Lars is advertising his radio show. That's actually a business, and in fact how he makes his living. We don't like it, but it's clearly selling an actual product.

My initial thought was that I love how the ACLU lures you (or me, at least) into making donations by weaving tales of their attorneys fighting the Bush administration's wiretapping or lack of habeus corpus...

but I guess that's just a better pitch than, "We're gonnah sue TriMet so they put ads on their busses."

Thanks, ACLU... but, er, don't bother calling me this year, ok?

I am pretty sure I side with the ACLU on this one. What's the harm in allowing political ads on buses?

Why should we promote commercial speech while discouraging paid political advertising in a public forum? Wouldn't Tri-Met benefit from the ad revenue?

What if a TV station on the public airways banned political ads?

The absence of political speech IS political speech. And wouldn't Pacific Power be able to "advertise" its hydroelectricity under this policy?

The absence of political speech IS political speech. And wouldn't Pacific Power be able to "advertise" its hydroelectricity under this policy?

TriMet, as an entity in business has the right to accept or deny any ads they deem under their business policies. If you were to take the ACLU position to its illogical end, one would demand their bus barns for polital free-speech rallies.

TriMet is a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon. It is a public body. It has broad powers to provide mass transportation on behalf of the district. It can issue general obligation bonds (vote) and revenue bonds.

Another example of how too uptight the ACLU is. Justifying thier jobs over a molehill they have turned into a mountain. Just shows what boredom in your job will do to you.

Now you can see why we have too many uptight and unreasonable people in our society today.

The ACLU really needs to lighten up and persue better avenues of issues and needs to have better judgement when persuing (SP) them. There are bigger and better fish to fry than a bus sign.

TriMet is a government agency. If the government decides to provide a forum for speech, such as the side of a bus, it may not regulate the content of that speech beyond time, place and manner restrictions.

The ACLU is a true gem among organizations. It defends our liberties whether or not the public agrees with the implications of retaining that liberty. That the ACLU takes on vastly unpopular causes, such as the KKK's right to participate in a parade, is the proof of the ACLU's authenticity. The ACLU has become a pillar of our society and the USA would not be the same today without the ACLU. One cannot say that about many organizations.

The ACLU does defend our liberties, but they tend to be extremely overzealous about it - thereby turning reasonable molehills into overbearing mountains. With freedom comes responsibility, but the ACLU has almost sucessfully countermanded the responsibilty part.

In the future, don't be surprised if the ACLU ends up defending someone who yells "Fire" in a over-crowded movie theater only because that person has 'free speech' rights regardless of whether or not there really is a fire.

So Eric I'm confused... Do disagree with the ACLU's position that a Government Agency may not censor the content of speech? Or do you agree but think that some rights simply are not worth protecting?

If the ACLU prevails, maybe we'll see TriMet buses and trains covered top to bottom with images of aborted fetuses as part of a right-to-life campaign. After all, our constitutional rights extend to both ends of the political spectrum.

There is a difference between censorship and reasonable/responsible good judgement.

In the 9th Circuit, Children of the Rosary vs. Phoenix, a 1998 case, means that Tri-Met should prevail over the ACLU, assuming their ban on controversial political ads on buses is politically neutral. The opinion was written by retired Supreme Court Justice Byron White, who filled in on this 9th Circuit case under a little-known, but long-standing custom that allows competent and willing retired Supreme Court Justices to sit on Circuit Court cases.

Urban Planning Lord, don't forget about a challenge under state law. Oregon's free speech protections are perhaps the greatest of any state in the nation.

I usually agree with the ACLU, however TriMet is correct on this one. Public owned busses should not be running around with a one sided political agenda posted on the side of them. Should the ACLU win, then to have equality of free speech, TriMet must also be required to provide equal space for any and all opposing views, possible even free of charge. Free speech should not be limited to just the big environmental forces that can afford to purchase the space. In other words, ratepayers could then advertise individually or collectively on the busses demanding any that dam removal be paid for by the environmental groups and come with a ten percent rate reduction also paid for by the environmental groups. After all, everybody else is getting something financial out of the proposed deal. The ratepayers should too; at the expense of environmental groups.

Add to this the fact that the 'Ad' pertains to an issue that affects Klamath Falls - not Portland. Why is the ACLU even condisidering this Klamath Falls issue on a Portland bus?

If the ACLU wins against TriMet’s policy not to politicize the advertising on their busses, here is the perfect message to appear in an ad on every bus that would read from left to right as follows:

“The passengers on this bus are only paying 20 percent of the bus operating costs”, a big Uncle Sam in the middle with a red white, and blue stove pipe hat pointing directly at the reader and exclaiming to the right ”YOU” in huge letters “the taxpayers are paying the other 80 percent of the costs.”

<hr/>