Comments on: The Breadth of Our Freedom of Expression http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/03/26/the-breadth-of-our-freedom-of-expression/ The Court is the online resource for data and debate about the Supreme Court of Canada. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:34:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Burton http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/03/26/the-breadth-of-our-freedom-of-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-124875 David Burton Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:08:46 +0000 http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/03/26/the-breadth-of-our-freedom-of-expression/#comment-124875 ATHEIST BUS ADS: Ottawa, Ontario City of Ottawa legal advice to the Ottawa City Council, quoting this case, probably convinced the Ottawa City council to allow the atheist ads on Ottawa buses and to over-ride the OC Transpo management decision to ban the atheist ads. This Supreme Court decision, when it does come out, will undoubtedly have an impact on the Atheist bus ad campaign in Canada.... ATHEIST BUS ADS:

Ottawa, Ontario

City of Ottawa legal advice to the Ottawa City Council, quoting this case, probably convinced the Ottawa City council to allow the atheist ads on Ottawa buses and to over-ride the OC Transpo management decision to ban the atheist ads.

This Supreme Court decision, when it does come out, will undoubtedly have an impact on the Atheist bus ad campaign in Canada….

]]> By: Jason Bezis http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/03/26/the-breadth-of-our-freedom-of-expression/comment-page-1/#comment-66635 Jason Bezis Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:20:23 +0000 http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/03/26/the-breadth-of-our-freedom-of-expression/#comment-66635 This case is reminiscent of the 1974 United States Supreme Court case Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights. Mr. Lehman, a candidate for public office in Ohio, sought to display an advertisement promoting his election on the interior of a bus. In Lehman, the U.S. Supreme Court generally held that a transit agency does not violate an advertiser's First Amendment "freedom of speech" when the transit agency categorically forbids political advertisements. In other words, under appropriate circumstances, a transit agency may ban display of all political and "issue" advertisements. A key issue in Lehman was that since bus passengers are a "captive audience," a transit agency is justified in exercising control over the ads that they may be forced to see. Nevertheless, some federal appellate courts have since ruled that some content restrictions on transit advertisements are unconstitutional. These courts have held that the transit agencies intentionally converted their ad spaces from "non-public fora" (a lenient standard where rules must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonable) into "designated public fora" (a more stringent standard where rules must be content-neutral). This case is reminiscent of the 1974 United States Supreme Court case Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights. Mr. Lehman, a candidate for public office in Ohio, sought to display an advertisement promoting his election on the interior of a bus. In Lehman, the U.S. Supreme Court generally held that a transit agency does not violate an advertiser’s First Amendment “freedom of speech” when the transit agency categorically forbids political advertisements. In other words, under appropriate circumstances, a transit agency may ban display of all political and “issue” advertisements. A key issue in Lehman was that since bus passengers are a “captive audience,” a transit agency is justified in exercising control over the ads that they may be forced to see.

Nevertheless, some federal appellate courts have since ruled that some content restrictions on transit advertisements are unconstitutional. These courts have held that the transit agencies intentionally converted their ad spaces from “non-public fora” (a lenient standard where rules must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonable) into “designated public fora” (a more stringent standard where rules must be content-neutral).

]]>