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

Heading: Viewpoint Discrimination and Unreasonableness Claims in Both Change the Climate and Ridley

Text: 75 Although the MBTA advertising program is neither a traditional public forum nor a designated public forum, regulations are still unconstitutional under the First Amendment if the distinctions drawn are viewpoint based or if they are unreasonable in light of the purposes served by the forum. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. 3439. 76 The bedrock principle of viewpoint neutrality demands that the state not suppress speech where the real rationale for the restriction is disagreement with the underlying ideology or perspective that the speech expresses. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995); McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F.3d 45, 62 (1st Cir.2004) (The essence of a viewpoint discrimination claim is that the government has preferred the message of one speaker over another.). A distinction is viewpoint based if it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. 3439. The essence of viewpoint discrimination is not that the government incidentally prevents certain viewpoints from being heard in the course of suppressing certain general topics of speech, rather, it is a governmental intent to intervene in a way that prefers one particular viewpoint in speech over other perspectives on the same topic. See, e.g., Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 107-09, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (school that has opened its resources after school for the teaching of moral values cannot exclude religious group that wishes to teach about those values from a religious perspective without engaging in viewpoint discrimination); Rosenberger, 515 U.S. 819, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700; Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993); McGuire, 386 F.3d at 57-59, 64-65 (fact that buffer zone statute applying around abortion clinics might incidentally burden anti-abortion speech more than pro-abortion speech is irrelevant to its viewpoint neutrality). 77
78 The advertisements rejected were described earlier. Other material facts follow. 79 Robert Prince, who was the General Manager of the MBTA at the time Change the Climate's ads were rejected by Shorter, testified that while he had not seen the ads in 2000, he would have rejected all three on the grounds that they encouraged marijuana use among juveniles, and thus were harmful to juveniles and in violation of the then-existing policy. He found the Teen Ad to be geared towards young people, telling them that marijuana is not cocaine or heroin, so it's the lesser of two evils, but it's okay to smoke it. Prince did not view the ad as sending a message that juveniles should be told the truth about drugs. 80 Prince thought that the Mother Ad was also harmful to juveniles, because the ad implies that it's okay to smoke marijuana, which is against the law. Prince said the words meant that `I don't want my children to smoke pot, but I know jail is... more dangerous, so therefore I'm going to overlook the fact that they are allowed to break the law.' Prince said that some people could have the legitimate viewpoint that jail is more harmful to a child than marijuana smoking, but that was not a viewpoint he would allow to be displayed on the MBTA because [i]t allows [children] to think it's okay to break the law. 81 As to the Police Ad, Prince stated: It's telling them that the police are not going to take marijuana smoking very seriously, that there are real criminals on the loose, and it's okay to break the law. He further stated that the ad says that smoking marijuana will not be looked upon as a criminal act. When asked whether he agreed that the ad expressed a viewpoint about how police should be used, Prince replied: I know this ad tells young people that they should commit a criminal act. 82 Michael Mulhern, acting General Manager of the MBTA and the person with final authority to accept or reject advertisements, testified that he would reject all three ads under the current 2003 guidelines. The Teen Ad promoted marijuana use, he thought, by implying that cocaine and heroin were really harmful but marijuana use was not. He held these worries although the ad states explicitly that [s]moking pot is not cool. Further, he was concerned that the ad was targeted at juveniles, based on the picture of the teenage girl and the fact that the language is written in terms (cool, ya know) that juveniles would generally use. 83 Mulhern testified that the Mother Ad also promoted marijuana use, and while it was not as clear as the Teen Ad, the Mother Ad could also in part be targeted at children. He testified that by depicting a mother stating that she is less concerned about her children smoking pot, the ad sends the message to children that they can smoke [pot] and still be great kids. Mulhern testified that he would permit Change the Climate to post an ad advocating