First Amendment Implications for Transit Facilities: Speech, Advertising, and Loitering (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 3-6
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 3... ...
3 FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSIT FACILITIES: SPEECH, ADVERTISING, AND LOITERING By Joseph Van Eaton, Matthew C Ames, and Matthew K
|
From page 4... ...
4 courts have recognized that owners of privately-owned shopping malls are generally free to restrict speech on their property without raising First Amendment concerns.7 Nonetheless, as suggested by Brentwood Academy, private ownership or status as a for-profit entity is not dispositive. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that Amtrak is a state actor for constitutional purposes, despite its original designation by Congress as a "for profit corporation," and later as one that would be "operated and managed as a for profit corporation."8 Accordingly, any relationship between a governmentowned or -operated facility and a private party using, leasing, or managing any aspect of the facility's property or operations may be subject to scrutiny.
|
From page 5... ...
5 have struggled to draw the line between contentneutral and content-based regulations.
|
From page 6... ...
6 forum may be reasonable if it is supported by "common sense."34 As discussed in later sections, the public forum doctrine has played an especially important role with respect to transit facilities.35 D The Vagueness and Overbreadth Doctrines Even in cases where the regulation of certain expressive activity or speech is permissible,36 the Supreme Court has cautioned that such regulation must not be substantially vague or overbroad.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.