Victory: City Agrees to Cease Unconstitutional Treatment of Religious Free Speech | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

City's Unconstitutional Treatment of Religious Speech

By Carly F. Gammill1523026800000

Like many local governments, the City of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, tries to assist citizens in publicizing upcoming community events. Grand Rapids does this through its Readerboard, a large electronic marquee on which nonprofit organizations may advertise their activities, subject to certain restrictions. Among these restrictions, as one local Christian organization discovered, however, was an outright prohibition against any ads that contained religious content. Believing this type of government policy to be unlawful, the organization reached out to the ACLJ for help, and we are pleased to be able to report that our efforts on behalf of the group have been a success.

After submitting its request to post about an upcoming concert it was hosting, the organization received correspondence from the Readerboard team explaining that the posting violated the Readerboard Policy’s provision prohibiting religious content. The City apparently believed that the Constitution required such a prohibition by government entities.

In our letter to the City, we explained that when it comes to religious content, there is a crucial distinction between government speech and private speech. Because the Readerboard Policy created a forum for private speech by local citizens, the City is actually prohibited from rejecting a proposed Readerboard ad on the basis of its religious content. This provision of the Policy, we explained, results in viewpoint discrimination against private speech, which the First Amendment forbids.

We also noticed that the Policy suffered from another constitutional flaw by giving the Readerboard Manager unfettered discretion to deny any proposed posting for any reason at all, with no recourse to appeal that decision. As we pointed out to the City, this type of provision constitutes a prior restraint against speech, allowing the government to silence private speech before it ever occurs without any guidelines to constrain the decisionmaker. Even if such policies are not actually used in a discriminatory manner, the Supreme Court has made clear that they are unconstitutional because they leave the door wide open for such treatment.

To ensure that our client, and other religious organizations, would not suffer further discrimination, we asked that the City remove the offending provisions from the Readerboard Policy and that it treat religious nonprofit organizations in the community in the same manner as it treats nonreligous groups for purposes of posting on the Readerboard.

To its credit, the City has agreed to cease application of these provisions and is working with its other Readerboard partners to amend the Policy permanently, including the removal of these unconstitutional provisions. Our client, along with other religious organizations in the Grand Rapids area, is now free to advertise events in the same manner as other nonreligious organizations are permitted to do so, consistent with the clear requirements of the First Amendment.

Latest in
Free Speech

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary to Subpoena Twitter CEO Over Censorship

By Jordan Sekulow1602798084449

The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over censorship. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live , we discussed the Senate Judiciary Committee announcing its intentions to subpoena the Twitter CEO over censorship of conservatives and even the press and to hold a hearing next...

read more

The Johnson Amendment’s Continued Impediment to the Church

By Mark Goldfeder1600960199483

The Johnson Amendment is the controversial provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from participating or intervening in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” As it relates to churches and other...

read more

Big Tech Censorship and Bias – What Do We Do About It?

By Craig Parshall1591794000000

On May 28th, 2020 President Donald Trump released his Executive Order (“EO”) titled, “Preventing Online Censorship.” In releasing the full text of the EO, mainstream media outlets like NBC news were quick to criticize the Presidential order, characterizing it as just a “response to Twitter,” which...

read more

Leftist Doxing of Conservatives and the First Amendment

By Laura Hernandez1570115343105

Last week, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an amicus brief in two related cases, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) v. Becerra. Both cases began in California when the Attorney General required all charities to submit lists of...

read more