the opposite viewpoint, saying: I've got three great kids. I love them more than anything. I don't want them to smoke pot. But if my kids smoke pot, they should go to jail. 84 Mulhern testified that the Police Ad was rejected because it suggests that smoking marijuana is not a real crime, and so promotes an illegal activity. He disagreed with the view that police resources should not be used for marijuana prosecutions. He said he would allow an ad to be posted if it expressed the opposite viewpoint, saying: Police are important, valuable, good. Police should be used for arresting people for marijuana crimes. Mulhern conceded that the ad did not target children specifically, but stated that he thought that children were more susceptible to receiving the message that marijuana is not a real crime than were other people. 85 The MBTA also introduced testimony of Cornelia Kelley, the head of the Boston Latin School, a public exam school for grades seven through twelve, which uses the MBTA for transporting more than 2,100 of its 2,400 students. Kelley had the following concern about the Teen Ad: There is a message there that marijuana is okay; it's not as bad as cocaine or heroin. And the message, to my mind, that's a very confusing message for young people. There is a sense there that marijuana is acceptable. When asked, despite the fact that the ad says that Smoking pot is not cool, why it would lead students to think that smoking marijuana is okay, Kelley replied: 86 If you look at that ad, that's a real mixed message to young people. And the students with whom I deal get a great deal of stimulation in different ways. And what you're looking at there is not a clear-cut message. And when children ... are that age, we try and see to it that they understand clearly what's legal and what's not legal. And that really says marijuana is not cocaine or heroin. It takes marijuana out of the realm of cocaine and heroin, where we consistently tell young people that marijuana is an illegal drug and you will be expelled for it or you will be arrested for it.... 87 Kelley conceded that a student would not be disciplined for expressing the view: Tell us the truth. Marijuana is not cocaine or heroin, but stated that she did not think the ad was appropriate to run on the MBTA because it sends a mixed message to students. 88 Kelley testified that she was particularly concerned about the Mother Ad because it appeared to depict a teacher at a chalkboard. She felt that by stating that jail is more dangerous than smoking pot, the ad does not give a clear message to young people that smoking pot is illegal. 89 Kelley also expressed concern that the Police Ad conveys that police countenance the use of marijuana. When asked how, she replied that it implies that one will not be arrested for marijuana which is another mixed message to young people. 90 Ms. Kelley conceded that her students could easily be exposed to similar ads while walking in the city. The difference was that she considered the MBTA to be an extension of the school house. But even so, she conceded that there had been discussion encouraged in classrooms at the school about the issue of legalizing marijuana. 91 Change the Climate also introduced evidence of two different types of ads: other ads accepted by the MBTA which could be seen as promoting illegal activity among juveniles and ads which encourage compliance with drug laws. It argues this second set of ads expresses the view that the drug laws are sound. 92 Change the Climate introduced several different ads for alcoholic beverages accepted by the MBTA in the past. One is an ad for Trinity Oaks Wine, which contains a picture of a woman in a backless dress being hugged by a man. It states: Trinity Oaks. It's not a soap opera. But it is provocative. At the bottom, the ad states: Remember the wine, and has a picture of a wine bottle. Prince testified that this ad was not harmful to juveniles because the ad was addressed to adults. 93 Another ad, for Doc Otis Hard Lemonade, depicts a woman's mouth eating an ice cube, and states DO IT ON THE ROCKS. In the corner there is a bottle of Doc Otis Hard Lemonade, an alcoholic lemonade beverage, being poured into a glass of ice, with the slogan: The perfect way to break the ice. When questioned as to whether ads such as this were harmful to juveniles, Mulhern conceded that alcohol use was illegal for juveniles, but found that alcohol ads did not fall under this guideline because the ads did not specifically target juveniles. Prince was also asked about this ad and testified that it was not harmful to juveniles because the ad was not addressed to young people, but to adults. When asked how he could tell this ad was geared towards somebody who's 22 and not somebody who's 20, Prince responded: Because alcohol for anybody under that age is illegal. Prince conceded that nothing in the ad protected young people from its influence. 