First Amendment has small victory in Chicago!

[BenIsForRon]

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3177542


Judge Says Chicago Can't Ban Mature Game Ads
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer cites the First Amendment in granting an injunction.
By Steve Watts, 01/08/2010

http://media.1up.com/media?id=3738327&type=lg

CTA GTA4 ads A judge for the Northern District of Illinois has granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), in their case against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) over banned video game advertisements. GamePolitics reports that the injunction was granted by Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, who stated, "the advertisements the CTA wishes to ban promote expression that has constitutional value and implicates core First Amendment concerns."

The injunction is effectively a court order to stop the current ban, though the CTA could still push their case in court. "This ruling is a win for Chicago's citizens, the video game industry and, above all, the First Amendment," said ESA president Michael Gallagher. "It is our hope that the CTA sees the futility of pursuing this case further. To do so will waste taxpayer money and government resources." Given legal precedent that games are protected by the First Amendment, which judge Pallmeyer noted, he's probably correct that continuing in court would ultimately lead to a loss.

The case was sparked early in 2008, when the CTA pulled ads for Grand Theft Auto 4. The CTA transit chief compared it to their policy of not showing ads for X-rated movies, apparently unaware that the M-rating is most comparable to R, and the equivalent of an X-rated movie would be an AO-rated game. Soon after, Take Two filed suit against the transit authority, and more recently the ESA stepped in to the legal fray. If the Chicago Transit Authority chooses not to fight the injunction, this may close the book on this latest game-related legal brawl.

Many people forget the connection here. If the government is allowed to control sales or advertisements of certain video games, then they are censoring the game. Clear first amendment violation.

[erowe1]

So now the CTA is not allowed to decide what ads it doesn't want to have on its own property and that's somehow a victory for the first amendment?

The first amendment recognizes my right to free speech. It doesn't obligate everyone else in the world to sell me ad space on their property as a way of publishing that speech.

I think this does illustrate the tragedy of the commons. If the CTA were a private company then (hopefully) the owners of it would be allowed not to sell ad space to that video game if they didn't want to. Making it a state function creates problems like this. But I don't see it as a 1st amendment issue.

[UCFGavin]

big surprise the transit chief didn't know that an M rated video game was comparable to an R rated move rather than X rated. people so oblivious to whats going on seldom know what they're talking about.

[tremendoustie]

So now the CTA is not allowed to decide what ads it doesn't want to have on its own property and that's somehow a victory for the first amendment?


But, the CTA doesn't really own the property -- it was taken from others, so it doesn't have the rights of a property owner.



The first amendment recognizes my right to free speech. It doesn't obligate everyone else in the world to sell me ad space on their property as a way of publishing that speech.


True.




I think this does illustrate the tragedy of the commons. If the CTA were a private company then (hopefully) the owners of it would be allowed not to sell ad space to that video game if they didn't want to. Making it a state function creates problems like this. But I don't see it as a 1st amendment issue.

I agree 100%, well put. Private ownership reduces conflict -- owners can choose what to allow on their property, and customers can choose to patronize them, or not.

Public property, which is supposedly "owned" by everyone, creates conflict, because the desires off the owners for the property inevitably clash. Both Rockstar employees and social conservatives own the MTA property -- and so inevitably someone's not going to be able to use their property as they choose.

[BenIsForRon]

So now the CTA is not allowed to decide what ads it doesn't want to have on its own property and that's somehow a victory for the first amendment?

The first amendment recognizes my right to free speech. It doesn't obligate everyone else in the world to sell me ad space on their property as a way of publishing that speech.

I think this does illustrate the tragedy of the commons. If the CTA were a private company then (hopefully) the owners of it would be allowed not to sell ad space to that video game if they didn't want to. Making it a state function creates problems like this. But I don't see it as a 1st amendment issue.

I don't think the CTA is a private company. They are part of the Chicago city government, so they should be subject to the first amendment. Its akin in my mind to passing out flyers on the steps of a town hall building. Public property, so you should be allowed to redress your greivances. In the GTA case, you shouldn't be prohibited because someone in the government finds your content offensive.

And the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable, especially in this instance. I understand the need for competition, but you can't have 5 different subway companies carving through Chicago. Either a public entity, or a private entity contracting with the local government are the only ways to go in this situation.

