afdi v. mbta, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/afdi-v-mbta-1st-cir-2015 1/60

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1018No. 14- 1289

AMERI CAN FREEDOM DEFENSE I NI TI ATI VE; PAMELA GELLER;AND ROBERT SPENCER,

Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ant s,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATI ON AUTHORI TY; AND BEVERLY A. SCOTT,I NDI VI DUALLY AND I N HER OFFI CI AL CAPACI TY AS CHI EF EXECUTI VE

OFFI CER / GENERAL MANAGER OF THE MBTA,

Def endant s- Appel l ees.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udges.

Robert J oseph Mui se, wi t h whom Davi d Yerushal mi and Amer i can

Freedom Law Cent er wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s. J oseph D. St ei nf i el d, wi t h whom J ef f r ey J . Pyl e, J ul i a A.Br ennan, and Pr i nce Lobel Tye LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

Mar ch 30, 2015

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


BARRON, Circuit Judge. These consol i dat ed appeal s

r equi r e us t o deci de whet her t he Fi r st Amendment permi t s t he

Massachuset t s Bay Tr anspor t at i on Aut hor i t y ( "MBTA") t o r ef use to

di spl ay a pai r of pai d, pr i vat e adver t i sement s on t he t r ai ns,

buses, and t r ansi t st at i ons t hat t he MBTA oper at es. Many ci r cui t s

and di st r i ct cour t s have addr essed t he Fi r st Amendment i ssues t hat

publ i c t r ansi t aut hor i t y adver t i si ng pol i ci es r ai se. We set f or t h

our appr oach most r ecent l y and most t horoughl y i n Ri dl ey v.

Massachuset t s Bay Tr anspor t at i on Aut hor i t y, 390 F. 3d 65 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) .

I n t hat case, we consi der ed a f r ee speech chal l enge to

t he same aspect of t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng pol i cy at i ssue i n t hese

appeal s: t he r est r i ct i on on t he di spl ay of adver t i sement s t hat

"demean or di sparage" i ndi vi dual s or gr oups. And, as i n Ri dl ey, we

agai n concl ude t hat t hi s r est r i ct i on does not vi ol at e t he Fi r st

Amendment , ei t her on i t s f ace or as i t was appl i ed. We t hus af f i r m

t he Di st r i ct Cour t , whi ch r eached t hat same concl usi on wi t h r espect

t o t he MBTA' s r ef usal t o run the two adver t i sement s at i ssue her e,

each of whi ch concer ns a hi ghl y char ged i ssue - - t he I sr ael i -

Pal est i ni an conf l i ct .

I.

The MBTA operat es t he publ i c t r ansi t syst em i n t he

gr eat er Bost on area. Thr ough an adver t i si ng agent , t he MBTA makes

i t s buses, t r ai ns, and t r ansi t st at i ons avai l abl e f or t he di spl ay

-2-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


of adver t i sement s by pr i vat e par t i es. The MBTA accepts most

adver t i sement s onl y upon payment , t hough t he MBTA appar ent l y

accept s some publ i c servi ce adver t i sement s f or no charge. But t he

key f act i s t hat t he MBTA wi l l not r un ever y adver t i sement i t

r ecei ves, even when t he adver t i ser i s wi l l i ng t o pay the goi ng

r at e. I nst ead, each adver t i sement must conf or m t o t he MBTA' s

Adver t i si ng Pr ogr am Gui del i nes.

Those Gui del i nes st at e t hat t he MBTA' s programobj ect i ves

ar e maxi mi zi ng r evenue f r om bot h adver t i si ng and r i der shi p;

pr eser vi ng a saf e and order l y operat i on and a wel comi ng envi r onment

f or r i der s; and avoi di ng t he i dent i f i cat i on of t he MBTA or t he

Commonweal t h wi t h the poi nt of vi ew of t he adver t i sement s or t he

adver t i ser s. To f ur t her t hose ends, t he Gui del i nes rest r i ct what

t he adver t i sement s may say. The Gui del i nes al so set f or t h a

procedure by whi ch t he MBTA may revi ew proposed adver t i sement s t hat

mi ght cont ai n pr ohi bi t ed cont ent . Under t hat pr ocedur e, t he MBTA

may suggest changes t hat woul d per mi t t he adver t i sement s t o be

accept ed upon r e- submi ss i on.

I n t hese appeal s, t he par t i es di sput e t he l awf ul ness of

t he appl i cat i on of t he Gui del i nes t o bar t wo adver t i sement s about

t he I sr ael i - Pal est i ni an conf l i ct . These adver t i sement s wer e

submi t t ed by t he Amer i can Freedom Def ense I ni t i at i ve ( "AFDI " ) , a

non- pr of i t advocacy or gani zat i on dedi cat ed t o " f r eedom of speech

. . . and i ndi vi dual r i ght s. "

-3-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


AFDI of f er ed t o pay the MBTA t o r un t he f i r st of t he

adver t i sement s i n Oct ober 2013. But t he act ual r oot s of t he

di sput e r each back somewhat ear l i er . Mont hs bef ore, t he MBTA r an

a di f f er ent non- pr of i t gr oup' s adver t i sement concer ni ng t he

I sr ael i - Pal est i ni an conf l i ct. The message of t hat ear l i er

adver t i sement was ver y di f f er ent f r om t he one i n AFDI ' s

adver t i sement . AFDI makes that f act a cent er pi ece of i t s Fi r st

Amendment chal l enge.

The ear l i er adver t i sement was submi t t ed i n Sept ember 2013

by a gr oup cal l ed t he Commi t t ee f or Peace i n I sr ael and Pal est i ne.

The adver t i sement depi ct ed f our maps r ef l ect i ng di f f er ent poi nt s i n

t i me wi t h t he capt i on, "Pal est i ni an Loss of Land - 1946 t o 2010. "

The adver t i sement al so cont ai ned bol d t ext t o t he r i ght of t he maps

st at i ng t hat "4. 7 Mi l l i on Pal est i ni ans ar e Cl assi f i ed by t he U. N.

as Ref ugees. "

The MBTA accept ed t he adver t i sement , and i t began t o r un

f or a f ee i n Oct ober 2013. Af t er r ecei vi ng compl ai nt s about t he

adver t i sement l at er t hat mont h, t he MBTA br i ef l y ceased di spl ayi ng

t he adver t i sement . But , shor t l y t her eaf t er , t he MBTA r e- post ed t he

adver t i sement . The MBTA cl ai med t hat t her e had been a

mi scommuni cat i on bet ween i t and i t s adver t i si ng agent , but di d not

ot her wi se expl ai n i t s deci si on ei t her t o pul l t he Commi t t ee f or

Peace adver t i sement or t o re- post i t .

-4-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


Very soon af t er t he MBTA announced i t woul d r e- post t he

Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement , AFDI submi t t ed t he f i r st of t he

adver t i sement s at i ssue i n t hese appeal s. Thi s adver t i sement

i ncl uded, wi t hout at t r i but i on, a modi f i ed ver si on of a quot at i on

f r om t he pol i t i cal t heor i st Ayn Rand. 1 The adver t i sement r ead as

f ol l ows:

I N ANY WARBETWEEN THE

CI VI LI ZED MANAND THE SAVAGE,

SUPPORT THECI VI LI ZED MAN.

b SUPPORT I SRAEL b

DEFEAT J I HAD

AFDI asked t he MBTA t o di spl ay thi s ad i n t en t r ansi t st at i ons

wher e t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement al so had been post ed.

The MBTA appl i ed t he Gui del i nes' st at ed procedures f or

r evi ewi ng submi t t ed adver t i sement s. The MBTA, t hr ough i t s General

Manager , def endant Bever l y Scot t , t hen r ej ect ed AFDI ' s submi ssi on. The MBTA concl uded t hat AFDI ' s submi ssi on vi ol at ed one of i t s

Gui del i nes - - namel y, t he pr ohi bi t i on on "adver t i sement [ s]

cont ai n[ i ng] mat er i al t hat demeans or di spar ages an i ndi vi dual or

gr oup of i ndi vi dual s. " 2 Scot t not i f i ed AFDI of t he deci si on on

1 I n r esponse t o a quest i on about t he 1973 Ar ab- I sr ael i war ,

Ayn Rand was quot ed as sayi ng, as a reason to support I sr ael ," [ w] hen you have ci vi l i zed men f i ght i ng savages, you suppor t t heci vi l i zed men, no mat t er who t hey ar e. " Ayn Rand, Egal i t ar i ani smand I nf l at i on, Addr ess at t he For d Hal l For um ( Oct . 20, 1974) .

2 The gui del i ne f ur t her pr ovi des t hat , "[ f ] or pur poses of det er mi ni ng whet her an adver t i sement cont ai ns such mater i al , t he

-5-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


November 4, 2013. 3 Two days l at er , AFDI br ought sui t i n f eder al

cour t . The sui t al l eged vi ol at i ons of t he Fi r st and Four t eent h

Amendment s and sought a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on order i ng t he MBTA t o

r un t he ad.

The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed t he prel i mi nary i nj unct i on

r equest on December 20, 2013. See Am. Fr eedom Def . I ni t i at i ve v.

Mass. Bay Transp. Aut h. ( "MBTA I " ) , 989 F. Supp. 2d 182 ( D. Mass.

2013) . The Di st r i ct Cour t agr eed wi t h AFDI " t hat t he most

r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of t hei r adver t i sement i s t hat t hey

oppose acts of I sl ami c t er r or i smdi r ected at I sr ael . " I d. at 189.

Nonet hel ess, t he Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded t hat t he r ef er ences t o

" j i had" and "savage[ s] , " t aken t oget her and consi der ed i n l i ght of

t he r ef er ence t o "war , " coul d, as t he MBTA argued, r easonabl y be

const r ued t o demean or di spar age Musl i ms or Pal est i ni ans, r at her

t han t o t ake ai monl y at t er r or i st acts. I d. at 188. The Di st r i ct

Cour t al so concl uded t hat even t hough the Commi t t ee f or Peace

adver t i sement "deepl y of f ends [ AFDI ] and . . . other member s of t he

communi t y" and "por t r ays I sr ael i n a negat i ve l i ght , " t hat

MBTA wi l l determi ne whether a r easonabl y pr udent person,knowl edgeabl e of t he MBTA' s r i der shi p and usi ng pr evai l i ngcommuni t y st andards, woul d bel i eve t hat t he adver t i sement cont ai nsmat er i al t hat r i di cul es or mocks, i s abusi ve or host i l e t o, or

debases t he di gni t y and st at ur e of , an i ndi vi dual or gr oup of i ndi vi dual s . "

3 The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat t her e was no evi dence t hatanyone ei t her expl ai ned t o AFDI how t hi s f i r st submi ssi on vi ol at edt he Gui del i nes or provi ded AFDI an oppor t uni t y t o br i ng t headver t i sement i nt o compl i ance.

-6-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


adver t i sement "does not do so i n a way t hat vi ol at es t he demeani ng

and di spar agi ng gui del i ne. " I d. at 191. By cont r ast , t he Di st r i ct

Cour t expl ai ned, " l abel i ng a member of a gr oup ' a savage' , as

def endant s not unr easonabl y bel i eve i s done by pl ai nt i f f s'

adver t i sement , di r ect l y debases t hat per son’ s di gni t y. " I d.

The Di st r i ct Cour t expressed concer n t hat t he MBTA coul d

use t he gui del i ne t o st r i p messages of t hei r ef f ect i veness. But

t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ead t hi s Cour t ' s deci si on i n Ri dl ey v.


2004) , t o r equi r e t he concl usi on t hat , i n t hi s cont ext , adver t i ser s

"do not have the r i ght t o use whatever t erms t hey wi sh t o use . . .

si mpl y because t hey ar e t he most ef f ect i ve means of expr essi ng

t hei r message. " MBTA I , 989 F. Supp. 2d at 190.

Two weeks l at er , AFDI submi t t ed a r evi sed ver si on of i t s

pr oposed adver t i sement . Thi s second submi ssi on r ead as f ol l ows:

I N ANY WAR BETWEEN THE CI VI LI ZED MAN AND THOSE ENGAGED I N SAVAGEACTS,

SUPPORT THE CI VI LI ZED MAN.DEFEAT VI OLENT J I HADb SUPPORT I SRAEL b

Unl i ke AFDI ' s f i r st ad, t hi s second submi ssi on r ef er r ed

t o "vi ol ent j i had" i nst ead of mer el y "j i had. " I n addi t i on, t he

second ver si on' s "def eat " cl ause pr eceded i t s "suppor t " cl ause. I n

t he f i r st AFDI adver t i sement , by cont r ast , t he two cl auses appear ed

i n t he opposi t e or der . Fi nal l y, and most cr uci al l y gi ven t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s opi ni on i n MBTA I , AFDI ' s second ver si on changed

-7-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


The MBTA r ej ect ed AFDI ' s t hi r d submi ssi on. The MBTA

concl uded t hat , l i ke AFDI ' s f i r st submi ssi on, t he t hi r d ad vi ol at ed

t he gui del i ne t hat pr ohi bi t s adver t i sement s cont ai ni ng mat er i al

demeani ng or di spar agi ng i ndi vi dual s or gr oups. AFDI t hen agai n

br ought sui t , seeki ng anot her pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on.

The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed t he mot i on "on t he grounds

pr evi ousl y set out i n i t s opi ni on i n" MBTA I . Am. Freedom Def .

I ni t i at i ve v. Mass. Bay Tr ansp. Aut h. ( "MBTA I I ") , No.

1: 14- cv- 10292- NMG, 2014 WL 1093138, at *3 ( D. Mass. Mar . 17, 2014) .

I n addi t i on, t he Di st r i ct Cour t char ged AFDI wi t h "bl at ant

gamesmanshi p" - - submi t t i ng t hi s t hi r d ver si on i nst ead of havi ng

t he MBTA r un t he second one - - and not ed t hat t hi s " bad f ai t h" was

an i ndependent gr ound f or denyi ng t he r equest ed equi t abl e r el i ef .

I d.

