-public fora when the government consistently promulgates and enforces policies restricting advertising ... to commercial advertising. Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir.1998); Lebron v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), 69 F.3d 650, 656 (2d Cir.1995). When the advertising space has been opened to non-commercial speech, however, courts have distinguished the advertising space in question from the total ban on non-commercial speech present in Lehman. 183 Disallowing political speech, and allowing commercial speech only, indicates that making money is the main goal. Allowing political speech, conversely, evidences a general intent to open a space for discourse, and a deliberate acceptance of the possibility of clashes of opinion and controversy that the Court in Lehman recognized as inconsistent with sound commercial practice. 184 New York Magazine, 136 F.3d at 130; Lebron v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 749 F.2d 893, 896 (D.C.Cir.1984)(There is no ... question that WMATA has converted its subway stations into public fora by accepting ... political advertising.). The MBTA has no longstanding policy of prohibiting public-issue advertisements like Change the Climate's or Ridley's. While excluding political campaign speech from its advertising space, the MBTA has allowed and intentionally encouraged non-commercial advertising, including public-issue advertising regarding social issues like drugs, crime, violence, abortion, AIDS, suicide, and religion. 185 The provisions of the MBTA's Revised Interim Guidelines under which it refused to post Change the Climate's advertisements also indicate that it is acting as a regulator/lawmaker and not as a proprietor. The guidelines prohibit the posting of any advertisement that promotes or encourages, or appears to promote or encourage, the use or possession of unlawful or illegal goods or services, or unlawful conduct. The MBTA has not offered any commercial justification for its interest in prohibiting advertisements containing such material, and we see no commercial reason why [the MBTA] has any special interest in [preventing unlawful conduct]; [the MBTA's] interest is only the interest in upholding the law because it is the law. New York Magazine, 136 F.3d at 130. This is certainly a regulatory and not a proprietary interest. 186 Other courts have similarly found the advertising spaces of various urban transportation systems to be a designated public forum when the government has allowed a wide variety of commercial, public-service, public-issue, and political ads, Planned Parenthood, 767 F.2d at 1232, political and other non-commercial advertising generally, New York Magazine, 136 F.3d at 130, or public-service, public-issue, and political advertisements in addition to traditional commercial advertisements. United Food, 163 F.3d at 346. In these cases, contrary to the majority's assertions, the agency's control over public issue advertising was not unlike that exercised by the MBTA in practice. 187 In Christ's Bride, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) was deemed a designated public forum because, while SEPTA asserted its right to refuse advertising deemed objectionable for any reason, SEPTA had the practice of permitting virtually unlimited access to the forum. 148 F.3d at 251-52. The Third Circuit found that in practice SEPTA has exercised control over only three ads, two of which had graphics to which SEPTA objected, and one of which solicited personal injury cases that could be directed against SEPTA. Id. at 252. 188 In United Food, the Southwest Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) had rejected an advertisement under a provision of its advertising policy that prohibited [a]dvertising of controversial public issues that may adversely affect SORTA's ability to attract and maintain ridership. 163 F.3d at 352. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the lack of definitive standards guiding the application of SORTA's advertising policy permits SORTA, like SEPTA, to reject a proposed advertisement deemed objectionable for any reason. 163 F.3d at 354. Under these circumstances, the transportation authorities' contention that the advertising at issue was incompatible with the nature of the forum created by their advertising spaces could not be sustained. The Sixth Circuit's reasoning is instructive: 189 We also find that SORTA's stated purpose for limiting advertising on buses only tenuously related, at best, to the greater forum's intended use. This is not a situation like that in Cornelius, where the government established a controlled solicitation process to prevent disruption in the workplace, or [ AETC ], where a public broadcasting system logistically could not possibly accommodate all political candidates, or even [ Perry ], where a high school had a direct interest in controlling access to its internal mail system. Here there is no established causal link between SORTA's goal of enhancing the environment for its riders, enhancing SORTA's standing in the community, and enabling SORTA to attract and maintain its ridership, and its broad-based discretion to exclude advertisements that are too controversial or not aesthetically pleasing. Although political and public-issue speech is often contentious, it does not follow that such speech will necessarily frustrate SORTA's commercial interests. Rather, it may be the case that only in rare circumstances will the controversial nature of such speech sufficiently interfere with the provision of Metro bus services so as to warrant excluding a political or public-issue advertisement. 190 United Food, 163 F.3d at 354. 191 Admittedly, the MBTA has not opened its advertising space to all public-issue advertising except that which it deems objectionable for any reason, id., but has instead promulgated written advertising policies and exercised control over a handful of advertisements in the five years prior to the events at issue here. Still, the incoherent written policies and the occasional, subjective exercise of control are insufficient to demonstrate an intent by the MBTA to close its advertising space as a public forum when it routinely posts public-issue advertisements on all manner of social issues. 192 Thus, the MBTA's policy and practice regarding its advertising space, and the nature of that space as created and managed by the MBTA, demonstrates an intent by the MBTA to create a designated public forum. 193 Finally, I must note that, while not a sidewalk or city park, the MBTA's facilities are the modern analogue to these traditional public fora. As mentioned above, 2.5 million people in the Greater Boston area use the MBTA's facilities, and its 170 bus and trolley routes, 4 subway lines, and 13-branch commuter rail network transit at some point of their routes through or across traditional public fora. In addition to the car cards at issue in this case, the MBTA allows advertising on the outside of its vehicles, which are obviously displayed as they transit through the public streets. Some of the cars on some of the subway lines that travel above ground are even painted in such a way that the whole exterior of the car constitutes, in effect, an advertisement. The MBTA also allows advertising on the walls of the numerous bus and trolley shelters that sit on the public sidewalks and can be seen from the public thoroughfare. Thus, in addition to the traveling public, the MBTA's advertising influence reaches into those on the traditional public fora — the streets and sidewalks of Greater Boston. As stated above, this means that the MBTA is in a position to control 40,000 advertising spaces for the dissemination of information to a large segment of the region's population. It is disquieting, to say the least, that the majority would allow the government to control the content of the information to which the public is exposed through these advertising spaces. The MBTA's advertising system is indeed a powerful tool with which to influence public opinion, one which should be opened to the crucible of competing viewpoints to the largest extent possible.