94 Kelley testified that she was also concerned about the advertisements for alcoholic beverages that her students see on the MBTA. The distinction she saw was that alcohol was legal at a certain age but use of marijuana was not legal at any age. 95 Change the Climate also introduced testimony that the MBTA has run numerous advertisements that discourage drug use. At trial, the MBTA stipulated to having run four such ads. One was headlined: TALK IS BETTER FOR YOUR KIDS THAN DRUGS... SO TALK! It has a cartoon picture of McGruff, the Crime Dog, as well as 8 pointers for talking to one's children about drugs, such as: Tell your kids you don't approve of the stuff and Tell them to say no ... and that you know they know the difference between right and wrong. The advertisement finishes by stating: Follow these steps and you'll be helpin' yourself, your kids and me ... take a bite out of crime. 96 A second advertisement, sponsored by Drug Free America, contains a picture of two children at a playground, with the headline: Everyday after school, my kid likes to __________. If you can't fill in this blank, you need to start asking. It's a proven way to steer kids clear of drugs. It's not pestering. It's parenting. Ask: Who? What? When? Where? Questions. The Anti-Drug. A third advertisement, sponsored by Partnership for a Drug-Free New England and America, as well as the Office of National Drug Control Policy, states simply: Are You Waiting for Your Kids to Talk to You About Pot? And the fourth advertisement, sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, contains a pair of dice, one with a skull on one side, and states: Just because you survived drugs, doesn't mean your children will. 97 The MBTA's position under the current guidelines is that it would still reject Change the Climate's three ads because each ad targets children and encourages the use of illegal drugs. The present guidelines do not prohibit ads harmful to children. The MBTA also takes the position that it would permit ads which expressed to adults the viewpoint that the marijuana laws should be rethought so long as the ads said that use of marijuana is illegal. 98 At the outset, it should be emphasized that the MBTA's guideline itself, which allows rejection of advertisements that promote illegal activity, particularly among children, is constitutional. It clearly serves a viewpoint-neutral purpose, and it is surely reasonable given the characteristics of the MBTA's advertising program. It is indisputable that the MBTA has a legitimate, viewpoint-neutral interest in not being used as a messenger to convey messages promoting illegal conduct among juveniles. It is also legitimate for the MBTA to consider that it has juveniles among its passengers. Further, as a vendor, the MBTA has a legitimate interest in not offending riders so that they stop their patronage. All of these are reasons why the guideline itself is constitutional against a viewpoint-discrimination attack. 99 What we focus on instead are the specific decisions of the MBTA to reject the three Change the Climate advertisements. The MBTA's mere recitation of viewpoint-neutral rationales (or the presentation of a viewpoint-neutral guideline) for its decisions to reject the three advertisements does not immunize those decisions from scrutiny. The recitation of viewpoint-neutral grounds may be a mere pretext for an invidious motive. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 811-13, 105 S.Ct. 3439. In practical terms, the government rarely flatly admits it is engaging in viewpoint discrimination. 100 Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government, because there is a strong risk that the government will act to censor ideas that oppose its own. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 411-17, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) (striking down criminal flag desecration statute); flag-burner's action expressed dissatisfaction with the policies of this country, expression which was situated at the core of our First Amendment values, and state had no power to prescribe what shall be orthodox (quoting W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Change the Climate's advertisements here reflect core political speech that is critical of existing governmental policy, we are especially wary of viewpoint discrimination. 101 The Supreme Court, as well, has been particularly leery of justifications for quashing speech to adults that rest on the purported protection of children. While the protection of children is a compelling state interest, see Denver Area Telecomm. Consortium v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 755, 116 S.Ct. 2374, 135 L.Ed.2d 888 (1996), the Court has carefully examined regulations purporting to rest on this ground, often finding that they sweep more broadly than their goal requires or that they do not serve their goal of child protection at all. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 875-79, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) ([T]he mere fact that a statutory regulation of speech was enacted for the important purpose of protecting children ... does not foreclose inquiry into its validity.); Denver Area Telecomm. Consortium, 518 U.S. at 755-60, 116 S.Ct. 2374; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126-27, 130-31, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 73-75, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983); Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212-14, 95 S.Ct. 2268, 45 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975). 102 Almost fifty years ago, Justice Frankfurter found unconstitutional a Michigan obscenity statute; he emphasized that the statute swept too broadly to carry out its asserted aim of protecting children from sexually explicit material. In Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383, 77 S.Ct. 524, 1 L.Ed.2d 412 (1957), Justice Frankfurter stated: 103 The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote the general welfare. Surely, this is to burn the house to roast the pig.... The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children. 104 Id. at 383, 77 S.Ct. 524. 105 The context of these cases is admittedly not an exact fit. Our case does not involve a criminal prohibition, but only a refusal to accept advertising. The context in Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium is closest: there the issue was the FCC's ability to control certain sexually explicit content on cable television. 518 U.S. at 734-36, 116 S.Ct. 2374. In both Denver Area and the other cases, the question was whether statutes or regulations had been drafted narrowly enough. Our focus is particular decisions to exclude advertisements, not the facial validity of the guideline. Finally, all of these cases involved the regulation of sexually explicit (but non-obscene) speech; sexual speech is not involved in this case. Still, these differences do not weaken the general principle that a purported justification for excluding speech to adults on the grounds of protecting children will be examined closely to see if the decisions reasonably do protect children. 106 There are various situations which will lead a court to conclude that, despite the seemingly neutral justifications offered by the government, nonetheless the decision to exclude speech is a form of impermissible discrimination. Three are relevant here. First, statements by government officials on the reasons for an action can indicate an improper motive. See, e.g., Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). Second, where the government states that it rejects something because of a certain characteristic, but other things possessing the same characteristic are accepted, 8 this sort of underinclusiveness raises a suspicion that the stated neutral ground for action is meant to shield an impermissible motive. See, e.g., Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 812, 105 S.Ct. 3439; AIDS Action, 42 F.3d at 10-12 (where MBTA claimed to be excluding condom-promotion advertisements because they were sexually explicit and patently offensive, but MBTA allowed other sorts of sexually explicit advertisements, such as movie advertisements, unrebutted appearance of viewpoint discrimination is found). Third, suspicion arises where the viewpoint-neutral ground is not actually served very well by the specific governmental action at issue; where, in other words, the fit between means and ends is loose or nonexistent. This situation comes up in a variety of legal settings. See, e.g., Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (judges may sometimes find pretext in race-based equal protection challenge to peremptory strikes where prosecutor's justifications for challenges are implausible or fantastic); Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (employer's misjudgments of the qualifications of job applicants may be relevant to whether the employer's neutral, merit-based reasons for hiring are pretexts for discrimination under Title VII). All three factors lead us to conclude that the reasons given by the MBTA in this case are insufficient to avoid a conclusion of viewpoint discrimination. 107 Inherent in the MBTA's position is its recognition that save for the risk of inducing juveniles to smoke marijuana, the refusal to run these advertisements for an adult audience would be viewpoint discrimination. That conclusion is essentially conceded in the MBTA's briefs. We find the purported justification of protecting children to be undermined for two basic reasons. First, there is direct evidence, through statements by MBTA officials, that the reason for rejecting the advertisements was actually distaste for Change the Climate's viewpoint. Second, there is evidence that the MBTA's rejection of these advertisements does not actually serve the alleged purpose of protecting children, and so the MBTA cannot offset the direct evidence against it. 108 The MBTA's initial statement of reasons for rejecting the three ads was, in part, that the ads were part of Change the Climate's effort to reform marijuana [laws] in an effort to legalize. 