Af t er AFDI t i mel y appeal ed bot h deci si ons, t he par t i es

agr eed to consol i date t he t wo cases, gi ven thei r common i ssues of

f act and l aw and t hat t he appeal s i nvol ve t he same part i es. AFDI

advances t hr ee basi c cont ent i ons on appeal .

AFDI argues f i r st t hat t he MBTA has so opened up i t s

buses, t r ai ns, and t r ansi t st at i ons t o pr i vat e adver t i sement s t hat

t he MBTA has ef f ect i vel y est abl i shed what i s known as a desi gnated

publ i c f or um. See Per r y Educ. Ass' n v. Per r y Local Educat or s'

Ass' n, 460 U. S. 37, 45- 46 ( 1983) . For t hat r eason, AFDI ar gues,

t he MBTA may r egul at e t he cont ent of adver t i sement s onl y t hr ough

-9-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


r est r i ct i ons t hat ar e nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve a compel l i ng

i nt erest . See Pl easant Gr ove Ci t y, Ut ah v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460,

469- 70 ( 2009) ( desi gnat ed publ i c f or a "ar e subj ect t o t he same

str i ct scr ut i ny as restr i ct i ons i n a t r adi t i onal publ i c f or um") .

Fur t her , AFDI ar gues t hat , under t hat st r i ct st andar d, t he MBTA

cannot j ust i f y t he cont ent - based deci si on t o r ej ect t he

adver t i sement s at i ssue her e.

AFDI next argues t hat , even i f t he MBTA has not

est abl i shed a desi gnat ed publ i c f or umand i nst ead i s oper at i ng onl y

what i s known as a nonpubl i c f orum, t he MBTA' s gui del i ne

pr ohi bi t i ng t he di spl ay of an adver t i sement t hat "demeans or

di spar ages" i ndi vi dual s or gr oups i s st i l l f aci al l y

unconst i t ut i onal . And t hat , AFDI says, i s f or ei t her of t wo

r easons. AFDI ar gues t hat t he MBTA' s gui del i ne necessar i l y

di scr i mi nat es on t he basi s of an adver t i sement ' s vi ewpoi nt . See

Cornel i us v. NAACP Legal Def . & Educ. Fund, I nc. , 473 U. S. 788, 806

( 1985) ( expl ai ni ng t hat speech r est r i ct i ons i n nonpubl i c f or a must

be vi ewpoi nt neut r al ) . And, al t er nat i vel y, AFDI ar gues t hat t he

gui del i ne i s so vague t hat i t conf er s t oo much un- cabi ned

di scr et i on on t he MBTA t o sor t bet ween per mi t t ed and pr ohi bi t ed

ads. See Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 93- 95 ( di scussi ng t he hi gh bar

vagueness chal l enges f ace i n nonpubl i c f or um cont ext ) .

Fi nal l y, AFDI ar gues t hat even i f i t s f or umar gument and

f aci al chal l enges do not succeed, t he MBTA st i l l vi ol at ed AFDI ' s

-10-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


Fi r st Amendment r i ght s. AFDI cont ends t hat t he MBTA' s act ual

appl i cat i on of i t s gui del i ne ( especi al l y gi ven t he MBTA' s deci si on

t o r un t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement ) was unconst i t ut i onal .

Speci f i cal l y, AFDI cont ends t hat t he MBTA di scr i mi nat ed agai nst t he

vi ewpoi nt expr essed i n t he t wo rej ect ed AFDI adver t i sement s or , at

l east , act ed unr easonabl y i n denyi ng t hose ads gi ven t he pur poses

of t he MBTA' s over al l adver t i si ng pol i cy.

We consi der each of t hese argument s i n t ur n. I n doi ng

so, we expl ai n why, i n l i ght of our pr i or r ul i ng i n Ri dl ey - -

whi ch, i f not str i ct l y cont r ol l i ng as to each i ssue, i s i nstr uct i ve

as t o al l - - we f i nd none of t hese ar gument s per suasi ve.

II.

Bef or e tur ni ng to t he mer i t s of AFDI ' s ar gument , we not e

t hat we ar e r evi ewi ng t he deni al of a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. I n

eval uat i ng AFDI ' s cont ent i ons, t he st andar d of r evi ew i s t hus abuse

of di scret i on. Si ndi cat o Puer t or r i queño de Tr abj ador es, SEI U Local

1996 v. For t uno, 699 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . That st andar d,

however , appl i es i n t hi s cont ext onl y t o "i ssues of j udgment and

bal anci ng of conf l i ct i ng f act or s. " Wat er Keeper Al l i ance v. U. S.

Dep' t of Def . , 271 F. 3d 21, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( quot i ng Cabl evi si on

of Bos. , I nc. v. Publ i c I mpr ovement Comm' n, 184 F. 3d 88, 96 ( 1st

Ci r . 1999) ) . By cont r ast , f i ndi ngs of f act are r evi ewed f or cl ear

er r or , and r ul i ngs on l egal i ssues ar e r evi ewed de novo. I d. at

30- 31. Mor eover , i n or der t o secur e pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ve r el i ef ,

-11-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


AFDI must "est abl i sh a ' st r ong l i kel i hood' t hat t hey wi l l

ul t i mat el y pr evai l " on t he mer i t s of t hei r Fi r st Amendment cl ai m. 4

Si ndi cat o Puer t or r i queño, 699 F. 3d at 10 ( quot i ng Respect f or Me.

PAC v. McKee, 622 F. 3d 13, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) .

III.

We st ar t wi t h AFDI ' s cont ent i on t hat t he MBTA' s

adver t i si ng pr ogr am i s so unsel ecti ve t hat i t const i t ut es a

desi gnat ed publ i c f orum. The MBTA argues we must r ej ect t hat

cont ent i on. I n suppor t of t hi s poi nt , t he MBTA r el i es on Ri dl ey,

whi ch hel d that t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng pr ogr am was a nonpubl i c

f orum. See 390 F. 3d at 78- 79. And t he MBTA f ur t her cont ends t hat

t he l aw of t he ci r cui t doct r i ne makes Ri dl ey' s hol di ng on t he f or um

i ssue bi ndi ng on t hi s panel . See Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 311

F. 3d 435, 438- 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( pr i or panel deci si on ar e

"i nvi ol at e" absent i nt er veni ng aut hor i t y (quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Chhi en, 266 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) ) .

As a r esul t , t he MBTA ar gues, i t s cont ent - based

r est r i ct i ons on speech need not be nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve a

compel l i ng i nt er est , as AFDI cont ends. I nst ead, t he MBTA ar gues

4 I n l i ght of our concl usi on t hat AFDI has not demonst r at ed

t hat i t i s l i kel y t o succeed on t he mer i t s i n ei t her of i t schal l enges, and because l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s i s t he"si ne qua non" of t he f our - par t i nqui r y a di st r i ct cour t mustunder t ake i n adj udi cat i ng a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on r equest , NewComm Wi r el ess Ser vs. , I nc. v. Spr i nt Com, I nc. , 287 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1stCi r . 2002) , we do not addr ess t he f i nal t hr ee f act or s of t hepr el i mi nar y i nj uncti on i nqui r y i n t hi s opi ni on.

-12-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


t hat t he r est r i ct i ons must be uphel d under t he mor e f or gi vi ng

st andards that appl y i n nonpubl i c f ora. See Davenport v. Wash.

Educ. Ass' n, 551 U. S. 177, 189 ( 2007) ( r est r i ct i ons i n nonpubl i c

f or a are per mi t t ed so l ong as t hey do not di scr i mi nat e on t he basi s

of vi ewpoi nt and ar e r easonabl e i n l i ght of t he pur poses f or whi ch

t he f or um was est abl i shed) .

But even t hough Ri dl ey hel d t hat t he MBTA was operat i ng

a nonpubl i c f or um, AFDI i s r i ght t hat "t he f or um quest i on i s not a

st at i c i nqui r y. " Thus, we must st i l l consi der whet her t he MBTA has

done anyt hi ng si nce Ri dl ey t o t r ansf or m i t s adver t i si ng pr ogr am

f r om a nonpubl i c f or um i nt o a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um, i n whi ch

case t he MBTA' s cont ent - based r est r i ct i on on di spar agi ng or

demeani ng adver t i sement s t hen woul d be subj ect t o mor e exact i ng

scrut i ny. See Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 76 ( cour t s l ook t o "expl i ci t

expr essi ons about i nt ent " as wel l as t he act ual pr act i ce of t he

gover nment actor i n quest i on t o det er mi ne whet her sai d act or

i nt ended t o desi gnat e a pl ace or pr ogr am as a publ i c f or um) .

Ri dl ey based i t s f or um hol di ng i n par t on t he MBTA' s

f or mal l y expr essed i nt ent i on. Ri dl ey expl ai ned t hat t he MBTA had

consi st ent l y mai nt ai ned t hat i t s adver t i si ng pr ogr amconst i t ut ed a

nonpubl i c f or umr at her t han a desi gnat ed one open t o t he di spl ay of

al l manner of pr i vat e communi cat i on wi t hout r egard t o the cont ent

of t he message. See i d. at 77. But Ri dl ey di d not r el y on t he

MBTA' s expr essed i nt ent i on al one. See i d. Ri dl ey al so made cl ear

-13-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


t hat , al t hough the MBTA di d run many pr i vat e adver t i sement s, t he

MBTA had not i n pr act i ce opened i t sel f up as a f or um f or t he

communi cat i on of i deas gener al l y. I nst ead, Ri dl ey concl uded t hat

t he MBTA was t r yi ng onl y t o capi t al i ze on t he mar ket f or di spl ay

adver t i si ng as par t of i t s gener al ef f or t t o i ncrease r evenue. See

i d. at 79.

Ri dl ey f ur t her obser ved t hat t he MBTA' s sel ect i vi t y i n

choosi ng adver t i sement s was, f r om t he st ar t , consi st ent wi t h t hat

over r i di ng commer ci al pur pose. See i d. at 78. Ri dl ey expl ai ned

t hat t he MBTA had concl uded t hat r i der s of subways and buses mi ght

not appr eci at e cer t ai n ki nds of cont ent i n t he adver t i sement s t hat

t hose r i ders woul d encount er . Thus, t he MBTA set f or t h a number of

r ul es r est r i ct i ng adver t i si ng cont ent t hat wer e craf t ed t o maxi mi ze

adver t i si ng r evenue wi t hout t her eby adver sel y af f ect i ng i t s

r i der shi p. See i d. at 72, 77- 78 ( descr i bi ng t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng

pol i cy) .

As was t r ue i n Ri dl ey, t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng pol i cy

st i l l st at es t hat t he MBTA oper at es a nonpubl i c f or um. And t he

MBTA' s Gui del i nes st i l l consi st of t he same basi c r ul es r egar di ng

pr ohi bi t ed adver t i si ng cont ent as wer e i n pl ace at t he t i me of

Ri dl ey. Nor does AFDI argue other wi se.

AFDI cont ends i nst ead t hat t he MBTA' s deci si on t o r un t he

Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement shows t hat t he MBTA i s now, i n

act ual pr act i ce, wi l l i ng t o per mi t speech on even t he most

-14-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


cont r over si al of i ssues. And t hus, AFDI ar gues, t he MBTA has

ef f ect i vel y cr eat ed a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um, because i t i s si mpl y

i ncongr uous f or a nonpubl i c f or umt o al l ow i t sel f t o be open t o t he

di spl ay of such cont r over si al adver t i si ng.

Cont r ary t o AFDI ' s cont ent i on, however , t he MBTA' s

deci si on t o r un t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement di d not

t r ansf or m t he nat ur e of t he f or um. Ri dl ey i nvol ved a chal l enge t o

t he MBTA' s at t empt t o r egul at e speech on such cont r over si al t opi cs

and i ssues as r el i gi on and t he debat e over t he l egal i zat i on of

mar i j uana. See i d. at 69. I n def endi ng t hose r est r i ct i ons at t hat

t i me, t he MBTA di d not argue that al l speech on such t opi cs and

i ssues was per se of f l i mi t s. See i d. at 83. The MBTA i nst ead was

qui t e cl ear t hat i t s Gui del i nes al l owed such speech. See i d. And

yet , Ri dl ey concl uded t hat t he MBTA' s wi l l i ngness t o accept

adver t i sement s on t hose hot - but t on mat t ers di d not make t he MBTA' s

adver t i si ng pr ogr am a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um. See i d. at 81- 82.

I t i s t r ue, as AFDI ar gues, t hat t he Supr eme Cour t hel d

i n Lehman that an ur ban t r ansi t aut hor i t y had not cr eat ed a

desi gnat ed publ i c f or um when i t l i mi t ed adver t i si ng space on i t s

t r ansi t car s " t o i nnocuous and l ess cont r over si al commer ci al and

ser vi ce or i ent ed adver t i si ng. " Lehman v. Ci t y of Shaker Hei ght s,

418 U. S. 298, 304 ( 1974) . But Ri dl ey t ook account of Lehman and

concl uded t hat i t di d not r equi r e a nonpubl i c f or umt o l i mi t i t sel f

t o such anodyne messages. See Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 78- 79. Ri dl ey

-15-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


concl uded t hat , f or pur poses of f or um anal ysi s, t he MBTA' s

adver t i si ng pr ogr amwas i ndi st i ngui shabl e f r omt he pr ogr amat i ssue

i n Lehman, even t hough t he MBTA - - unl i ke t he t r ansi t aut hor i t y at

i ssue i n Lehman - - had opened i t sel f up t o a wi der r ange of

adver t i sement s, i ncl udi ng many cont r over si al ones. See i d. at 78-

82. Ri dl ey t hus makes cl ear t hat , cont r ar y t o AFDI ' s cont ent i on,

t he MBTA need not r ej ect al l but " i nnocuous and l ess cont r over si al "

adver t i sement s i n order t o mai nt ai n a nonpubl i c f orum.

