May 5, 2008 -
Reuters is reporting that Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take Two Interactive is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over the CTA's recent decision to remove ads for the game from its vehicles and facilities.As reported by GamePolitics, the CTA pulled the ads about a week before GTA IV launched. The move followed a sensationalistic Fox News report which seemed to draw a linkage between GTA and a rash of local shootings. From Reuters:
Take Two accused the authority and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor LLC, of violating a $300,000... ad campaign agreement that included running "Grand Theft Auto 4" poster ads on the sides of buses and transit display spaces throughout the Chicago transit system scheduled for six weeks between April and June.
The suit seeks an order for the transit authority to run the ads as well as monetary damages of at least $300,000.
GP: Congrats to Take Two for standing up for its rights. Let's hope they bring the same kind of legal pressure to bear on Miami-Dade Transit as well. There, GP readers will recall, Jack Thompson pushed the agency into removing ads from Miami bus shelters.
Comments
While the Reuters article mentioned freedom of speech, I doubt you can make a case here.
Come on. Why does T2 need to sue for damages above 300k? Just get the money back from the ads not going up and stop there. Settle it fast so WE TAXPAYERS are not shelling out money for lawyer fees. Am I the only one who thinks this is out of line on T2's part?
Again, get the 300k back if they won't run the ads, stop there. Stop costing Chicago commuters and taxpayers money. It has to come from somewhere, everyone seems to forget that when it's all about the righteous (more like sleazy) fight to defend T2.
Well done Take-Two 2! Maybe more will follow suit?
Will he ever pass for a First Amendment Attorney again after that?
IMO the buses suck. I'm more for improved trains and elevated rail infrastructure.
http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080504/NEWS01/80504...
...And then King Richard and the Toddler are going to whine for more money while Emil Jones says he of all people needs and deserves a pay raise. Ain't life in Illinois and C(r)ook County grand?
Perhaps not, but the end result may very well serve the ends of free speech anyway, so it's still significant.
I am so sick of Chicago politics dictating the rest of the state.
Because they have no balls.
Now if only they would get around to getting on JT's case for blatently ignoring his agreement with them more times than i care to remember.
The whole thing's ridiculous.
Are you sure about that? Most transit authorities are creatures of state legislation and are, therefore, quasi-government agencies. If a quasi-government agency refuses to host an advertisement solely because of its content, that could well be in violation of the First Amendment.
Don't get me wrong, I think the whole ad controversy is nothing but nonsense perpetuated by Faux News and self proclaimed culture cops like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Jack Thompson, but freedom of speech doesn't mean right to publication.
However, I am not lawyer, just a schmuck who knows a bit on this, so it's possible I'm wrong, like if Chicago has an ordinance that prohibits this type of discrimination on ads.
In 1993, a US District Judge in Boston ruled that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's "G-rated" advertising policy violated the US Constitution. The advertisements in question dealt with the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. The federal judge stated that a transit service "cannot open its transit car doors to public service advertising and hang only its favorite posters." The judge noted that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority had concurrently accepted advertising for the R-rated movie, Basic Instincts. With respect to "protecting" children from inappropriate advertisements, the judge wrote, "that concern evaporates on examination because shielding children from [the] advertisements is insufficiently compelling to justify the resulting limitation of speech."
And your comparison to Dennis and GP fails because GP is wholly private. Transportation authorities are not private; they are an arm of the government.
PSA or commercial advertising, it doesn't matter. You'll notice that the court took pains to point out commercial (i.e., non-PSA) advertising for an R-rated movie which was also on the MBTA's buses. The same objectionable double-standard applies in this case. The important point is that it was content-based speech regulation by a government entity and that's just a straight-up no-no under the First Amendment.
There was that successful lawsuit against the CTA for not allowing marijuana discussion ads. They won on the grounds of discriminating viewpoint.
I can't find any case that says they have to, even the one you and GP have cited. From the source GP cited:
"As a government agency, they shouldn't have the right to [b]pick and choose what opinions[/b] they allow to be advertised,"
The 1st Circuit found that although the MBTA's advertising guidelines are "viewpoint neutral" and constitutional, its rejection of the three Change the Climate ads was unreasonable and amounted to "viewpoint discrimination."
"
The court did find, however, that the MBTA advertising space does not constitute a public forum, as had been claimed by Change the Climate."
http://www.changetheclimate.org/news/2004/12/2/mbta.php
The issue in the MBTA case was the MBTA not following it's own rules and rejection based solely on viewpoints clashing.
Time to shut Johnny Bruce Thompson's fear mongering efforts down...
"Rejection based solely on viewpoints clashing" is another way of saying "content-based speech regulation."
The 1st Circuit found that although the MBTA’s advertising guidelines are “viewpoint neutral” and constitutional
The court did find, however, that the MBTA advertising space does not constitute a public forum, as had been claimed by Change the Climate.”
"Rejecting [advertising] because [a goverment entity] doesn't like the message" is yet another way of saying "“content-based speech regulation.”
Now let's kick some ass!
Either way, and putting aside the fine details, I'm sure we can agree that the First Amendment is of some relevance to the discussion of a transit authority's ability to refuse advertising based solely on its content. No?
----
Papa Midnight
I'm not sure if you already know this but from what I've seen from your previous comments it raises some doubt. But, if you have then this is for everyone else
The issue isn't on free speech, it's on a violation of a contract. Yes, Chicago Transit DOES have the right to refuse any ads that they don't want to have on their buses, but they had already signed a contract saying that they would have the ads in the designated time. BY taking these down they violated this contract and Take Two has every right to sue them.
Also, Jack claiming "free speech hate" or something stupid in 3, 2....