9 This was a direct statement of viewpoint discrimination. It was reinforced by later evidence under the 2003 guidelines. The MBTA General Manager said he would publish the Mother and Police Ads if they came to the opposite conclusion — one with which he agreed — expressing viewpoints which reinforced compliance with, but did not question, existing laws. 109 Supporting the direct evidence is our conclusion that the MBTA's rejection of these advertisements does not reasonably serve its purported justification. Dealing first with the Mother Ad and the Police Ad, it is clear that they are not targeted at children, nor can they reasonably be construed to promote illegal marijuana use among juveniles. The ads do not advocate illegal drug use. Rather, these two ads make a sophisticated argument that the criminalization of marijuana imposes worse consequences on society than would alternatives. The risk posed by the Mother Ad and Police Ad of inducing juveniles to engage in illegal marijuana activity is remarkably minimal and, indeed, probably nonexistent. The MBTA is certainly correct to evaluate individually each ad as to its compliance with the guidelines. Its judgments must be reasonable and it would not be reasonable to think that juveniles were exposed to no other information about drugs. Indeed, the MBTA has itself a long history of running ads stressing that drug use is illegal and that drug laws should be obeyed. 110 The MBTA has sought to allay any suspicions of viewpoint discrimination by representing that it would run advertisements saying in bold text that the drug laws should be changed, provided the ads at the same time acknowledge that marijuana use is illegal. This, it says, removes any concern about viewpoint discrimination because it proves that the same message could be run if a different manner of expression were used. But that is not so. The MBTA's concession means simply that it will run advertisements which do not attract attention but will exercise its veto power over advertisements which are designed to be effective in delivering a message. Viewpoint discrimination concerns arise when the government intentionally tilts the playing field for speech; reducing the effectiveness of a message, as opposed to repressing it entirely, thus may be an alternative form of viewpoint discrimination. See R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 392, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (It is viewpoint discriminatory for the government to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.); see also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971) (the emotive impact of a particular means of expression is often more important than the underlying cognitive impact of a message, and this emotive impact is also protected by the Constitution). 111 This suspicion of viewpoint discrimination is deepened by the fact that the MBTA has run a number of ads promoting alcohol that are clearly more appealing to juveniles than the ads here. It is true that there is a distinction: alcohol, like marijuana, cannot legally be sold to minors but can be sold to adults, and marijuana may not, in general, legally be used by either adults or minors. That cannot be the dividing line if the argument is that the MBTA is trying to avoid inducing illegal conduct: the MBTA has correctly not defended on the basis that the ads will induce illegal marijuana use by adults. 112 The more difficult issue concerns the first advertisement — the Teen Ad. It certainly may reasonably be viewed as directed to attract the attention of teenagers. What is far more questionable is the reasonableness of the contention that the ad would induce teenagers to smoke marijuana. The ad itself says nothing of the sort. Indeed, it says the opposite — that smoking pot is not cool. The ad then implies that marijuana should not be seen as equivalent to heroin or cocaine. The clearest message is that marijuana usage should be decriminalized, while heroin and cocaine usage should remain criminal. The targeting of teenagers does not remove the ad from the realm of political speech. Many of those who are teenagers are either voters or will soon be voters, and the ad is also aimed at adults. The MBTA cannot put a thumb on the scale to preclude Change the Climate from effectively communicating a message about changing the laws to a likely responsive group of voters. 113 The MBTA's own evidence fails to support its argument. Headmaster Kelley's point was not that the Teen Ad would induce drug use, but the rather different point that the Ad presented a mixed message. The mixed nature of the message was about which drugs were legal and which were not; thus her concern was that the ad would promote confusion about whether marijuana use was illegal. The MBTA's conclusion, however, requires an additional step — that the ads would not only confuse teenagers about marijuana's illegal status, but that this confusion would then lead teenagers to smoke marijuana. Neither step in the reasoning is supported by the record. 