I n so hol di ng, Ri dl ey f ol l owed t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

i nst r uct i on t hat a gover nment al pr opr i et or cr eat es a desi gnat ed

publ i c f or um" onl y by i nt ent i onal l y openi ng a nont r adi t i onal f or um

f or publ i c di scour se. " E. g. , Cor nel i us, 473 U. S. at 802. Tr ue, a

gover nment al act or ' s st at ed i nt ent cannot det er mi ne t he nat ur e of

t he f or umi n t he f ace of count er vai l i ng act i ons by t hat act or . See

Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 77. But Ri dl ey expl ai ned t hat t he MBTA' s

expr essed i nt ent , as i mpl ement ed t hr ough var i ous r est r i ct i ons on

adver t i si ng cont ent , f i t wi t h t he MBTA' s announced pur poses i n

est abl i shi ng t he adver t i si ng pr ogr am as a nonpubl i c f or um - -

namel y, t he MBTA' s desi r e t o bal ance i t s i nt er est i n maxi mi zi ng

r evenue f r omadver t i si ng agai nst i t s i nt er est i n ensur i ng cust omer

sat i sf act i on. See i d. at 80. Mor eover , Ri dl ey r el i ed on t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s observat i on i n Ar kansas Educat i on Tel evi si on

Commi ssi on v. For bes, 523 U. S. 666 ( 1998) , t hat by recogni zi ng t he

di st i nct i on bet ween a gover nment ' s deci si on t o open i t s pr oper t y t o

-16-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


pr i vat e messages sel ect i vel y rat her t han gener al l y, "we encour age

t he gover nment t o open i t s proper t y t o some expr essi ve act i vi t y i n

cases wher e, i f f aced wi t h an al l - or - not hi ng choi ce, i t mi ght not

open t he pr oper t y at al l . " Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 80 ( quot i ng Ar k.

Educ. Tel evi si on Comm' n, 523 U. S. at 680) .

We ar e aware that , as AFDI poi nt s out , a number of out -

of - ci r cui t deci si ons have hel d t hat t r ansi t syst ems' adver t i si ng

spaces const i t ut e desi gnat ed publ i c f or a. These cases have done

so, mor eover , af t er not i ng t hat t hose t r ansi t syst ems have al l owed

cont r over si al adver t i sement s. See, e. g. , Uni t ed Food & Commer ci al

Wor ker s Uni on, Local 1099 v. Sw. Ohi o Reg' l Tr ansi t Aut h. , 163 F. 3d

341, 355 ( 6t h Ci r . 1998) ( hol di ng t hat a t r ansi t aut hor i t y had

"demonst r at ed i t s i nt ent t o desi gnat e i t s adver t i si ng space a

publ i c f or um" by accept i ng a wi de ar r ay of cont r over si al

adver t i sement s i n cont r avent i on of i t s pol i cy bar r i ng such

adver t i sement s) ; N. Y. Magazi ne v. Met r o. Tr ansp. Aut h. , 136 F. 3d

123, 130 ( 2d Ci r . 1998) ( suggest i ng t hat "del i ber at e accept ance of

t he possi bi l i t y of cl ashes of opi ni on and cont r over sy" i s

i nconsi st ent wi t h oper at i ng a nonpubl i c f or um) ; Pl anned Par ent hood

Ass' n/ Chi . Ar ea v. Chi . Tr ansi t Aut h. , 767 F. 2d 1225, 1232- 33 ( 7t h

Ci r . 1985) ( hol di ng t hat a t r ansi t aut hor i t y had creat ed a

desi gnated publ i c f orum wher e i t had accept ed a wi de r ange of

cont r over si al adver t i si ng) .

-17-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


But Ri dl ey cont r ol s i n t hi s appeal . And Ri dl ey pl ai nl y

hel d t hat a t r ansi t agency' s deci si on t o al l ow t he di spl ay of

cont r over si al adver t i si ng does not i n and of i t sel f est abl i sh a

desi gnated publ i c f orum. Ri dl ey al so hel d t hat t he MBTA had not

est abl i shed such a f orum even though the MBTA per mi t t ed such

adver t i si ng. See 390 F. 3d at 81- 82. Mor eover , Ri dl ey r eached t hat

concl usi on af t er consi der i ng t hose ver y same si st er ci r cui t cases

and concl udi ng t hat each "i s di st i ngui shabl e on i t s f act s. " I d. at

81.

Ri dl ey i s not al one i n so anal yzi ng t he f or umi ssue. The

Ni nt h Ci r cui t r ecent l y concl uded t hat t he Seat t l e t r ansi t syst em' s

pai d adver t i si ng pr ogr am was a nonpubl i c f or um. Seat t l e Mi deast

Awareness Campai gn v. Ki ng Count y, __ F. 3d ___, Nos. 11- 35914, 11-

35931, 2015 WL 1219330, at *6 ( 9t h Ci r . Mar . 18, 2015) . We agr ee

wi t h t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t t hat a t r ansi t aut hor i t y, l i ke Seat t l e' s and

t he MBTA, t hat al l ows a wi der r ange of speech t han was permi t t ed i n

Lehman i s not aut omat i cal l y st r i pped of i t s abi l i t y to adopt ot her

vi ewpoi nt - neut r al cri t er i a f or sel ect i ng cont ent t hat r easonabl y

served t he agency' s over r i di ng commer ci al pur pose. See i d. at *6.

Li ke t he MBTA' s, Seat t l e' s pr ogr amgr ant ed onl y "sel ect i ve access"

t o adver t i ser s, and t he sel ect i ve cr i t er i a t he agency used t o

det er mi ne whi ch ads coul d be r un wer e consi st ent l y appl i ed. I d. at

*5. Fur t her , as her e, t he adver t i si ng pr ogr am was "par t of a

gover nment - r un commer ci al ent er pr i se, and t he expr essi ve act i vi t i es

-18-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


t he gover nment per mi t [ t ed] " under t hat progr am wer e "onl y

i nci dent al t o" t he commer ci al use. I d. Thus, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t

concl uded - - as do we - - t hat t he bar e f act t hat a t r ansi t syst em

r uns some cont r over si al ads does not mean t hat i t s adver t i si ng

pr ogr am becomes a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um. See i d. at *6 ( "Any

such rul e woul d under mi ne t he [ Supr eme] Cour t ' s ef f or t s t o

' encour age t he government t o open i t s propert y to some expr essi ve

act i vi t y i n cases wher e, i f f aced wi t h an al l - or - not hi ng choi ce, i t

mi ght not open t he pr oper t y at al l . ' " ( quot i ng Ar k. Educ.

Tel evi si on Comm' n, 523 U. S. at 680) ) .

That br i ngs us t o AFDI ' s l ast poi nt on t hi s i ssue. AFDI

argues t hat whatever t he natur e of t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng pr ogr am

i n gener al , when t he MBTA accept ed an adver t i sement on t he I sr ael i -

Pal est i ni an conf l i ct - - a hi ghl y pol i t i ci zed and cont r over si al

i ssue - - t he MBTA necessar i l y est abl i shed a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um

wi t h r espect t o speech about t hat par t i cul ar i ssue.

But t hi s argument , t oo, cannot be r econci l ed wi t h Ri dl ey.

Ther e, we " r ej ect [ ed] t he ar gument t hat because a gover nment

commer ci al ent er pr i se has opened up di scussi on on one part i cul ar

' t opi c' . . . i t must al l ow any and al l di scussi on on t hat t opi c. "

I d. at 91. Ri dl ey t her ef or e necessar i l y hel d t hat t he f act t hat

t he MBTA had accept ed adver t i si ng cer t ai n t o i nspi r e cont r over sy of

one sor t or anot her di d not mean t hat t he MBTA r uns a desi gnat ed

publ i c f or um. See i d. And not hi ng i n t he r ecor d bef or e us r eveal s

-19-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


devel opment s t hat per mi t us t o r each a di f f er ent concl usi on. Thus,

t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng pr ogr ami s a nonpubl i c f orum. The MBTA may

t her ef or e r est r i ct t he cont ent of t he adver t i sement s i t accept s f or

di spl ay so l ong as such r est r i ct i ons are not vi ewpoi nt - based and

ar e r easonabl e i n l i ght of t he pur poses f or whi ch t he f or um was

est abl i shed.

IV.

Accor di ng to AFDI , even i f t he MBTA i s oper at i ng a

nonpubl i c f orum, t he MBTA has nonethel ess sel ect ed a

const i t ut i onal l y i mper mi ssi bl e cri t er i on f or r est r i cti ng speech.

And, AFDI mai nt ai ns, t hat i s t r ue regar dl ess of how t he MBTA

appl i ed t hat cr i t er i on t o AFDI ' s par t i cul ar adver t i sement s. To

make t hat argument , AFDI f i r st cl ai ms t hat t he demeani ng or

di spar agi ng gui del i ne on i t s f ace di scr i mi nat es on t he basi s of

vi ewpoi nt . And, second, AFDI ar gues t hat t he gui del i ne i s so

i nher ent l y vague t hat i t must be st r uck down on i t s f ace f or

conf er r i ng excessi ve di scr et i on on t he MBTA t o sel ect messages i t

f avor s and r ej ect ones i t di sl i kes.

These f aci al at t acks , however , l i ke t he chal l enge t o t he

nat ur e of t he f or um i t sel f , r un di r ect l y i nt o our deci si on i n

Ri dl ey and t he l aw of t he ci r cui t doct r i ne. Ri dl ey squar el y hel d

t hat exact l y t he same gui del i ne was not i nval i d on i t s f ace. See

390 F. 3d at 90- 91, 93- 96. And Ri dl ey' s hol di ng st i l l bi nds us.

-20-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


Wi t h r espect t o vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on, Ri dl ey

expl ai ned that t he demeani ng or di spar agi ng gui del i ne i s mer el y a

"[ r ] easonabl e gr ound r ul e[ ] " under whi ch "al l adver t i ser s on al l

si des of al l quest i ons ar e al l owed t o posi t i vel y pr omot e t hei r own

per spect i ve and even t o cr i t i ci ze ot her posi t i ons so l ong as t hey

do not use demeani ng speech i n t hei r at t acks. " I d. at 91. Thus,

we r ej ect ed t he cont ent i on t hat t he demeani ng or di spar agi ng

gui del i ne i s an at t empt by t he government " t o gi ve one gr oup an

advant age over anot her i n t he mar ket pl ace of i deas. " I d. ; cf .

Bol ger v. Youngs Dr ug Prods. Corp. , 463 U. S. 60, 84 ( 1983)

( St evens, J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ( di st i ngui shi ng bet ween

a l aw t hat " r egul at es communi cat i ons f or t hei r i deas" and a l aw

t hat r egul at es communi cat i ons " f or t hei r st yl e") .

Wi t h r espect t o vagueness, Ri dl ey i dent i f i ed " t wo basi c

concer ns. " I d. at 93. Those concer ns wer e: "1) concer ns about

f ai r not i ce, and about t he r el at ed danger of chi l l i ng expr essi on,

and 2) concer ns about excessi ve di scr et i on bei ng i nvest ed i n

admi ni st er i ng and enf or ci ng of f i ci al s. " I d.

But Ri dl ey made cl ear t hat t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng

Gui del i nes i n gener al r ai se "no ser i ous concer n about ei t her not i ce

or chi l l i ng ef f ect s" f or t he si mpl e r eason t hat "t her e ar e no

consequences f or submi t t i ng a non- conf ormi ng adver t i sement and

havi ng i t r ej ect ed. " I d. at 94. And AFDI of f er s no basi s f or

concl udi ng t hat t he MBTA i mpl ement s i t s pol i cy di f f er ent l y i n t hat

-21-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


r egar d at pr esent . I n f act , AFDI ' s own exper i ence - - i n whi ch i t

had a second adver t i sement accept ed af t er i t s f i r st had been

r ej ect ed - - woul d seem i nconsi st ent wi t h t hat concl usi on.

Wi t h r espect t o excessi ve di scr et i on, Ri dl ey expl ai ned

t hat "a gr ant of di scr et i on t o exer ci se j udgment i n a nonpubl i c

f or um must be uphel d so l ong as i t i s ' r easonabl e i n l i ght of t he

char act er i st i c nat ur e and f unct i on' of t hat f or um. " I d. at 95

( quot i ng Gr i f f i n v. Sec' y of Vet er ans Af f ai r s, 288 F. 3d 1309, 1323

( Fed. Ci r . 2002) ) . Ri dl ey f ur t her obser ved t hat " sel ect i vi t y and

di scret i onar y access ar e def i ni ng char act er i st i cs of nonpubl i c

f or a, whi ch unl i ke publ i c f or a ar e not i nt ended t o be open t o al l

speech. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . And Ri dl ey

concl uded t hat t he words " demean" and "di sparage" are not so

uncl ear t hat t he gui del i ne ef f ect i vel y conf er s t he ki nd of

excessi ve di scret i on that mi ght r ai se concer ns about sur r ept i t i ous

vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on or t he unr easonabl e t arget i ng of messages

f or r easons unr el ated t o t he r evenue- gener at i ng pur poses of t he

f or um. See i d. at 95- 96.

That l eaves one l ast wr i nkl e. At or al ar gument , counsel

f or t he MBTA, i n r esponse t o quest i oni ng by t he cour t about

hypot het i cal s, not ed t hat t he demeani ng or di spar agi ng gui del i ne

r equi r es t he MBTA t o determi ne what "a r easonabl y pr udent person,

knowl edgeabl e of t he MBTA' s r i der shi p and usi ng pr evai l i ng

communi t y st andards, woul d bel i eve. " And counsel went even f ur t her

-22-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


and expl ai ned, i n r espondi ng t o hypot het i cal appl i cat i ons, t hat he

bel i eved t he MBTA woul d not appl y t he demeani ng or di sparagi ng

gui del i ne t o some gr oups t hat t he communi t y woul d deem wor t hy of

oppr obr i um. On t hat basi s, he opi ned t hat even t hough t he

gui del i ne di d not per mi t t he di spl ay of t he AFDI adver t i sement s

under chal l enge, t he MBTA woul d const r ue t he gui del i ne t o per mi t

adver t i sement s usi ng ot her wi se i dent i cal l anguage t hat t ar get ed a

group the MBTA deemed t o be hel d i n general di sr epute by t he

publ i c.