[tremendoustie]

I don't think the CTA is a private company. They are part of the Chicago city government, so they should be subject to the first amendment. Its akin in my mind to passing out flyers on the steps of a town hall building. Public property, so you should be allowed to redress your greivances. In the GTA case, you shouldn't be prohibited because someone in the government finds your content offensive.


You make a good point, but what if they wanted to post outright pornography? I think there is no good solution, which respects the rights of all -- the problem is the public property in the first place.



And the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable, especially in this instance. I understand the need for competition, but you can't have 5 different subway companies carving through Chicago. Either a public entity, or a private entity contracting with the local government are the only ways to go in this situation.

Why not just let the market determine how many subway companies are needed? In other words, let anyone start a subway company who can get the property for rails (or rent the right to use rails), and let people decide which service they want to use, based on quality, convenience, and price?

If multiple companies is an inefficient arrangement, then there will naturally be only one. This does not require a government mandate, or forced funding.

[BenIsForRon]

Why not just let the market determine how many subway companies are needed? In other words, let anyone start a subway company who can get the property for rails (or rent the right to use rails), and let people decide which service they want to use, based on quality, convenience, and price?

If multiple companies is an inefficient arrangement, then there will naturally be only one. This does not require a government mandate, or forced funding.

Due to the limited space in urban settings, you do need a government to decide which land can be used for rail. After that, you have to decide if it will be tax payer funded, or if it will be private with a user fee. I think private is the way to go, but then you have to make sure that the customer is receiving the best possible service. That's why the government must have a contract that comes up for renewal every so often.

Having one private company with permanent rights to the rail leaves the citizens in a compromised position, where they won't have as much control over the quality and price.

[erowe1]

If you're going to have some government owned entity, then that entity has to be able to reserve the right to sell its ad space to whomever it determines based on the discretion of the bureaucrats who run it or policies dictated to them by legislators just as much as a private company does. There are complications because of the tragedy of the commons like I mentioned above. But it has nothing to do with the 2st amendment. The 1st amendment does not )or at least should not) require the government to sell its ad space to everyone who wants to buy it, nor does it (or at least it shouldn't) require the government to let you pass out fliers on its property, which is but another example of the same tragedy of the commons.

[erowe1]

//

[erowe1]

Due to the limited space in urban settings, you do need a government to decide which land can be used for rail.

On the contrary, due to the limited space in urban settings, it's especially important that land for rail be allocated in the most efficient way possible, so as to service the most people with the greatest convenience at the least cost, while at the same time preserving the land that would better be used in other ways for those other uses, which is why it is vital that the government have no say over that land allocation whatsoever. Involving the government is the surest way to have inferior results. Not to mention for the government to do such a thing it would inevitably involve stealing land on its part via eminent domain, and probably stealing money via coercive taxation as well.

[BenIsForRon]

The government should be bound to the bill of rights, and when raising revenue for public transportation, if it favors one business over another due to a bureaucrats personal preference, I believe that is a form of censorship. Any part of government should not be allowed to censor in that way. In other words, advertising is a form of speech.

And how do fliers not fall under "redress of grievances"?

[BenIsForRon]

On the contrary, due to the limited space in urban settings, it's especially important that land for rail be allocated in the most efficient way possible, so as to service the most people with the greatest convenience at the least cost, while at the same time preserving the land that would better be used in other ways for those other uses, which is why it is vital that the government have no say over that land allocation whatsoever. Involving the government is the surest way to have inferior results. Not to mention for the government to do such a thing it would inevitably involve stealing land on its part via eminent domain, and probably stealing money via coercive taxation as well.

Competition would be nearly impossible in such a setting. Once a railway is established, and other property goes to other uses, then you have a monopoly. When the government has the monopoly, on the other hand, decisions can be brought to vote with the representatives or by referendum.

[tremendoustie]

Due to the limited space in urban settings, you do need a government to decide which land can be used for rail.


Don't other people have a right to use their land for rail, if they choose? Don't the people who own the land the government decided on have the right to use their land for something else, if they choose?



After that, you have to decide if it will be tax payer funded, or if it will be private with a user fee. I think private is the way to go, but then you have to make sure that the customer is receiving the best possible service. That's why the government must have a contract that comes up for renewal every so often.


Would the government own the land for the rail? If so, how would they acquire it? If not, on what basis could they kick the rail company off?

How about this: if the customers don't like it, they don't ride it. Another company notices the unnecessarily poor service, buys up the property, starts getting more customers, and turning a greater profit.