114 The Teen Ad must be evaluated in context. The MBTA has run numerous ads that discourage drug use and encourage respect for and adherence to the current drug laws. Some of these ads are sponsored by government agencies, such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy, whose goal is to further the current drug laws and aid in their enforcement. Juveniles are exposed frequently to anti-drug messages in a variety of settings, 10 including in schools. Indeed, schools may be the very place where students, in class, debate the wisdom of certain laws, as at Boston Latin. That this one at best ambiguous advertisement would lead teenagers to believe that marijuana is legal, against a barrage of contrary information, is unlikely. Yet the MBTA's argument requires even a further step. That one advertisement, which on its face says use of marijuana is not cool, would actually induce juveniles to smoke marijuana strikes us as thin to the point of implausibility. The MBTA's justifications for not running these advertisements are sufficiently implausible that on the totality of the evidence we conclude that the MBTA has engaged in viewpoint discrimination. 115 Moreover, the rejection of the three ads would fail to pass muster under the other prong of analysis laid out in Cornelius, which requires that any restriction be reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum, because their rejection is, in context, unreasonable. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. 3439; see also Perry Educ. Ass'n, 460 U.S. at 49-54, 103 S.Ct. 948 (The touchstone for evaluating [] distinctions [in a non-public forum] is whether they are reasonable in light of the purpose which the forum at issue serves.). The reasonableness standard is not a particularly high hurdle; there can be more than one reasonable decision, and an action need not be the most reasonable decision possible in order to be reasonable. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 808, 105 S.Ct. 3439. Still, the MBTA's judgment that these advertisements will foster illegal activity by minors is, in context, entirely unreasonable. See Kokinda, 497 U.S. at 734, 110 S.Ct. 3115; Huminski v. Corsones, 386 F.3d 116, 155 (2d Cir.2004) (finding particular restriction on speech in non-public forum unreasonable). The reasons stated above, which show the lack of fit between the rejection of these three advertisements and the protection of children, are sufficient for our conclusion. 116 We reverse the judgment of the district court as to all three advertisements proposed by Change the Climate, and direct entry of declaratory judgment that the rejection of these advertisements violated the First Amendment. At this point, there is no reason to think that injunctive relief is also required. 117 B. Ridley: Viewpoint Discrimination and Unreasonableness 118 Unlike in Change the Climate, we conclude that the MBTA has not engaged in viewpoint discrimination in Ridley, either in the facial validity of its guidelines or the guidelines as applied to Ridley's advertisement. The guidelines prohibiting demeaning or disparaging ads are themselves viewpoint neutral. That is also true of the application of the guidelines to Ridley's ad on the facts here. 119 As to the guideline itself, we note that the 2003 revision to the guidelines continued to prohibit demeaning or disparaging ads, but did so in more general terms, not tied only to certain categories such as race, religion, and gender. Most likely that revision was made in light of R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 392, 112 S.Ct. 2538, and later case law. 11 The current regulation simply prohibits the use of advertisements that demean[ ] or disparage [ ] an individual or group of individuals, without listing any particular protected groups. In this context, the guideline is just a ground rule: there is no viewpoint discrimination in the guideline because the state is not attempting to give one group an advantage over another in the marketplace of ideas. See Elena Kagan, Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V., 60 U. Chi. L.Rev. 873, 889 (1993) (suggesting, based on the court's language, that the problem with the statute in R.A.V. could have been avoided by drafting a statute that did not single out any specific groups for protected status). 12 120 Similarly, under the MBTA's current guideline, all advertisers on all sides of all questions are allowed to positively promote their own perspective and even to criticize other positions so long as they do not use demeaning speech in their attacks. No advertiser can use demeaning speech: atheists cannot use disparaging language to describe the beliefs of Christians, nor can Christians use disparaging language to describe the beliefs of atheists. Both sides, however, can use positive language to describe their own organizations, beliefs, and values. Some kinds of content (demeaning and disparaging remarks) are being disfavored, but no viewpoint is being preferred over another. The reasonable person referenced in the MBTA's guidelines of course does not belong to any particular religious group, and would protect minority, as well as majority, religious beliefs from language that would demean or disparage them. The MBTA's current guideline neither intends nor has as a significant effect the tilting of the playing field for speech. 