At poi nt s i n i t s br i ef s t o us, AFDI appear s t o ar gue t hat

t he MBTA shoul d const r ue i t s gui del i ne i n t hat ver y way. AFDI

cont ends i n t hese passages t hat i t s f i r st and t hi r d adver t i sement s

coul d not r easonabl y be underst ood t o be demeani ng or di spar agi ng

because t hey mer el y cri t i ci ze t er r or i st s. But i n i t s rebut t al at

oral argument , AFDI sei zed on t he r esponse t o quest i ons by t he

MBTA' s counsel . AFDI argued t hat t he gui del i ne woul d be suspect i f

i t di d not pr otect cert ai n gr oups t hat t he MBTA det er mi ned wer e

beyond t he pal e. And AFDI di d so wi t h good r eason.

I f t he MBTA counsel ' s r esponse t o hypot het i cal s about t he

MBTA' s aut hor i t y wer e i n f act t he MBTA' s vi ew, and i t had act ed

accor di ngl y, t hen t her e woul d be a subst ant i al ar gument t hat t he

gui del i ne woul d be suspect under t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n

R. A. V. v. Ci t y of St . Paul , Mi nn. , 505 U. S. 377 ( 1992) . I n R. A. V. ,

t he Supr eme Cour t i nval i dat ed a muni ci pal or di nance t hat pr ohi bi t ed

-23-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


"pl ac[ i ng] on publ i c or pr i vat e pr oper t y a symbol , obj ect ,

appel l at i on, char acter i zat i on or gr af f i t i " amount i ng t o f i ght i ng

wor ds "on t he basi s of r ace, col or , creed, r el i gi on or gender . "

I d. at 380- 81, 391; see al so Chapl i nsky v. New Hampshi r e, 315 U. S.

568, 572 ( 1942) ( def i ni ng f i ght i ng wor ds) .

Even t hough f i ght i ng wor ds have no "cl ai m upon t he Fi r st

Amendment , " t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t he ordi nance unconst i t ut i onal .

R. A. V. , 505 U. S. at 386, 391. The Cour t concl uded t hat t he

ordi nance went "beyond mer e cont ent di scr i mi nat i on, t o act ual

vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on, " and t hus vi ol at ed t he Fi r st Amendment .

I d. at 391. The or di nance di d so, t he Cour t expl ai ned, because i t

prohi bi t ed onl y "t hose symbol s t hat communi cat e a message of

host i l i t y based on" one of t he or di nance' s enumer at ed

char acter i st i cs: "r ace, col or , creed, r el i gi on or gender , " t her eby

l eavi ng si mi l ar l y host i l e messages f ocused on ot her char act er i st i cs

unr est r i ct ed. I d. at 393.

And whi l e R. A. V. i nvol ved a di r ect r est r i ct i on on pr i vat e

speech and not t he regul at i on of speech i n a nonpubl i c f orum,

Ri dl ey not ed t he pot ent i al R. A. V. pr obl em wi t h a demeani ng or

di spar agi ng gui del i ne t hat woul d pr ot ect cer t ai n gr oups or

i ndi vi dual s but not ot her s, not wi t hst andi ng t hat t he MBTA' s

adver t i si ng pr ogr amwas a nonpubl i c f or um. See Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at

90- 91 n. 11. Pr ecedent f r om out si de our ci r cui t , mor eover , has

r el i ed on R. A. V. t o i nval i dat e a t r ansi t aut hor i t y' s demeani ng or

-24-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


di spar agi ng adver t i si ng gui del i ne t hat expl i ci t l y pr ot ect ed some

gr oups but not ot her s. See Am. Freedom Def . I ni t i at i ve v. Met r o.

Tr ansp. Aut h. , 880 F. Supp. 2d 456, 474- 78 ( S. D. N. Y. 2012) .

Fur t her mor e, accept i ng t he MBTA' s counsel ' s l ogi c woul d

r ai se concer ns t hat t he gui del i ne was i mper mi ssi bl y vague. The

t est f or whet her speech f al l s wi t hi n t he gui del i ne' s ambi t woul d

t hen no l onger be def i ned onl y by t he meani ng of t he words

"di spar agi ng" and "demeani ng. " I nst ead, t he MBTA woul d have

r eser ved t o i t sel f t he di scr et i on t o deci de i n each case whet her

"pr evai l i ng communi t y st andards" woul d deemt he t arget ed i ndi vi dual

or gr oup wor t hy of t he gui del i ne' s pr ot ect i on. That woul d r ai se

t he concer n t hat t he MBTA had r eser ved t o i t sel f di scr et i on t o pi ck

and choose bet ween f avor ed and di sf avor ed vi ews.

But we ar e not bound t o accept counsel ' s guess about how

t he agency woul d appl y t he gui del i ne i n hypot het i cal cases. And

t her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat t he MBTA i n f act const r ues

t he gui del i ne as counsel suggest ed t hat i t mi ght . Nor does t he

t ext of t he gui del i ne compel t hat hypot het i cal const r uct i on. We

t hus decl i ne t o at t r i but e such a const i t ut i onal l y suspect

i nt er pr et at i on of t he r egul at i on t o t he MBTA. See Edwar d J .

DeBar t ol o Cor p. v. Fl a. Gul f Coast Bl dg. & Const r . Tr ades Counci l ,

485 U. S. 568, 575 ( 1988) ( expl ai ni ng t hat , wher e possi bl e, i f "an

ot her wi se accept abl e const r uct i on of a st at ut e woul d r ai se ser i ous

const i t ut i onal pr obl ems, t he Cour t wi l l const r ue t he st at ut e t o

-25-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


avoi d such pr obl ems" ) ; see al so Mar kadonat os v. Vi l l . of Woodr i dge,

760 F. 3d 545, 550 ( 7t h Ci r . 2014) ( not i ng t hat " t he doct r i ne of

const i t ut i onal avoi dance f unct i ons t o mi ni mi ze f r i ct i on bet ween

cour t s and l egi sl at ur es ( i ncl udi ng st at e and muni ci pal

l egi s l at ur es)") .

We i nst ead concl ude, as we di d i n Ri dl ey, t hat " [ t ] he

cur r ent r egul at i on si mpl y pr ohi bi t s t he use of adver t i sement s t hat

' demean[ ] or di spar age[ ] an i ndi vi dual or gr oup of i ndi vi dual s, '

wi t hout l i st i ng any par t i cul ar pr ot ect ed gr oups, " 390 F. 3d at 90-

91, and t hus wi t hout suggest i ng t hat any i ndi vi dual or gr oup may be

so di spar aged or demeaned. Under Ri dl ey, t her ef or e, " t he gui del i ne

i s j ust a gr ound r ul e. " I d. at 91. As such, t he gui del i ne does

not at t empt t o gi ve one gr oup an advant age over anot her i n the

mar ket pl ace of i deas. We t hus f ol l ow our pr i or hol di ng. The

MBTA' s gui del i ne pr ohi bi t i ng adver t i sement s cont ai ni ng mat er i al

t hat "demeans or di spar ages" i ndi vi dual s or gr oups i s not i nval i d

on i t s f ace.

V.

That br i ngs us t o t he f i nal i ssue on appeal : t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t he MBTA' s act ual appl i cat i on of i t s demeani ng

or di spar agi ng gui del i ne t o AFDI ' s ads. For even t hough t he MBTA' s

adver t i si ng pl at f or m i s a nonpubl i c f or um and t he gui del i ne at

i ssue i s f aci al l y val i d, i t coul d st i l l be t he case t hat t he MBTA

vi ol at ed t he Fi r st Amendment i f t he r ej ect i on of AFDI ' s submi ssi ons

-26-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


wer e ei t her vi ewpoi nt - based or "unr easonabl e i n l i ght of t he

pur pose of t he f or um. " I d. at 90.

A.

Accor di ng t o AFDI , t he MBTA di d engage i n vi ewpoi nt

di scri mi nat i on i n t ur ni ng down AFDI ' s f i r st and t hi r d

adver t i sement s. AFDI chi ef l y advances t hat cont ent i on by asser t i ng

t hat t he ads t he MBTA r ej ect ed are no more demeani ng or di sparagi ng

t han t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement ( whi ch t he MBTA r an) .

AFDI ar gues t hat i t s r ej ect ed submi ssi ons di f f er f r omt he Commi t t ee

f or Peace adver t i sement onl y i n t he si de of t he I sr ael i - Pal est i ni an

conf l i ct t hat t hey f avor . And t hus, AFDI cont ends, vi ewpoi nt

di scr i mi nat i on necessar i l y expl ai ns t he MBTA' s di f f er ent t r eat ment

of t hose ads.

But t he r ecord shows ot her wi se. The MBTA det ermi ned t hat

t he t ext of AFDI ' s f i r st and t hi r d ads di d use l anguage t hat

assi gned a demeani ng or di spar agi ng l abel t o an i ndi vi dual or

gr oup. But t he MBTA al so determi ned t hat t he t ext of t he Commi t t ee

f or Peace adver t i sement - - whi ch used no such di r ect l y t ar get ed,

negat i ve l anguage at al l - - di d not . And Ri dl ey suppor t s t he

concl usi on t hat t he MBTA' s r el i ance on such a l i ngui st i c

di st i nct i on does not const i t ut e vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on.

I n Ri dl ey, we consi der ed t he MBTA' s t r eatment of t hr ee

adver t i sement s submi t t ed by a r epr esent at i ve of t he Chur ch wi t h t he

Good News, a r el i gi ous group. See 390 F. 3d at 73- 75. The MBTA

-27-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


accept ed t he f i r st t wo. I d. at 73- 74. The MBTA f ound t hat t he

t hi r d, however , vi ol at ed t he demeani ng or di spar agi ng gui del i ne.

I d. at 74- 75. The MBTA' s r eason f or i t s deci si on was si mi l ar t o

t he r eason t he MBTA r el i es on her e. See i d.

The r el i gi ous group' s f i r st advert i sement , whi ch t he MBTA

accept ed, r ead as f ol l ows:

Chr i st i ans i n t he Bi bl e never obser ved ' Chr i st mas'nei t her di d t hey bel i eve i n l i es about Sant a Cl aus,f l yi ng r ei ndeer el ves and dr unken par t i es. How can youhonor J esus wi t h l i es? pr ophet - andr e. com.

I d. at 73.

Good News t hen made a second submi ssi on. The MBTA

i ni t i al l y r ej ected i t , but t hen ul t i mat el y accept ed af t er

pr omul gat i ng new gui del i nes. I d. at 74. Thi s second adver t i sement

st at ed:

The Bi bl e says i n Rev 12: 9 ' And Sat an whi ch decei vet h t hewhol e wor l d. ' Yes, Sat an set up over a t housand f al se

r el i gi ons i n t he wor l d causi ng war s, r aci smand hat r ed i nt he wor l d. Ther e i s onl y one t r ue r el i gi on. Al l t her est ar e f al se. www. pr ophet - andr e. com. "

I d.

Good News t hen submi t t ed a f i nal adver t i sement . I d. The

MBTA ul t i mat el y r ej ect ed t hi s one. I d. at 74- 75. That f i nal

adver t i sement r ead as f ol l ows:

The Bi bl e t eaches t hat t here i s onl y one r el i gi on. Ther ear e no scr i pt ur es i n t he Bi bl e t hat t each t hat God set upt he Cat hol i c rel i gi on, t he Bapt i st r el i gi on, t hePent ecost al r el i gi on, t he J ehovah' s Wi t ness r el i gi on ort he Musl i m r el i gi on. These r el i gi ons ar e f al se. TheBi bl e says i n Revel at i on 9: 12, ' And Sat an, whi chdecei vet h t he whol e wor l d. ' The whol e wor l d i s goi ng t o

-28-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


hel l i f t hey do not t ur n f r om t hei r ungodl y ways. Godsent Prophet Andr e i nt o t hi s wor l d t o t each t he peopl et he Truth. www. prophet andre. com.

I d.

We uphel d t he MBTA' s r ej ect i on of t he thi r d adver t i sement

agai nst a char ge of vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on. See i d. at 92. We

expl ai ned t hat t he MBTA had not based i t s j udgment t o ref use t o run

t hi s ad - - and t o agr ee t o r un t he ot her s - - on a pr ef er ence f or

one vi ew over anot her . See i d. I nst ead, we concl uded t hat t he

MBTA based i t s deci si on on the rel at i ve di r ect ness and har shness of

t he host i l e char act er i zat i ons wi t h whi ch t he r espect i ve submi ssi ons

t ar get ed i ndi vi dual s or gr oups. See i d.

The f i r st adver t i sement mer el y "quest i oned t he

waywar dness of t oday' s Chr i st i ans, " and the second "i ssued a

condemnat i on of ot her r el i gi ons" gener al l y. I d. But t he t hi r d

submi ssi on, we expl ai ned, "went a vi t r i ol i c f ur t her st ep. " I d.

Speci f i cal l y, t he thi r d Good News adver t i sement "di r ect l y demeaned

a number of r el i gi ons" - - many of whi ch "ar e l i kel y t o be t he

shar ed r el i gi ons of a number of t he MBTA r i der s" - - "by cal l i ng

t hemf al se" and, mor e poi nt edl y, t el l i ng t hei r r espect i ve adher ent s

t hat "t hey ar e ' goi ng t o hel l . ' " I d.

Her e, t oo, t he MBTA concl uded t hat t he AFDI ' s f i r st and

t hi r d ads went a "vi t r i ol i c f ur t her st ep. " Nei t her adver t i sement

goes qui t e so f ar as t he l ast Good News submi ssi on i n cal l i ng out

i t s i nt ended t ar get s by name. But bot h of AFDI ' s r ej ect ed ver si ons

-29-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


do pl ai nl y equat e wi t h "t he savage" t hose who ar e I sr ael ' s enemy i n

"war " and who pr act i ce "j i had" or "vi ol ent j i had. " I n t hat

r espect , AFDI ' s r ej ect ed adver t i sement s are mor e t ar get ed t han

ei t her of t he t wo accept ed Good News ads. And, of cour se, t o

descr i be an opponent as not onl y unci vi l i zed but savage i s t o

di spar age or demean t hat opponent i n t erms not unl i ke t hose used i n

t he t hi r d Good News ad. See Oxf ord Engl i sh Di ct i onary ( 3d ed.

2012) ( def i ni ng t he t er m "savage" as meani ng, among other t hi ngs,

" [ a] per son l i vi ng i n a wi l d st at e; a member of a peopl e r egar ded

as pr i mi t i ve and unci vi l i zed" and "a cruel and br ut al per son") ;

Amer i can Her i t age Di ct i onary of t he Engl i sh Language ( 5t h ed. 2014)

( def i ni ng "savage" as "a member of a peopl e regarded as pr i mi t i ve,

unci vi l i zed, br ut al , or f i er ce") .

AFDI r esponds as f ol l ows. I t not es t hat numer ous l egal

def i ni t i ons of t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement ' s oper at i ve

t er m - - " r ef ugee" - - r equi r e t hat one ei t her have been or wi l l be

per secut ed i n or der t o f al l wi t hi n i t s ambi t . See, e. g. , 8 U. S. C.

§ 1101( a) ( 42) ( def i ni ng " r ef ugee" as one who i s unabl e t o r et ur n t o

one' s nat i onal homel and "because of per secut i on or a wel l - f ounded

f ear of per secut i on on account of r ace, r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y,

member shi p i n a par t i cul ar soci al gr oup, or pol i t i cal opi ni on") ;

Uni t ed Nat i ons Convent i on Rel at i ng t o t he St at us of Ref ugees, J ul y

28, 1951, 189 U. N. T. S. 137, 152 ( si mi l ar ) . AFDI ar gues t hat t hi s

adver t i sement t hus i n ef f ect l abel s I sr ael a per secut or . And f or

-30-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


t hat r eason, AFDI ar gues, t hi s adver t i sement i s as di spar agi ng or

demeani ng as AFDI ' s r ej ect ed submi ssi ons.

But t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement , i n cal l i ng

Pal est i ni ans " r ef ugees, " does not l abel anyone as a per secut or .

Nei t her t he word "per secut or" nor any reasonabl y synonymous host i l e

l abel i s used at al l . And t he f act t hat t he adver t i sement cal l s

Pal est i ni ans " r ef ugees" - - however of f ensi ve or i naccur at e a

suppor t er of I sr ael mi ght f i nd t he use of t hat l abel - - does not

change t hat si mpl e f act . Thus, t he MBTA has i dent i f i ed a

di st i nct i on t hat i s unr el at ed t o t he vi ewpoi nt t he ads expr ess and

i nst ead r el at es di r ect l y t o t he gui del i ne' s pur pose: t o screen out

cont ent t hat i s demeani ng or di spar agi ng.

Consi st ent wi t h t he concl usi on t hat t hi s l i ngui st i c f ocus

i s not vi ewpoi nt based, we not e that t he MBTA di d accept t he second

AFDI adver t i sement . The MBTA di d so even t hough t hat second AFDI

ad, l i ke AFDI ' s f i r st and t hi r d ones, pl ai nl y conveyed a vi ewpoi nt

di st i nct f r om t he one t hat i s conveyed by t he Commi t t ee f or Peace

adver t i sement . And t he MBTA di d so because i t det ermi ned, on t he

basi s of t he l anguage used r ather t han t he vi ew advanced, t hat t he

second AFDI adver t i sement l acked the demeani ng or di sparagi ng

l anguage t hat t he gui del i ne pr ohi bi t s. For al t hough t he second

AFDI adver t i sement i s no doubt cr i t i cal of cer t ai n per sons or

gr oups, i t used t he epi t het "savage" onl y t o char act er i ze t he

nat ur e of cer t ai n act s, not t o descr i be t he per pet r at or s of t hose

-31-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


act s. That i s, t he second AFDI adver t i sement , t hough cr i t i cal , di d

not di r ect l y deni gr at e anyone.

I n t hi s r espect , t he MBTA consi st ent l y appl i ed t he

gui del i ne i n each of t hese cases. The MBTA f ocused each t i me on

t he di r ect ness of t he host i l e l anguage used t o descr i be gr oups or

i ndi vi dual s. And t he MBTA mai nt ai ned t hat f ocus i n appl yi ng t he

gui del i ne bot h t o messages of f er ed i n suppor t of I sr ael and t o one

advanced t o pr omot e t he Pal est i ni an cause. Such consi st ent

appl i cat i on i s at odds wi t h t he cont ent i on that t he MBTA engaged i n

vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on. 5 See Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 82 ( "The

bedr ock pr i nci pl e of vi ewpoi nt neut r al i t y demands t hat t he st at e

not suppr ess speech wher e t he r eal r at i onal e f or t he r est r i ct i on i s

di sagr eement wi t h t he under l yi ng i deol ogy or per spect i ve t hat t he

speech expr esses. " ) ; see al so McGui r e v. Rei l l y, 386 F. 3d 45, 62

( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "The essence of a vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m

i s t hat t he government has pref err ed t he message of one speaker

over anot her . ") .

5 We not e i n thi s r egard that t he MBTA accept ed not onl yAFDI ' s second ver si on of i t s ad, but al so an adver t i sement f r om a"pro- I sr ael " or gani zat i on cal l ed "StandWi t hUs. com" t hat pur por t s t odi r ect l y r ebut t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement . The St and

Wi t h Us adver t i sement cont ai ns t hr ee maps of t he Mi ddl e East , t hef i r st depi ct i ng "3000 year s ago, " t he second 1920, and t he t hi r d" t oday. " The maps vi sual l y cont r ast t he si zes of , on t he one hand,t he "Anci ent J ewi sh Ki ngdom" of 3000 years ago and t he " J ewi shHomel and" of 1920 wi t h, on t he ot her , t he "St at e of I sr ael , " t hel at t er of whi ch i s depi ct ed as bei ng f ar smal l er t han ei t her of t hef ormer .

-32-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


AFDI does ar gue t hat i t s second adver t i sement i s not

near l y as ef f ect i ve at conveyi ng AFDI ' s message as t he two rej ect ed

adver t i sement s woul d have been. And t hat may wel l be t r ue. But as

we have expl ai ned, t here i s no evi dence that t he MBTA bar r ed AFDI ' s

f i r st and t hi r d adver t i sement s because of t he vi ewpoi nt t hey

expr essed. Thus, t he f act t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he demeani ng or

di spar agi ng gui del i ne pr event ed AFDI f r omput t i ng f or t h i t s message

t hrough a mor e ef f ect i ve means does not show t hat t he MBTA wi shed

t o di sf avor AFDI ' s poi nt of vi ew. That consequence i s mer el y an

i nci dent al ef f ect of t he MBTA' s appl i cat i on of t he gener al gr ound

r ul e agai nst t he use of demeani ng or di spar agi ng l anguage t o

i ndi vi dual or gr oups. And because, as Ri dl ey hel d, t hat gr ound

r ul e does not i t sel f f avor any par t i cul ar vi ewpoi nt , nei t her does

i t s neut r al appl i cat i on. See Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 82 ( "The essence

of vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on i s not t hat t he gover nment i nci dent al l y

pr event s cer t ai n vi ewpoi nt s f r om bei ng hear d i n t he cour se of

suppr essi ng cer t ai n gener al t opi cs of speech, r at her , i t i s a

gover nment al i nt ent t o i nt er vene i n a way t hat pr ef er s one

par t i cul ar vi ewpoi nt i n speech over ot her per spect i ves on t he same

topi c. " ) .

For t hese r easons, we concl ude t hat , al t hough t he MBTA

accept ed t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement , t he MBTA di d not

engage i n vi ewpoi nt di scri mi nat i on i n r ej ect i ng AFDI ' s f i r st and

t hi r d submi ssi ons.

-33-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


B.

That l eaves one l ast i ssue. AFDI ar gues t hat t he MBTA

f ai l ed t o appl y t he demeani ng or di spar agi ng gui del i ne i n a way

t hat i s " r easonabl e i n l i ght of t he pur pose ser ved by t he f or um. "

I d. at 93 ( quot i ng Cor nel i us, 473 U. S. at 806) . That i s because,

AFDI cont ends, t he di st i nct i ons t he MBTA dr ew between AFDI ' s

adver t i sement s - - whi ch, AFDI says, t ur ned si mpl y on whet her t he

t er m "savage" was used as a noun or an adj ect i ve - - do not

r easonabl y advance any pur pose t hat t he MBTA' s gui del i ne may

l egi t i mat el y ser ve.

To suppor t t hat ar gument , AFDI once agai n f ocuses ( at

l east i n par t ) on t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement . AFDI

poi nt s out t hat even t hough t hat ad pr ovoked st r ongl y negat i ve

r eact i ons f r ommany member s of t he publ i c, t he MBTA st i l l per mi t t ed

t he ad t o r un. By cont r ast , AFDI ar gues, t he MBTA r ej ect ed t he

f i r st and t hi r d AFDI ads. The MBTA di d so, AFDI ar gues, on t he

basi s of unr easonabl e specul at i on - - namel y, t hat t he shi f t f r om

t he use of "savage" as an adj ect i ve i n AFDI ' s second ad t o t he use

of "savage" as a noun i n t he f i r st and t hi r d ver si ons woul d pr ovoke

concern among t he MBTA' s cust omers. AFDI cont ends t hat

noun/ adj ect i ve di st i nct i on i s " pat ent l y unr easonabl e" gi ven t hat

t he MBTA' s st at ed r at i onal e f or t he demeani ng or di spar agi ng

gui del i ne r el at es t o t he i nt er est i n pr omot i ng r i der shi p. I n

AFDI ' s vi ew, i t i s si mpl y not r easonabl e t o bel i eve t hat r i der s

-34-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


woul d be more l i kel y t o be t r oubl ed by t he message conveyed by t he

t wo rej ect ed AFDI ads t han by ei t her t he accept ed AFDI ad or t he

Commi t t ee f or Peace ad.

I n eval uat i ng t hat ar gument , we st ar t wi t h t he f act t hat

Ri dl ey hel d t hat t he di spar agi ng or demeani ng gui del i ne does

r easonabl y ser ve t he pur poses of t he t r ansi t aut hor i t y i n

est abl i shi ng t he nonpubl i c f or um. I d. at 93. The gui del i ne does

so, Ri dl ey expl ai ned, because a t r ansi t aut hor i t y may r easonabl y

concl ude t hat di spar agi ng or demeani ng adver t i sement s are

especi al l y i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he mi ssi on of oper at i ng buses,

t r ai ns, and t r ansi t st at i ons f or t he benef i t of t he publ i c. I d.

The harshness and t ar geted nat ure of ads cont ai ni ng such l anguage

makes t hem di f f er ent - - and, at l east one coul d r easonabl y

concl ude, mor e concer ni ng - - t han ot her ads. And t hat i ncl udes ads

t hat do not cont ai n such l anguage but may t hemsel ves pr ovoke

i nt ense di sagr eement or even cause of f ense. See i d. at 92- 93.

Thus, t he quest i on we must f ocus on i n conduct i ng our

r easonabl eness r evi ew i s r el at i vel y narr ow. We must det er mi ne

whet her t he MBTA acted r easonabl y i n concl udi ng t hat t he rej ect ed

adver t i sement s ( and not t he accept ed ones) f al l wi t hi n t hat

especi al l y denomi nat ed cat egory of pr ohi bi t ed adver t i sement s - - a

cat egor y, we emphasi ze, t hat cut s acr oss al l adver t i sement s, no

mat t er t he vi ewpoi nt t hey expr ess.

-35-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


I n eval uat i ng t he r easonabl eness of t he MBTA' s deci si on

t hat AFDI ' s f i r st and t hi r d submi ssi ons f al l wi t hi n t hat pr ohi bi t ed

cat egory (and t hat AFDI ' s second ver si on and t he Commi t t ee f or

Peace ad do not ) , we ar e mi ndf ul t hat " t here can be more t han one

r easonabl e deci si on, and an act i on need not be t he most r easonabl e

deci si on possi bl e i n or der t o be r easonabl e. " I d. at 90. And

gi ven t hi s r el at i vel y gener ous st andar d, we concl ude t hat , al t hough

t he i ssue i s cl ose, t he MBTA has r easonabl y appl i ed t he gui del i ne

i n a manner t hat advances i t s pur pose.

I n r ej ect i ng AFDI ' s as- appl i ed vi ewpoi nt di scri mi nat i on

chal l enge, we expl ai ned why t he Commi t t ee f or Peace ad di f f er s f r om

t he f i r st and t hi r d AFDI ads al ong t he di mensi on t hat t he gui del i ne

makes rel evant . The Commi t t ee f or Peace ad makes no use of

l anguage t hat di r ect l y ascri bes a host i l e char act er i zat i on t o

anyone. I t s cri t i ci smi s i mpl i ci t and i ndi r ect , even i f some mi ght

i nf er t hat t he host i l e t er m "per secut or " was i nt ended. By

cont r ast , AFDI ' s f i r st and t hi r d adver t i sement s, by usi ng t he wor d

"savage" t o descri be cer t ai n of I sr ael ' s enemi es, went "a vi t r i ol i c

f ur t her st ep. " See i d. at 93. Thus, t he MBTA coul d r easonabl y

concl ude t hat t he f i r st and t hi r d ads wer e di spar agi ng and

demeani ng whi l e t he Commi t t ee f or Peace ad was not .

That same di st i nct i on al so expl ai ns why t he MBTA coul d

r easonabl y di st i ngui sh t he use of "savage" i n t he f i r st and t hi r d

AFDI ads f r om t he use of "savage" i n t he second AFDI ad. That

-36-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


second ad si mpl y di d not use t he di r ect l y di spar agi ng or demeani ng

noun "savage" t o descr i be one si de of a debate. The t wo r ej ect ed

ads, by cont r ast , di d. Those ads used t he word "savage" t o

descr i be not j ust cer t ai n t ypes of act i ons, as t he second AFDI ad

di d i n descr i bi ng cer t ai n act s as "savage. " Those ads i nst ead used

t he word "savage" t o character i ze t he natur e of t hose who ar e

r esponsi bl e f or t hose act s - - namel y t hose engaged i n a war agai nst

I srael .

And whi l e nei t her of AFDI ' s r ej ect ed submi ssi ons di r ect l y

st at es t hat t hose wi t h whom I sr ael i s at "war " ar e "savages, " we

cannot say t he ads' subt l et y i n t hat one regard makes t he MBTA' s

deci si on t o r ej ect t hem unr easonabl e. I n cont ext , t he t ar get of

t he oppr obr i um was f ocused. The ads ai med at t hose who pr act i ce

j i had or vi ol ent j i had i n t he "war " agai nst I sr ael , a f ocus t hat

r easonabl y l ed t he MBTA t o i dent i f y t he ads as t ar get ed at t hat

count r y' s Musl i m and Pal est i ni an enemi es i n par t i cul ar . By

cont r ast , t he Commi t t ee f or Peace ad di d not use any di r ect ,

vi t r i ol i c descr i pt or , whi l e t he second AFDI ad used one onl y to

descr i be act s and not any i ndi vi dual or gr oup. Thus, j ust as we

f ound i n Ri dl ey that t he MBTA coul d r easonabl y di scern mater i al

di st i nct i ons among the t hr ee Good News ads i n the st r i dency and

t ar get ed nat ur e of t he l anguage used, see i d. at 92- 93, so, t oo,

here.

-37-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


Whet her t hese l i ngui st i c and gr ammat i cal di st i nct i ons

r ef l ect di st i nct i ons i n subst ance t hat woul d be meani ngf ul t o t he

publ i c i s, of cour se, har d t o know. Nor i s i t cl ear t hat t hese

di st i nct i ons act ual l y ref l ect di f f er ences i n t he messages t hat t he

adver t i sement s' sponsor s i nt ended t o communi cate. Nor i s i t even

cl ear t hat t he MBTA has proper l y i dent i f i ed t he i nt ended obj ect of

t he harsh l anguage AFDI used i n the rej ect ed ads.

But an admi ni st r at i ve r ul e of t hi s sor t i s, i n

appl i cat i on, sur e t o pr esent cl ose cases about i t s par amet er s. And

such a r ul e i s sur e as wel l t o r equi r e i n some cases some caref ul

parsi ng of t he l anguage and meani ng of t he speech t he r ul e

r est r i ct s. Our revi ew, however , i s onl y f or reasonabl eness. We

t hus decl i ne AFDI ' s i nvi t at i on, i n such a bor der l i ne case, t o

under t ake such r evi ew i n a manner t hat woul d ef f ect i vel y t r ansf er

t o t he f eder al j udi ci ar y t he det ai l ed and case- speci f i c appl i cat i on

of a f aci al l y const i t ut i onal publ i c tr ansi t aut hor i t y adver t i s i ng

gui del i ne. We ar e especi al l y di si ncl i ned t o do so when r evi ewi ng

a deni al of a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, gi ven t hat AFDI may st i l l

pr ess i t s const i t ut i onal chal l enge on a mor e devel oped r ecor d. Cf .

Syndi cat o Puer t or i queño, 699 F. 3d at 10 ( pl ai nt i f f s seeki ng

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on must "est abl i sh a ' st r ong l i kel i hood' t hat

t hey wi l l ul t i mat el y pr evai l " on t he mer i t s ( quot i ng Respect Me.

PAC, 622 F. 3d at 15) ) .

-38-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


We t hus concl ude t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he gui del i ne t o

t he adver t i sement s at i ssue her e was not j ust vi ewpoi nt neut r al .

We al so concl ude t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he gui del i ne was

r easonabl e i n l i ght of t he val i d pur poses Ri dl ey hel d t hat t he

gui del i ne ser ves. 6

VI.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he j udgment s of t he Di st r i ct

Cour t i n MBTA I and MBTA I I are affirmed .

-Opinion Concurring In Part And Dissenting In Part Follows-

6 We not e t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s mai n r eason f or denyi ngpr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ve r el i ef as t o AFDI ' s t hi r d ad was t hat AFDIhad supposedl y act ed i n bad f ai t h and engaged i n gamesmanshi p byal t er i ng t he second adver t i sement and t hen submi t t i ng t he t hi r dver si on. We need not r esol ve whet her t hi s gr ound f or denyi ng t her equest ed r el i ef was per mi ssi bl e, because we af f i r m t he Di st r i ctCour t on ot her grounds. But we do not e t hat t he MBTA hadest abl i shed a mechani sm f or t he submi ssi on of r evi sed

adver t i sement s t hat had been pr evi ousl y r ej ect ed. I n submi t t i ngt he t hi r d adver t i sement , t her ef or e, AFDI was usi ng t hat pr ocess t opr obe t he par amet er s of t he gover nment ' s speech r est r i ct i on i nor der t o vi ndi cat e i t s i nt er est i n r unni ng t he most ef f ect i veadver t i sement possi bl e. And, i n r esponse, t he MBTA di d notconcl ude t hat AFDI had f or f ei t ed i t s r i ght t o r ecei ve f ur t hergui dance. I nst ead, t he MBTA appl i ed t he gui del i ne once agai n.

- 39-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


STAHL, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting

in part. I concur i n par t because I r ecogni ze t hat Ri dl ey v.


2004) , cont r ol s Par t s I I I and I V of t he maj or i t y' s anal ysi s. I

r espect t hat t he l aw of t he ci r cui t doct r i ne di ct at es t he out come

of t he f or um quest i on and t he f aci al val i di t y of t he gui del i ne at

i ssue. I wr i t e separ at el y t o expr ess my opi ni on t hat Ri dl ey was

wr ongl y deci ded. By openi ng up i t s adver t i si ng f aci l i t i es t o

cont r over si al t opi cs of t he gr avest pol i t i cal i ssues of our day,

t he MBTA has cr eated a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um f or speech, not a

nonpubl i c f or um. I di ssent f r om Par t V of t he maj or i t y opi ni on

because even under t he more f orgi vi ng st andar d mandat ed by Ri dl ey,

t he MBTA engaged i n vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on and act ed unr easonabl y

when i t r ej ect ed AFDI ' s t hi r d adver t i sement .

I t goes wi t hout sayi ng t hat di scussi ons of t he I sr ael i -

Pal est i ni an conf l i ct and I sr ael ' s r ol e i n t he Mi ddl e East have

become ever mor e cont ent i ous, heat ed, and of t en vi t r i ol i c. I n

enact i ng t he Bi l l of Ri ght s, t he f r amer s r ecogni zed t hat vi gor ous

debate on mat t er s of publ i c concer n was necessary and desi r abl e i n

a f unct i oni ng Republ i c. The Fi r st Amendment not onl y pr otect s each

speaker ' s abi l i t y t o of f er hi s or her per spect i ve on f r act i ous

i ssues wi t hout f ear of gover nment muzzl i ng, but af f i r mat i vel y

encour ages such r obust argument i n t he publ i c spher e. E. g. , Red

Li on Br oad. Co. v. F. C. C. , 395 U. S. 367, 390 ( 1969) ( "I t i s t he

- 40-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


pur pose of t he Fi r st Amendment t o pr eserve an uni nhi bi t ed

mar ket pl ace of i deas . . . r at her t han t o count enance

monopol i zat i on of t hat mar ket . . . . ") . I ndeed, "[ s] peech on

mat t er s of publ i c concer n . . . i s at t he hear t of t he Fi r st

Amendment ' s pr otect i on. " Snyder v. Phel ps, 131 S. Ct . 1207, 1215

( 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Thus, f r omt he begi nni ng, t he gover nment has been l i mi t ed

i n i t s abi l i t y t o r estr i ct speech i n t r adi t i onal publ i c f or a such

as si dewal ks and par ks, whi ch ser ve a r ol e as "si t es f or di scussi on

and debat e" and "venues f or t he exchange of i deas. " McCul l en v.

Coakl ey, 134 S. Ct . 2518, 2529 ( 2014) . That sai d, t he Fi r st

Amendment does not r equi r e gover nment al ent i t i es t o al l ow al l

mat t er and manner of speech on gover nment - owned proper t y. E. g. ,

I nt ' l Soc' y f or Kr i shna Consci ousness, I nc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672,

678 ( 1992) . For exampl e, i n Lehman v. Ci t y of Shaker Hei ght s, a

pl ur al i t y of t he Supr eme Cour t concl uded t hat a publ i c t r ansi t

syst em whi ch opened i t sel f up t o commer ci al adver t i sement s had

cr eat ed a nonpubl i c f or um i n whi ch i t coul d choose not t o accept a

pol i t i cal candi dat e' s campai gn adver t i si ng. 418 U. S. 298, 304

( 1974) . Lehman noted t hat t he Shaker Hei ght s t r ansi t syst em' s

adver t i s i ng pol i cy expl i ci t l y f or bade "pol i t i cal adver t i s i ng. " I d.

at 299. The syst em consi st ent l y enf or ced t hat pol i cy: i n t went y-

si x years of oper at i on, t he t r ansi t syst emhad accept ed commer ci al

adver t i si ng, adver t i si ng f r omchur ches, and adver t i si ng f r om"ci vi c

- 41-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


and publ i c- servi ce or i ent ed gr oups, " but had never "accept ed or

per mi t t ed any pol i t i cal or publ i c i ssue adver t i si ng. " I d. at

300–01.

Fol l owi ng Lehman, some of our si st er ci r cui t s have deemed

publ i c t r ansi t adver t i si ng f aci l i t i es nonpubl i c f or a wher e t he

t r ansi t aut hor i t y' s pol i cy l i mi t s adver t i s i ng f aci l i t i es t o

commer ci al speech, and/ or t he aut hor i t y had consi st ent l y r ej ect ed

non- commer ci al submi ssi ons t hat addr essed pol i t i cal or ci vi c

i ssues. Am. FreedomDef . I ni t i at i ve v. Subur ban Mobi l i t y Aut h. f or

Reg' l Transp. ( SMART) , 698 F. 3d 885, 890–92 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012)

( f i ndi ng t hat Mi chi gan publ i c bus syst em est abl i shed a nonpubl i c

f or um wher e SMART' s wr i t t en pol i cy "banned pol i t i cal

adver t i sement s, speech t hat i s t he hal l mar k of a publ i c f or um" and

"r est r i ct [ ed] t he t ype of cont ent t hat nonpol i t i cal adver t i ser s

[ coul d] di spl ay") ; Chi l dr en of t he Rosar y v. Ci t y of Phoeni x, 154

F. 3d 972, 978 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) ( Whi t e, J . ) ( f i ndi ng a nonpubl i c

f or um wher e t he ci t y "consi st ent l y pr omul gat e[ d] and enf or ce[ d]

pol i ci es r est r i ct i ng adver t i si ng on i t s buses t o commer ci al

adver t i si ng") ; Lebr on v. Nat ' l R. R. Passenger Cor p. ( Amt r ak) , 69

F. 3d 650, 656 ( 2d Ci r . 1995) ( hol di ng t hat a l ar ge bi l l boar d i n New

Yor k Ci t y' s Pennsyl vani a St at i on const i t ut ed a nonpubl i c f or um

wher e Amt r ak had "never opened [ t he adver t i si ng f aci l i t y] f or

anythi ng except pur el y commer ci al adver t i si ng" ) .

- 42-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


By cont r ast , ot her ci r cui t s have consi der ed cont r over si al

adver t i sement s i n t he cont ext of publ i c t r anspor t at i on syst ems and

r i ght l y concl uded t hat when publ i c t r ansi t f aci l i t i es open

t hemsel ves up t o a var i et y of non- commer ci al speech, t hose

f aci l i t i es become desi gnat ed publ i c f or a f or member s of t he publ i c

t o opi ne, di scuss, and comment upon t he ci vi c and pol i t i cal i ssues

of t he day. Uni t ed Food & Commerci al Workers Uni on, Local 1099 v.

Sw. Ohi o Reg' l Tr ansi t Aut h. , 163 F. 3d 341, 355 ( 6t h Ci r . 1998) ;

Chr i st ' s Br i de Mi ni st r i es, I nc. v. Se. Pa. Tr ansp. Aut h. , 148 F. 3d

242, 252 ( 3d Ci r . 1998) ; N. Y. Magazi ne v. Met r o. Tr ansp. Aut h. , 136

F. 3d 123, 130 ( 2d Ci r . 1998) ; Pl anned Par ent hood Ass' n/ Chi . Ar ea v.

Chi . Tr ansi t Aut h. , 767 F. 2d 1225, 1232- 33 ( 7t h Ci r . 1985) ; Lebr on

v. Wash. Met r o. Ar ea Tr ansi t Aut h. , 749 F. 2d 893, 896 ( D. C. Ci r .

1984) ; see al so Di Lor et o v. Downey Uni f i ed Sch. Di st . Bd. of Educ. ,

196 F. 3d 958, 966 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) ( observi ng t hat "wher e t he

gover nment hi st or i cal l y has accept ed a wi de var i et y of adver t i si ng

on commerci al and non- commerci al subj ect s, cour t s have f ound t hat

adver t i si ng pr ogr ams on publ i c pr oper t y wer e publ i c f or a" ) . Thus,

i n Uni t ed Food, a Si xt h Ci r cui t case, t he st at e agency oper at i ng

t r ansi t ser vi ce i n Ci nci nnat i ( known by the acr onym SORTA) sol d

adver t i si ng space on i t s buses and bus shel t er s. 163 F. 3d at 346.

The agency' s adver t i si ng pol i cy expl i ci t l y excl uded submi ssi ons

wi t h "cont r over si al publ i c i ssues t hat may adver sel y af f ect SORTA' s

abi l i t y to at t r act and mai nt ai n r i der shi p" and r equi r ed al l post ed

- 43-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


adver t i sement s t o be "aest het i cal l y pl easi ng. " I d. SORTA accept ed

"a wi de var i et y of adver t i sement s . . . i ncl udi ng publ i c- ser vi ce,

publ i c- i ssue, and pol i t i cal adver t i sement s i n addi t i on t o

t r adi t i onal commer ci al adver t i sement s, " i d. , but r ej ect ed t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s pr o- uni on adver t i sement as "aest het i cal l y unpl easant

and cont r over si al " i n vi ol at i on of t he pol i cy, i d. at 347. Whi l e

acknowl edgi ng t hat SORTA had consi st ent l y appl i ed i t s pol i cy i n t he

past , i d. at 353, t he Si xt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat SORTA never t hel ess

had desi gnat ed i t s adver t i si ng space a publ i c f or um by "accept i ng

a wi de ar r ay of pol i t i cal and publ i c- i ssue speech, " i d. at 355.

"Accept ance of pol i t i cal and publ i c i ssue adver t i sement s, whi ch by

t hei r ver y nat ur e gener at e conf l i ct , si gnal s a wi l l i ngness on t he

part of t he gover nment t o open t he pr oper t y t o cont r over si al

speech, whi ch t he [ Supreme Cour t ] i n Lehman r ecogni zed as

i nconsi st ent wi t h oper at i ng t he pr oper t y sol el y as a commer ci al

venue. " I d. ( ci t i ng Lehman, 418 U. S. at 303–04) . The Second

Ci r cui t si mi l ar l y obser ved i n New Yor k Magazi ne, "[ a] l l owi ng

pol i t i cal speech . . . evi dences a gener al i nt ent t o open a space

f or di scour se, and a del i ber at e accept ance of t he possi bi l i t y of

cl ashes of opi ni on and cont r over sy t hat t he Cour t i n Lehman

r ecogni zed as i nconsi st ent wi t h sound commer ci al pr act i ce. " 136

F. 3d at 130; see al so Pl anned Par ent hood Ass' n/ Chi . Ar ea, 767 F. 2d

at 1233 ( hol di ng t hat Chi cago t r ansi t adver t i si ng f aci l i t i es was a

publ i c f or um and not i ng t hat wher e def endant "has accept ed

- 44-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


pol i t i cal and publ i c- i ssue adver t i si ng. . . . Lehman i s not

cont r ol l i ng" ) ; but see Seat t l e Mi deast Awar eness Campai gn v. Ki ng

Count y ( "SeaMAC") , ___ F. 3d ___, Nos. 11- 35914, 11- 35931, 2015 WL

1219330, at *6 (9t h Ci r . Mar . 18, 2015) ( hol di ng, over di ssent ,

t hat bus adver t i si ng pr ogr am creat ed a l i mi t ed publ i c f or um even

wher e i t accept ed pol i t i cal speech) .

The maj or i t y opi nes t hat Ri dl ey had t he oppor t uni t y t o

consi der al most al l of t hese cases and ul t i mat el y chose t o concl ude

t hat each was "di st i ngui shabl e on i t s f act s. " Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at

80. Ri dl ey al so pr ocl ai med t hat t he MBTA' s adver t i si ng pr ogr amwas

"i ndi st i ngui shabl e" f r om t he one descr i bed i n Lehman, i d. at 78,

appar ent l y i gnor i ng t he f act t hat t he Shaker Hei ght s adver t i si ng

pr ogr am i n Lehman had never accept ed any pol i t i cal or publ i c i ssue

adver t i si ng, 418 U. S. at 300–01; see al so Lehman v. Ci t y of Shaker

Hei ght s, 296 N. E. 2d 683, 684 ( Ohi o 1973) ( not i ng t hat t he ci t y "has

not opened up i t s t r ansi t vehi cl es t o any exchange or pr esent at i on

of i deas, pol i t i cal or ot her wi se") .

I am i n di sagr eement wi t h t he Ri dl ey deci si on, and woul d

have hel d t hat t he MBTA, by openi ng i t s adver t i si ng f aci l i t i es t o

al l f or ms of publ i c di scour se, creat ed a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um

aki n t o t he f or a di scussed i n Uni t ed Food, Chr i st ' s Br i de, New Yor k

Magazi ne, and Pl anned Parent hood Associ at i on/ Chi cago Ar ea, and

di st i ngui shabl e f r om t he vi r t ual l y commer ci al - onl y f or a addr essed

i n Lehman, Chi l dr en of t he Rosar y, and Lebr on v. Amt r ak. I nst ead,

- 45-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


r el yi ng on t he MBTA' s sel f - ser vi ng decl ar at i ons, Ri dl ey concl uded

t hat t he aut hor i t y' s pol i cy evi denced an i nt ent "not t o open i t s

adver t i si ng space t o al l per sons and or gani zat i ons f or publ i c

di ssemi nat i on of t hei r vi ews on al l t opi cs wi t hout l i mi t at i on" and

t hat i t s enf or cement of t he gui del i nes " f ur t her show[ ed] t hat i t

i nt ended not t o cr eate such a f orum. " 390 F. 3d at 78.

I n or der t o cr eat e a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um, t he

gover nment al ent i t y need not accept ever y speaker and al l t opi cs.

I ndeed, a f orum can become publ i c where the government by i t s

act i ons has desi gnat ed t he f or um "f or use by t he publ i c at l ar ge

f or assembl y and speech, f or use by cer t ai n speaker s, or f or t he

di scussi on of cer t ai n subj ect s" i n or der t o "open [ t he non-

t r adi t i onal publ i c f or um] t o assembl y and debat e. " Cor nel i us v.

NAACP Legal Def . & Educ. Fund, I nc. , 473 U. S. 788, 802 ( 1985)

( emphasi s added) ; see al so I nt ' l Soc' y f or Kr i shna Consci ousness,

505 U. S. at 678 ( descr i bi ng a desi gnated publ i c f orum, "whet her of

a l i mi t ed or unl i mi t ed char act er , " as " pr oper t y that t he St at e has

opened up f or expr essi ve act i vi t y by par t or al l of t he publ i c") .

An agency or government al ent i t y, l i ke t he MBTA, may

cr eat e a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um even wher e i t does not al l ow

cer t ai n cat egor i es of speech t o par t i ci pat e i n i t s adver t i si ng

pr ogr am, such as adver t i sement s f or matur e vi deo games or al cohol i c

pr oduct s. Cf . N. Y. Magazi ne, 136 F. 3d at 129–30. A gui del i nes'

ban on pol i t i cal campai gn ads does not make t he adver t i si ng

- 46-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


r el yi ng pr i mar i l y on " t he gover nment ' s def i ned pur pose f or t he

pr oper t y" r at her t han on "t he act ual , physi cal char act er i st i cs and

uses of t he pr oper t y, " t he mode of f orum anal ysi s embr aced i n

Ri dl ey "l eaves t he gover nment wi t h al most unl i mi t ed aut hor i t y t o

r est r i ct speech on i t s pr oper t y by doi ng not hi ng mor e t han

ar t i cul at i ng a nonspeech- r el at ed pur pose f or t he ar ea. " I nt ' l

Soc' y f or Kr i shna Consci ousness, I nc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672, 695

( 1992) ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment s) . Bui l di ng a

const i t ut i onal f r amewor k ar ound a cat egor y as r i gi d as "t r adi t i onal

publ i c f or um" l eaves cour t s i l l - equi pped t o pr ot ect Fi r st Amendment

expr essi on " i n t i mes of f ast - changi ng t echnol ogy and i ncr easi ng

i nsul ar i t y. " I d. at 697–98 ( obser vi ng t hat "our f ai l ur e t o

r ecogni ze t he possi bi l i t y that new t ypes of gover nment pr oper t y may

be appr opr i at e f or ums f or speech wi l l l ead t o a ser i ous cur t ai l ment

of our expr essi ve act i vi t y") .

Ri dl ey exempl i f i es J ust i ce Kennedy' s concer ns, i n t hat

i t s anal ysi s r el i ed heavi l y on t he MBTA' s at t empt s t o cont r ol

speech on i t s pr oper t y t hr ough i t s adver t i si ng gui del i nes, 390 F. 3d

at 76- 82, but onl y cur sor i l y exami ned t he f or um' s char act er i st i cs

and compat i bi l i t y wi t h expr essi ve act i vi t y, i d. at 77. By doi ng

so, t he Ri dl ey maj or i t y i gnor ed t he i ndi sput abl e f act t hat , l i ke an

ai r por t , a publ i c t r ansi t system i s "one of t he f ew

government - owned spaces wher e many persons have ext ensi ve cont act

wi t h ot her member s of t he publ i c. " I nt ' l Soc' y f or Kr i shna

- 48-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


Consci ousness, 505 U. S. at 698 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng i n t he

j udgments) . Such uni que sui t abi l i t y f or open di scour se between

ci t i zens i s i ndi cat i ve of a publ i c, r at her t han a pr i vat e, f or um.

Cf . McCul l en, 134 S. Ct . at 2529 ( obser vi ng t hat publ i c st r eet s

" r emai n one of t he f ew pl aces where a speaker can be conf i dent t hat

he i s not si mpl y pr eachi ng t o t he choi r " because members of t he

publ i c cannot avoi d "uncomf or t abl e message[ s] , " whi ch t he Fi r st

Amendment r egards as " a vi r t ue, not a vi ce" ) .

Never t hel ess, r ecogni zi ng t hat Ri dl ey cont r ol s t he f or um

anal ysi s i n t hi s appeal , I concur wi t h Par t I I I of t he maj or i t y' s

opi ni on. Bound by t he l aw of t he ci r cui t , I al so j oi n Par t I V of

t he maj or i t y' s opi ni on, acknowl edgi ng t hat t he "demeani ng and

di spar agi ng" gui del i ne at i ssue her e cont ai ns t he same l anguage as

t he gui del i ne deemed f aci al l y val i d by Ri dl ey, even t hough I agr ee

wi t h t he Ri dl ey di ssent t hat t he gui del i ne and i t s i nvocat i on of

"pr evai l i ng communi t y st andar ds" per mi t s " subj ect i ve, ad hoc

det er mi nat i ons about speech t hat appear s cont r over si al because i t

endor ses a mi nor i t y vi ewpoi nt . " Ri dl ey, 390 at 98 ( Tor r uel l a, J . ,

concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) ; cf . SeaMAC, 2015 WL

1219330, at *8 ( obser vi ng t hat a t r ansi t aut hor i t y' s excl usi on of

adver t i sement s i t deems "obj ect i onabl e under cont emporary communi t y

st andar ds, " st andi ng al one, "woul d be too vague and subj ect i ve t o

be const i t ut i onal l y appl i ed") ; Pl anned Par ent hood Ass' n/ Chi . Ar ea,

767 F. 2d at 1230 ( quest i oni ng whet her "a regul at i on of speech t hat

- 49-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


has as i t s t ouchst one a gover nment of f i ci al ' s subj ect i ve vi ew t hat

t he speech i s ' cont r over si al ' coul d ever pass const i t ut i onal

must er " ) .

But I depar t wi t h t he maj or i t y opi ni on at Par t V, because

even i f t he adver t i si ng f aci l i t i es at i ssue const i t ut ed a nonpubl i c

f or um, t he MBTA' s r ej ect i on of Adver t i sement I I I was nei t her

vi ewpoi nt neut r al nor r easonabl e. I n par t i cul ar , I di sagr ee wi t h

t he maj or i t y that t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement "does not

l abel anyone as a per secut or . " To t he cont r ar y, t he adver t i sement

al l but decl ar es t hat t he I sr ael i nat i on- st at e i s t he per secut i ng

ent i t y responsi bl e f or t he supposed Pal est i ni an r ef ugee cri si s.

The ad depi ct s f our maps, l abel ed "Pal est i ni an Loss of Land - - 1946

t o 2010. " The f i r st map, capt i oned "1946, " depi ct s par t of t he

r egi on t hen cont r ol l ed by t he Br i t i sh under t he Br i t i sh Mandat e f or

Pal est i ne, l abel i ng t hat area "Pal est i ne. " The next t hr ee maps

pl ace t he word " I sr ael " i n t he same f ont and i n t he same pl ace as

"Pal est i ne" i s l ocat ed i n t he f i r st map. Over t he cour se of t he

next t hr ee maps, t he amount of l and l abel ed " I sr ael " i ncr eases as

t he gr een sect i on - - denot ed i n t he key as r epr esent i ng

"Pal est i ni an l and" - - shr i nks. I f I sr ael , and by ext ensi on t he

J ewi sh peopl e, ar e not f i nger ed as persecut or s by t he ad, who,

exact l y, i s t he ad t ar get i ng as r esponsi bl e f or di spl aci ng 4. 7

mi l l i on Pal est i ni ans? Whi l e t he maj or i t y br ushes of f t he cri t i ci sm

as mer el y " i mpl i ci t and i ndi r ect , " a reasonabl e r i der of t he MBTA

- 50-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


woul d f i nd t he message qui t e cl ear : I sr ael i s t ook over Pal est i ni an

l and, t her eby di spl aci ng Pal est i ni ans and creat i ng a r ef ugee cr i si s

i n t he mi l l i ons. The char act er i zat i on i s not onl y i naccur at e7 but

ar guabl y demeani ng and di spar agi ng of t he I sr ael i peopl e i n

vi ol at i on of t he MBTA' s own gui del i ne. Whi l e Commi t t ee f or Peace

mi ght not use t he t er m" per secut or , " i t i s a shor t i nf er ent i al st ep

t o r each t hat i nt er pr et at i on, i n t he same way t hat t he vi ewer of

AFDI ' s f i r st submi t t ed adver t i sement must j uxt apose "ci vi l i zed man"

and "savage, " and t hen i nf er f r om AFDI ' s cal l t o "suppor t I sr ael "

and "def eat j i had" t hat t he ad i s set t i ng up I sr ael as t he

ci vi l i zed man, and t he j i hadi st as t he savage. The r eader must

t ake an addi t i onal i nf er ent i al l eap t o concl ude, as t he MBTA does,

t hat "savage" r ef er s not j ust t o j i hadi s but t o Musl i ms gener al l y.