Or, the other company starts their own rail.



Having one private company with permanent rights to the rail leaves the citizens in a compromised position, where they won't have as much control over the quality and price.

I think people would have more control if it were private -- if they like it, they'd be free to use, and fund the rail. If they don't, they wouldn't have to. If it's government run, they're going to be forced to pay for the property whether they like the idea or not -- and likely be forced to pay for its maintenance and operation, too, no matter how bad the service is.

[tremendoustie]

Competition would be nearly impossible in such a setting. Once a railway is established, and other property goes to other uses, then you have a monopoly.


There are still other forms of transportation, which will compete. What's more, it's likely that there will be a number of railways established in any town (if the government doesn't build a massive, free to use road system, or mandate that there will only be one rail).

Any new town will naturally develop a number of means for transportation, which will compete with each other.



When the government has the monopoly, on the other hand, decisions can be brought to vote with the representatives or by referendum.

But then the minority is forced to fund what the majority wants. In a free system, each person can vote with their wallet and their feet. If enough people don't like one provider, they'll go bankrupt and be bought out.

[BenIsForRon]

There are still other forms of transportation, which will compete. What's more, it's likely that there will be a number of railways established in any town (if the government doesn't build a massive, free to use road system, or mandate that there will only be one rail).

Any new town will naturally develop a number of means for transportation, which will compete with each other.

Multiple railways? I"m thinking about something that will work in a city block structure. You can't have half the city being taken up with railways and roads. You have to keep it to an efficient minimum. Which is why government exists to establish which areas will be used for what (zoning). At this point, public or private entities can run the system, as long as there checks and balances, but what is important is that there is a sense of direction so that the city doesn't become a mess.



But then the minority is forced to fund what the majority wants. In a free system, each person can vote with their wallet and their feet. If enough people don't like one provider, they'll go bankrupt and be bought out.

I like the idea of a private rail that has a contract with the government that gets reviewed every so often. That way, they are under government regulation, but they collect funds through user fees. People that bike or ride the bus can do their own thing. Point is, there is a demand for rail, and you can't really have multiple rails, so you have to have a government somewhere in there to enable the cohesive system.

[tremendoustie]

Multiple railways? I"m thinking about something that will work in a city block structure. You can't have half the city being taken up with railways and roads.


You won't, because at some point land will become more valuable for residential and commercial use than for yet more roads and rails.

It's a natural balance -- that's what the free market is about.



You have to keep it to an efficient minimum. Which is why government exists to establish which areas will be used for what (zoning).


On what basis do you believe a majority has a right to dictate to a minority what purposes they may use their land for? If a person owns his/her land, do they not have a right to use is as the choose (so long as they don't harm others)?

On what basis do you believe central planning by bureaucrats is superior to the free choices of individuals? History has demonstrated that markets know far better than politicians (or central bankers).



At this point, public or private entities can run the system, as long as there checks and balances, but what is important is that there is a sense of direction so that the city doesn't become a mess.


Order arises naturally, when people are free to exchange goods, services, and property. Central planning leads to imbalances, corruption, and abuse.

Again, how will property be obtained for the rail?



I like the idea of a private rail that has a contract with the government that gets reviewed every so often. That way, they are under government regulation, but they collect funds through user fees. People that bike or ride the bus can do their own thing. Point is, there is a demand for rail,


If the market demands it, that means someone will provide it.



and you can't really have multiple rails,


Why don't we let the market determine that? There have been many places with multiple rails in a single area in the past (... until the tax funded highway system crushed all alternatives).



so you have to have a government somewhere in there to enable the cohesive system.

Why?

[BenIsForRon]

There is not an infinite amount of land. Zoning makes an attempt at making the land work in a town like setting. So if you own five acres in the middle of a city, you can't just build a factory there, because of air, noise, and light pollution. However, you can sell that property to a developer and buy property farther out to do what you want to do. It is the will of the overwhelming majority in this instance, as no one wants to live next to a factory.

Corridors, whether rail, road, or walkway, have to be worked out with private property owners. Once they're there, though, they're there. Property will develop appropriately around the corridors. You can't build anymore corridors now.

Now, the private company that owns the corridors of the area can do whatever they want (rail specifically) because there is no other rail system that can compete. Therefore, I say the best way to go is to contract with the government, and when it expires in a couple years, the government can review whether the company has maintained the property well (quality, affordable, safe transportation).