From today’s Cincinnati Enquirer:
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, claims the paper has lost 25 percent of its ad revenue since the campaign began last month at a press conference at City Hall. Police Chief Tom Streicher, Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis, City Councilman Chris Monzel and representatives of Citizens for Community Values all signed a letter protesting the ads, which they say could be thinly veiled solicitations for prostitution.
CityBeat says the ads do not implicitly or explicitly solicit illegal acts. The lawsuit says the inclusion of government officials in the campaign chills City Beat's free expression "by forcing it to self-censor or face possible prosecution."
All of the defendants in the lawsuit have a right to free expression, including writing and publicizing their letter, but I find the idea of law enforcement officials signing the letter, along with their titles, deeply troubling.
A lawyer I know offered this opinion (paraphrased here): "The suit may have some bite. If government officials sign a letter in their official capacities, with their jobs listed, then the reference to 'solicitation for prostitution' could be seen as a threat to prosecute, which might be considered a chilling prior censorship by the government."
If the ads in question do violate the law, the proper course would be to file criminal charges. The fact that no charges have been brought could either mean that the ads are legal or that prosecutors think they are illegal, but do not think they can win in court.
Cincinnati and Hamilton County law enforcement should either press charges or get on with the work of making the city safe. Using the cover of the Citizens for Community Values letter to try and get rid of these ads is underhanded.
Perhaps all of the defendants in the lawsuit should familiarize themselves with the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the freedom of the press..." What part of "no law" don't these people understand? And none of the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, including the right to a free press, comes with a disclaimer that those rights are subject to a "community values" test.
As a free newspaper, CityBeat depends on ad revenues so that Cincinnatians can continue to have an alternative news source. I hope that CityBeat prevails in its lawsuit. A court decision in their favor would have the effect of telling potential advertisers that it's okay to advertise in CityBeat without being harassed by groups like "Citizens Who Know What's Best for Everybody."
CityBeat should also use their freedom of the press to expose the defendants for what they are: People who have no respect for the First Amendment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment