The First Amendment (Literally) Banned in DC

Four ads rejected by WMATA.

Can the government ban the text of the First Amendment itself on municipal transit ads because free speech is too “political” for public display?

If this sounds like some ridiculous brain teaser, it should. But unfortunately it’s not. It’s a core claim in a lawsuit we filed today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) restrictions on controversial advertising.

The ACLU, ACLU of D.C., and ACLU of Virginia are teaming up to represent a diverse group of plaintiffs whose ads were all branded as too hot for transit: the ACLU itself; Carafem, a health care network that specializes in getting women access to birth control and medication abortion; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Milo Worldwide LLC — the corporate entity of provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

To put it mildly, these plaintiffs have nothing in common politically. But together, they powerfully illustrate the indivisibility of the First Amendment. Our free speech rights rise and fall together — whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above.

Let’s start with the ACLU. Earlier this year, following President Trump’s repeated commentary denigrating journalists and Muslims, the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too — to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.

ACLU Advertisement

The ACLU inquired about placing our ads with WMATA, envisioning an inspirational reminder of our founding texts, with a trilingual twist, in the transit system of the nation’s capital. But it was not to be: Our ad was rejected because WMATA’s advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements “intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions” or “intended to influence public policy.”

You don’t have to be a First Amendment scholar to know that something about that stinks.

Our free speech rights rise and fall together — whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above.

Let’s start with the philosophical argument. WMATA’s view is apparently that the litany of commercial advertisements it routinely displays involve no “issues on which there are varying opinions.” Beyond the obvious Coke-or-Pepsi jokes, there’s a dark assumption in that rule: that we all buy commercial products thoughtlessly. Buy beer! (Don’t think about alcoholism.) Buy a mink coat! (Don’t think about the mink.) That is, WMATA sees “varying opinions” only when they relate to something it recognizes as controversial. And as the Supreme Court recently reminded us, the government violates the First Amendment when it allows only “happy-talk.”

And now to the practical. This is a policy so broad and vague that it permits WMATA to justify the ad hoc exclusion of just about anyone. And the broad set of plaintiffs in this case confirms that.

Despite the fact that Carafem provides only FDA-approved medications, its ad was deemed too controversial because it touched the third rail of abortion. Carafem’s proposed ad read simply: “10-week-after pill. For abortion up to 10 weeks. $450. Fast. Private.” As we at the ACLU know all too well, as states continue to erect draconian barriers to the right to choose, information about and access to abortion care is more critical than ever. Yet Carafem’s ad was apparently rejected simply because some people think otherwise.

Carafem Ad

One of PETA’s intended advertisements depicted a pig with accompanying text reading, “I’m ME, Not MEAT. See the Individual. Go Vegan.” Despite the fact that WMATA routinely displays advertisements that encourage riders to eat animal-based foods, wear clothing made from animals, and attend circus performances, PETA’s side of this public debate was the only one silenced by the government.

Peta ad

WMATA’s advertising agency suggested that with some changes, ACLU and PETA might be able to get their advertisements accepted. Perhaps PETA could remove the “Go Vegan” slogan from its advertisement? But for the ACLU, “You’ll have to dramatically change your creative.” In other words, as long as we don’t try to make anyone think, we might get the right to speak.

That brings us to our final client: Milo Worldwide LLC. Its founder, Milo Yiannopoulos, trades on outrage: He brands feminism a cancer, he believes that transgender individuals have psychological problems, and he has compared Black Lives Matter activists to the KKK. The ACLU condemns many of the values he espouses (and he, of course, condemns many of the values the ACLU espouses).

Milo Worldwide submitted ads that displayed only Mr. Yiannopoulos’s face, an invitation to pre-order his new book, “Dangerous,” and one of four short quotations from different publications: “The most hated man on the Internet” from The Nation; “The ultimate troll” from Fusion; “The Kanye West of Journalism” from Red Alert Politics; and “Internet Supervillain” from Out Magazine. Unlike Mr. Yiannopoulos’ stock-in-trade, the ads themselves were innocuous, and self-evidently not an attempt to influence any opinion other than which book to buy.

Milo Advertisment

WMATA appeared to be okay with that. It accepted the ads and displayed them in Metro stations and subway cars — until riders began to complain about Mr. Yiannopoulos being allowed to advertise his book. Just 10 days after the ads went up, WMATA directed its agents to take them all down and issue a refund — suddenly claiming that the ads violated the same policies it relied on to reject the ads from the ACLU, Carafem, and PETA.

The ideas espoused by each of these four plaintiffs are anathema to someone — as is pretty much every human idea. By rejecting these ads and accepting ads from gambling casinos, military contractors, and internet sex apps, WMATA showed just how subjective its ban is. Even more frightening, however, WMATA’s policy is an attempt to silence anyone who tries to make you think. Any one of these advertisements, had it passed WMATA’s censor, would have been the subject of someone’s outraged call to WMATA.

So, to anyone who’d be outraged to see Mr. Yiannopoulos’ advertisement — please recognize that if he comes down, so do we all. The First Amendment doesn’t, and shouldn’t, tolerate that kind of impoverishment of our public conversation. Not even in the subway.

At the end of the day, it’s a real shame that WMATA didn’t accept the ACLU’s advertisement — the agency could really have used that refresher on the First Amendment.

Add a comment (44)
Read the Terms of Use


WMATA is a government agency, you fucking idiot.


I also have an issue with organizations using words like "ban" when a request for something has been denied. Declining to feature the ad is not "banning" anything.

Ryan Acheson

SFW, it is ABSOLUTELY crucial that the Metro is publically funded vs privately funded. Private companies like TV stations are under no obligation to take someone's money to advertise their product or platform. They can decide which products represent the image their company displays and choose them accordingly. That's completely valid. Just like if I own a venue, I don't have to allow anyone to perform or speak at it.

But that doesn't extend to publically funded things. I hate the troll too. Desperately. Painfully. But if you're publically funded, you don't get to decide who can advertise their books based on their political idealogy. Because to do so is absolutely using public funds (from people alllll across the political spectrum) to stifle one idea over another.

Bad ideas, like the ones the troll puts forwards, die in the marketplace of free speech, because they are bad ideas. It self polices as we see time and again. I am not afraid of him airing his ideas, because I know they will fail to gain traction. Maybe not right away, but sunlight burns.


Thank you for defending our rights and continuing to support the people and places that need your help. You are keeping very busy these days and it's nice to know that someone has our back!


What does the ACLU think about disclaimer requirements on advertising like the NYC subway does? Ads for religious organizations have large black on white text blocks at the bottom saying “This is a paid advertisement sponsored by XXX. The display of this advertisement does not imply MTA’s endorsement of any views expressed.”
Is it a violation of the first amendment to require this disclaimer on some ads but not others (presumably the MTA does not endorse Dr. Zizmore either, but he isn't required to have a disclaimer).


Milo is an advocate of man/boy sex. He is a sex perver--period. Anyone who approves his speech is a damn freak too


And that's your protected opinion. Dummy.


You know you don't need to lie about the man, right? He's pretty clearly said pedophilia is bad.


Milo was the victim of a pederast. He has said he didn't feel victimized, but maybe that is what enables him to cope now. The day it's proven that he's actually engaged as an adult in sexual activity with a minor is the day I'll stop defending him. If he is so in favor of "man/boy" love, how is it that all of his partners have been adults?


Try staying on topic, if you can. I know it's hard for you.


Sign Up for Breaking News