There are multiple issues. My focus has been on the First Amendment. The executive orders raise serious free speech/press issues.
But the lawsuits the stations have filed raise separation of powers claims as well. Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse. I think it would be a mistake for it not to fund the educational and other programming for these stations, but it could make that choice.
You are way off base in including the moves to "defund" PBS and NPR as an attack on the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not require taxpayers to fund so-called public media in the first instance. The pro-Democratic Party bias of both of these institutions is well documented. I object to being forced to pay to propagandize myself. That's the issue. It is not a First Amendment issue.
There’s another First Amendment principle that also applies: government can’t retaliate against speakers based on their protected expression. Again, the Administration has left itself open to such claims.
There are other considerations at play here that were not present in the cases you reference. NPR and PBS broadcast on the PUBLIC airwaves, per the Communications Act of 1934. And because they broadcast on the public airwaves, they are supposed to provide fair opportunities for listeners to hear a variety of viewpoints under the Fairness Doctrine. I realize that the Fairness Doctrine has become essentially a dead letter due to decades of non-enforcement, but I think that the underlying principle still merits defense. I don't know whether the Trump administration has or will cite to the Doctrine, but it should be considered.
Still, to make sure I understand your argument correctly, I gather that you would have no objection if Congress decided to pull the plug on funding NPR and PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Your objection is that it is the executive branch that is trying to pull the plug, and it cannot do so on the basis of viewpoint (or maybe at all). Is that correct? If so, I see greater merit to it.
Thanks for reading. The government has a lot of leeway when it comes to deciding what to fund. But one thing the Supreme Court has consistently held is that it cannot withhold funding based on the speaker’s viewpoint. This, the Court struck down a public university’s policy not to subsidize or fund “religious” publications, treating that as viewpoint discrimination. And it invalidated a federal funding program that barred lawyers from arguing that federal laws were unconstitutional. In both cases the recipients had no right to the subsidy, but in both the Court ruled that discrimination based on expressive viewpoint violated the First Amendment.
The Administration will surely argue, as others have, that it has plenary control over federal funding. But these and other precedents say otherwise. And this Administration is nothing if not transparent about why it is the withdrawing the funding. [Incidentally, taxpayers fund lots of speech they would prefer not to.]
It’s true that if the government was communicating its own message it could decide what to say. But the Administration can’t make that claim here. The stations are not state radio.
There are multiple issues. My focus has been on the First Amendment. The executive orders raise serious free speech/press issues.
But the lawsuits the stations have filed raise separation of powers claims as well. Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse. I think it would be a mistake for it not to fund the educational and other programming for these stations, but it could make that choice.
You are way off base in including the moves to "defund" PBS and NPR as an attack on the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not require taxpayers to fund so-called public media in the first instance. The pro-Democratic Party bias of both of these institutions is well documented. I object to being forced to pay to propagandize myself. That's the issue. It is not a First Amendment issue.
There’s another First Amendment principle that also applies: government can’t retaliate against speakers based on their protected expression. Again, the Administration has left itself open to such claims.
There are other considerations at play here that were not present in the cases you reference. NPR and PBS broadcast on the PUBLIC airwaves, per the Communications Act of 1934. And because they broadcast on the public airwaves, they are supposed to provide fair opportunities for listeners to hear a variety of viewpoints under the Fairness Doctrine. I realize that the Fairness Doctrine has become essentially a dead letter due to decades of non-enforcement, but I think that the underlying principle still merits defense. I don't know whether the Trump administration has or will cite to the Doctrine, but it should be considered.
Still, to make sure I understand your argument correctly, I gather that you would have no objection if Congress decided to pull the plug on funding NPR and PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Your objection is that it is the executive branch that is trying to pull the plug, and it cannot do so on the basis of viewpoint (or maybe at all). Is that correct? If so, I see greater merit to it.
Thanks for reading. The government has a lot of leeway when it comes to deciding what to fund. But one thing the Supreme Court has consistently held is that it cannot withhold funding based on the speaker’s viewpoint. This, the Court struck down a public university’s policy not to subsidize or fund “religious” publications, treating that as viewpoint discrimination. And it invalidated a federal funding program that barred lawyers from arguing that federal laws were unconstitutional. In both cases the recipients had no right to the subsidy, but in both the Court ruled that discrimination based on expressive viewpoint violated the First Amendment.
The Administration will surely argue, as others have, that it has plenary control over federal funding. But these and other precedents say otherwise. And this Administration is nothing if not transparent about why it is the withdrawing the funding. [Incidentally, taxpayers fund lots of speech they would prefer not to.]
It’s true that if the government was communicating its own message it could decide what to say. But the Administration can’t make that claim here. The stations are not state radio.