121 Ridley argues that because the MBTA accepted the first two ads it must accept the third. We reject the argument that because a government commercial enterprise has opened up discussion on one particular topic (say, religion), it must allow any and all discussion on that topic. Reasonable ground rules, so long as they are not intended to give one side an advantage over another, can be set without falling prey to viewpoint discrimination. It is possible that the effect of these guidelines will fall more heavily on some messages than others in certain contexts, but this does not itself make the guidelines viewpoint discriminatory; the intent and chief impact of the non-demeaning requirement is merely to ensure a certain minimum level of discourse that is applicable to everyone. 122 The MBTA could reasonably conclude that the earlier two advertisements did not demean or disparage other religions, but that the third advertisement did. The first ad questioned the waywardness of today's Christians; the second issued a condemnation of other religions. By contrast, the third advertisement went a vitriolic further step and directly demeaned a number of religions, by calling them false. It told the adherents of those religions that their ways are ungodly, they are going to hell. In addition, those demeaned religions are likely to be the shared religions of a number of the MBTA riders. That the MBTA chose not to ban the earlier two ads (the first under threat of suit) does not mean it was required to accept the third ad. This is true even had the MBTA made a mistake under its guidelines in accepting the first two ads. 123 Ridley argues that even if the third advertisement is demeaning to other religions, the government still may not reject the ad because the subject matter is the protected one of religion. The government may not, Ridley argues, attempt to protect citizens from being exposed to religious views they might find offensive, citing Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098 (1952), which invalidated a statute that set up a censorship board which refused licenses for sacrilegious films. The case is inapposite, as the MBTA is not censoring religious speech here at all. The statute in Wilson acted as a prior restraint preventing the showing of a film deemed sacrilegious by the censors in any public place in the state. Id. at 497, 503, 72 S.Ct. 777. The guidelines at issue here merely prevent advertisements from being put up in the MBTA's own system. Moreover, the statute in Wilson was aimed only at religious speech, and the language made it clear that its goal was to suppress real or imagined attacks on a particular religious doctrine. Id. at 505, 72 S.Ct. 777. The goal of the MBTA's guidelines here has nothing to do with censoring religious beliefs; the purpose instead is to maintain a certain minimal level of decorum in all advertisements. 124 The second advertisement and the third advertisement share the same basic viewpoint, yet the MBTA approved the second advertisement even though it rejected the third. This is further evidence that the MBTA's actions here were not motivated by distaste for Ridley's particular viewpoint. She has presented no evidence that the MBTA ever allowed any other specific advertisement that would suggest viewpoint discrimination towards her. For example, there is no evidence in the record that other advertisements, religious or otherwise, were accepted despite containing demeaning or disparaging content. 125 The two-week delay in approving Ridley's first advertisement is surely not a basis for inferring viewpoint discrimination. Nor is the saga connected with the placement of her second advertisement — this shows merely that the MBTA was honing its guidelines throughout this period and was working out its enforcement of various issues connected with the guidelines. 13 126 While the MBTA's guideline and decision to reject Ridley's advertisement are viewpoint neutral, the regulatory scheme still must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum in order to be upheld. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. 3439. The regulatory scheme at issue here is eminently reasonable. The MBTA's stated purposes in running its advertising program include maximiz[ing] revenue by making money through advertisements while not reducing ridership through offensive advertisements, maintaining a safe and welcoming environment for its riders (including children), and avoiding its identification with the ads it displays. A guideline preventing demeaning or disparaging advertisements is likely to serve these purposes well and is consistent with the MBTA's own Courtesy Counts program. 127