3 ms·

I'd agree, except there have been cases like this: > The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court, ruled that the rejected ad was “not only protect

I'd agree, except there have been cases like this: > The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court, ruled that the rejected ad was “not only protected speech — it is core political speech,” [...] As such, the judge held, the ad “is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/nyregion/mta-violated-rights-of-pro-israel-group-judge-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/nyregion/mta-violated-righ... Here's one of the ads: http://i.imgur.com/iY0bx.jpg http://i.imgur.com/iY0bx.jpg

martingordon 14y ago
The difference is that The Atlantic is a private company. They aren't obligated to uphold the First Amendment. The MTA is a pseudo-government entity (a New York state public-benefit corporation[1], to be exact) and is (apparently) subject to the First Amendment. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_public_benefit_corporations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_public_benefit_c...