By accept i ng t he Commi t t ee f or Peace adver t i sement but not AFDI ' s

7 I not e t hat t hi s number i s i naccur at e and mi sl eadi ng. TheUni t ed Nat i ons Rel i ef and Wor ks Agency f or Pal est i ni an Ref ugees i nt he Near East ( UNRWA) est i mat es t hat t here were 750, 000 i ndi vi dual sdesi gnat ed as r ef ugees i n 1950 as a r esul t of t he conf l i ct bet ween1946 and 1948. The 4. 7 mi l l i on number and si mi l ar est i mat es denot et he descendant s of t hese ref ugees who ar e cur r ent l y el i gi bl e t or egi st er f or UNRWA ser vi ces. See Palestine Refugees, UNI TED NATI ONS

RELI EF & WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTI NI AN REFUGEES I N THE NEAR EAST,ht t p: / / www. unr wa. or g/ pal est i ne- r ef ugees, ( l ast vi si t ed Mar . 24,2015) ( est i mat i ng t hat " [ t ] oday, some 5 mi l l i on Pal est i ne r ef ugeesar e el i gi bl e f or UNRWA ser vi ces" ) ; UNI TED NATI ONS RELI EF & WORKS AGENCY

FOR PALESTI NI AN REFUGEES I N THE NEAR EAST, CONSOLI DATED ELI GI BI LI TY ANDREGI STRA T I ON I NST RUCTI ONS , at 3, ava i l abl e atht t p: / / uni spal . un. or g/ pdf s/ UNRWA- CERi . pdf ( l ast vi si t ed Mar . 24,2015) ( set t i ng out cr i t er i a f or el i gi bi l i t y t o r egi ster ) . A r i derof t he MBTA vi ewi ng t he Commi t t ee f or Peace Ad may come away wi t ht he er r oneous i mpr essi on t hat t he pr ocl amat i on of t he nat i on- st at eof I sr ael i n 1948 di spl aced 4. 7 mi l l i on peopl e.

- 51-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


submi ssi on, t he MBTA al l owed i t s r i der s access t o one per spect i ve

on t he I sr ael i - Pal est i ni an conf l i ct , whi l e denyi ng t hemexposur e t o

AFDI ' s per spect i ve. 8 I n cont r ast , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t r ecent l y f ound

no evi dence of vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on wher e Seat t l e' s t r ansi t

pr ogr am wi t hdr ew accept ance of an ant i - I sr ael bus post er "as par t

of a si ngl e, bl anket deci si on t o r ej ect al l submi t t ed ads on t he

8 Not abl y, mul t i pl e di st r i ct cour t s have awar ded pr el i mi nar yi nj uncti ve r el i ef i n si mi l ar f actual ci r cumst ances, al bei t undert he st r i ct scrut i ny st andar d di ct at ed by f i ndi ng t hat a t r ansi t

adver t i si ng pr ogr amconst i t ut es a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um. Two of t hese cases i nvol ved t he exact AFDI ad at i ssue her e. Am. Fr eedomDef . I ni t i at i ve v. Wash. Met r o. Ar ea Tr ans. Aut h. , 898 F. Supp. 2d73, 83 ( D. D. C. 2012) ( f i ndi ng a l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t swher e WMATA f ai l ed to use t he l east r est r i ct i ve means of assur i ngpubl i c saf et y, whi ch mi ght be t hr eat ened by di spl ayi ng AFDI ' s"support t he ci vi l i zed man" ad i n the subway syst em) ; Am. Fr eedomDef . I ni t i at i ve v. Met r o. Tr ansp. Aut h. , 880 F. Supp. 2d 456,476–77 ( S. D. N. Y. 2012) ( f i ndi ng t he MTA' s gui del i ne bar r i ngadver t i sement s deemed "demeani ng on t he basi s of . . . r el i gi on" - -used t o j ust i f y r ej ect i on of AFDI ' s "ci vi l i zed man" submi ssi on - -i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Fi r st Amendment ) . The East er n Di st r i ct of

Mi chi gan r ej ect ed a ci t y' s r ef usal t o accept an ant i - I sr ael ad i tdeemed vi ol at i ve of t he t r ansi t aut hor i t y' s gui del i ne t hat al ladver t i sement s be " i n good t ast e" and not "def ame[ ] or . . . hol dup t o scorn or r i di cul e a per son or gr oup of per sons. " Col eman v.Ann Ar bor Transp. Aut h. , 904 F. Supp. 2d 670, 697 ( E. D. Mi ch.2012) . Most r ecent l y, t he East er n Di st r i ct of Pennsyl vani a gr ant edAFDI ' s mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on compel l i ng di spl ay of anadver t i sement demandi ng an end t o "al l [ U. S. ] ai d t o I sl ami ccount r i es" under t he sl ogan "I sl ami c J ew- Hat r ed: I t ' s i n t he Qur an"and next t o a pi ct ur e of Adol f Hi t l er and "hi s st aunchest al l y, t hel eader of t he Musl i m wor l d, Haj Ami n Al - Hussei ni . " Am. FreedomDef . I ni t i at i ve ( "AFDI ") v. Se. Pa. Tr ansp. Aut h. ( "SEPTA") , - - F.

Supp. 3d - - , 2015 WL 1065391, at *1 ( E. D. Pa. Mar . 11, 2015) . Thecour t concl uded t hat SEPTA' s " ant i - di spar agement " gui del i ne was acont ent - based and vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat or y rest r i ct i on on speech.I d. at *9–10. Whi l e not i ng t hat t he gui del i ne "was a pr i nci pl edat t empt t o l i mi t hur t f ul , di spar agi ng adver t i sement s, " t he di st r i ctcour t r i ght l y concl uded t hat such "l audabl e . . . aspi r at i ons donot , unf or t unat el y, cur e Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i ons. " I d. at *12.

- 52-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


I sr ael i - Pal est i ni an conf l i ct . " SeaMAC, 2015 WL 1219330, at *10.

The Seat t l e aut hor i t y' s adver t i si ng pol i cy prohi bi t ed adver t i si ng

whi ch "may f or eseeabl y r esul t i n har m t o, di sr upt i on of , or

i nt er f er ence wi t h t he t r anspor t at i on syst em. " I d. at *9. Not i ng

t hat t he t r ansi t syst em had r ecei ved numer ous cr edi bl e t hr eat s i n

r esponse to a news r epor t t hat i t had appr oved an ad cr i t i ci zi ng

"I sr ael i War Cr i mes, " t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t concl uded t hat t he syst em

r easonabl y appl i ed i t s pol i cy by "si mul t aneousl y rej ect [ i ng] al l

pendi ng ads on t he I sr ael i - Pal est i ni an conf l i ct " due t o t he "t hr eat

of di sr upt i on posed t o t he t r ansi t syst em" and r i der saf et y. I d.

The syst em t hen " r evi sed i t s adver t i si ng pol i cy t o excl ude al l

pol i t i cal or i deol ogi cal ads f r om t hat poi nt f or war d. " I d. at *3.

I n cont r ast , t he MBTA' s i ncongr uous deci si on t o post t he

Commi t t ee f or Peace ad, but r ej ect AFDI ' s submi ssi ons, at t he ver y

l east , r ai ses t he spect er of vi ewpoi nt di scr i mi nat i on by t he MBTA.

As we have sai d i n the past , "gr ave damage i s done i f t he

gover nment , i n r egul at i ng access t o publ i c pr oper t y, even appear s

t o be di scr i mi nat i ng i n an unconst i t ut i onal f ashi on. " AI DS Act i on

Comm. of Mass. , I nc. v. Mass. Bay Transp. Aut h. , 42 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) . Admi t t edl y, t he MBTA her e of f er s i t s "demeani ng and

di spar agi ng" pol i cy as a neut r al j ust i f i cat i on f or t he di f f er ence

i n t r eat ment - - somet hi ng i t coul d not do i n AI DS Act i on. But even

a neut r al pol i cy, i f i t cr eat es "oppor t uni t i es f or di scr i mi nat i on

- 53-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


. . . [ t hat ] have been bor ne out i n pr act i ce, " i d. , cannot sur vi ve

under t he Fi r st Amendment .

Fur t her mor e, even i f one accept s t he maj or i t y' s

concl usi on i n Par t V. A t hat t he MBTA appl i ed i t s pr ohi bi t i on on

demeani ng and di spar agi ng adver t i sement s i n a vi ewpoi nt - neut r al

manner , I woul d r everse because t he MBTA act ed unr easonabl y i n

r ej ect i ng t he t hi r d AFDI ad. Thi s adver t i sement di f f er ed f r om t he

f i r st adver t i sement i n t hat i t nar r owed the scope of t he condemned

pr acti ce f r om "j i had" ( a t er m whi ch coul d r ef er br oadl y t o an

i ndi vi dual Musl i m' s i nt er nal spi r i t ual st r uggl e) t o "vi ol ent j i had"

( a phr ase whi ch can onl y be r ead t o ref er t o ter r or i st pr act i ces

r oundl y denounced as ext r emi st by bot h Musl i ms and non- Musl i ms) .

Thi s change cl ar i f i ed t hat t he ad denounced not al l adher ents of

j i had as "savages, " but i nst ead proponents of vi ol ent j i had.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he "most r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on" of AFDI ' s f i r st ad, whi ch r ef er r ed t o j i had

gener al l y, was t hat AFDI "oppose[ s] act s of I sl ami c t er r or i sm

di r ect ed at I sr ael , " but concl uded t hat i t was never t hel ess

"pl ausi bl e f or t he [ MBTA] t o concl ude t hat [ AFDI ' s f i r st ad]

demeans or di spar ages Musl i ms or Pal est i ni ans. " Am. Fr eedom Def .

I ni t i at i ve v. Mass. Bay Tr ansp. Aut h. , 989 F. Supp. 2d 182, 188–89

( D. Mass. 2013) . I acknowl edge t hat " an act i on need not be t he

most r easonabl e deci si on possi bl e i n or der t o be r easonabl e, "

Ri dl ey, 390 F. 3d at 90, and t hus agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t and

- 54-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


t he maj or i t y t hat t he MBTA' s deni al of t he f i r st ad coul d be

const r ued as r easonabl e and t hus pass must er i n a nonpubl i c f orum.

Not so wi t h t he t hi r d adver t i sement , whi ch expl i ci t l y

advocat es f or t he def eat of "vi ol ent j i had, " and not "j i had" i n

gener al . The onl y r easonabl e r eadi ng of "savage" i n t he cont ext of

def eat i ng "vi ol ent j i had" i s a r ef er ence t o a cat egor y of

i ndi vi dual s engaged i n an ext r emi st campai gn charact er i zed by

bl oodshed and t err or . The MBTA' s accept ance of t he second ad,

whi ch j uxt aposed the ci vi l i zed man wi t h "t hose engaged i n savage

act s, " demonst r at es t hat t he t r ansi t aut hor i t y does not f i nd i t

demeani ng or di spar agi ng t o decr y an i ndi vi dual ' s vi ol ent act i ons.

Why t hen i s i t demeani ng to descr i be t hat same i ndi vi dual , engaged

i n savage act s wi t h vi ol ence as hi s goal , as a savage? The Fi r st

Amendment pr otect s and encour ages f ul l - t hr oat ed debate, not onl y

sani t i zed and di l ut ed di scussi on. 9

Per haps t he l ogi cal end t o t he MBTA' s " demeani ng or

di spar agi ng" gui del i ne i s t o f or bi d condemnat i on of any i ndi vi dual

9 The maj or i t y does not r each t he mer i t s of t he di st r i ctcour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat AFDI submi t t ed t he t hi r d ad i n bad f ai t h. SeeAm. Freedom Def . I ni t i at i ve v. Mass. Bay Tr ansp. Aut h. , No.1: 14- cv- 10292- NMG, 2014 WL 1093138, at *3 ( D. Mass. Mar . 17, 2014) .However , t he maj or i t y r i ght l y not es t hat AFDI ' s submi ssi on of t het hi r d ad af t er t he MBTA' s accept ance of i t s second ad mer el y

i ndi cat ed AFDI ' s desi r e t o "pr obe t he par amet er s of t hegover nment ' s speech r est r i ct i on i n or der t o vi ndi cat e i t s i nt er esti n r unni ng t he most ef f ect i ve adver t i sement possi bl e. " Ant e, at 39n. 6. For t hose r easons, I woul d hol d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s badf ai t h f i ndi ng amount s t o cl ear er r or , and t hus does not barequi t abl e r el i ef wher e AFDI demonst r at ed a l i kel i hood of success ont he mer i t s of i t s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m.

- 55-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


or gr oup, even i f t hat i ndi vi dual or gr oup' s act i ons ar e gener al l y

r egarded as wor t hy of denouncement . But at oral argument , MBTA' s

counsel st at ed t hat t he gui del i ne woul d not pr ohi bi t t he post i ng of

an adver t i sement mal i gni ng an i ndi vi dual t hat soci et y commonl y

accept s as wor t hy of deni gr at i on, such as Adol f Hi t l er . Such an

answer bet r ays t he unr easonabl eness and vi ewpoi nt - based nat ur e of

t he deci si on her e.

As t he Supreme Cour t has r epeat edl y emphasi zed,

t he f act t hat soci et y may f i nd speechof f ensi ve i s not a suf f i ci ent r eason f orsuppr essi ng i t . I ndeed, i f i t i s t hespeaker ' s opi ni on t hat gi ves of f ense, t hatconsequence i s a r eason f or accor di ng i tconst i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on. For i t i s acent r al t enet of t he Fi r st Amendment t hat t hegovernment must r emai n neut r al i n t hemarket pl ace of i deas.

F. C. C. v. Paci f i ca Found. , 438 U. S. 726, 745–46 ( 1978) . Thi s

cent r al t enet may appear t o l ead to "ver bal t umul t , di scor d, and

even of f ensi ve ut t er ance, " but i f "t he ai r may at t i mes seemf i l l ed

wi t h ver bal cacophony[ , t hat ] i s . . . not a si gn of weakness but

a st r engt h. " Cohen v. Cal i f or ni a, 403 U. S. 15, 25 ( 1971) .

The MBTA seeks t o maxi mi ze t he f i nanci al r et urns i t can

r ecei ve f r om t he use of i t s f aci l i t i es f or adver t i s i ng. Havi ng

accept ed vi r t ual l y al l adver t i sement s wi t h an eye t owar d f i l l i ng

i t s cof f er s, t he MBTA' s at t empt t o then l i mi t submi t t ed speech

whi ch some of f i ci al s deem unaccept abl e i s vi ol at i ve of t he Fi r st

Amendment . For t he r easons st ated above, I concur wi t h Par t s I I I

- 56-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


and I V of t he maj or i t y' s anal ysi s, and r espect f ul l y di ssent f r om

Par t V.

- 57-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


APPENDIX

Committee for Peace ad

AFDI's first submission

-58-

7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


7/26/2019 AFDI v. MBTA, 1st Cir. (2015)


StandWithUs.com ad

afdi v. mbta, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents