Precedent-Setting Free Speech Case Could Open Government Communications to Public Comment
“At its core, the issue is whether the government can exclude citizens from a public debate paid for with public funds.” – Parents in Charge Foundation
March 11th, 2008, Fairfax, VA – A precedent-setting court case could soon grant taxpayers full and equal access to counter any government communication used to propagate government views.
The March 20th case, Page v. Lexington 1, will be held in Richmond, VA at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involves a South Carolina School District’s refusal to allow plaintiff Randy Page the right to counter the District’s barrage of anti-school choice views in a variety of public forums. A victory for Page would have ramifications for government communications nationwide.
The case stems from a South Carolina State Legislature bill which would have created a school choice tax credit program. The School District used its communications system to oppose the legislation. Upon discovering these messages, Page sought equal access to the District’s informational distribution system, which includes the District’s newsletter. He was denied access, however, by the District’s Director of School/Community Relations on the grounds that his views were in favor of school choice.
Page sued the School District claiming that equal access to all citizens had to be granted in the public forum the District had created. In July 2007 a lower court ruled in the government’s favor, but left the door open for further appeal by acknowledging that the District’s newsletter was a public forum. The court also conceded that Page had been discriminated against based solely on his views.
“The education establishment does not want to give equal time to its political opponents despite the fact that those opponents are taxpayers who paid for that forum in the first place,” Mr. Page said. “Victory in this pending litigation will create a precedent for effectively limiting the ability of school districts across the country to engage in political activism without at least providing the same opportunity for political opponents to present opposing views and information.”
Page’s attorney has noted that there is no question that he was a victim of viewpoint discrimination: “There is no dispute before the court that the District discriminated against Page based solely on his viewpoint in favor of school choice in its denial of his request for access to the public forum it had created. The District has maintained that its communications constitute government speech, allowing it to choose its own message and exclude those who wish to communicate an opposing view.”
As the District Court in South Carolina noted in its partial grant of summary judgment, “[T]he court assumes that if a forum for discussion of the relevant issues was created, [then] Page was denied access based on his viewpoint [emphasis added]… The critical facts, therefore, relate to whether such a forum was created.”
As a result, Page is now confident about the outcome of this case: “Lexington School District One cannot have it both ways. They cannot be allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination by designating methods of communication as government speech when it suits their interests, and also be allowed to designate limited public forums as being off-limits to taxpayers who are not directly affiliated with the PTA or other District-affiliated groups. We have every right to enter these forums as those groups and voice our opinions strongly in favor of school choice. The District Court’s rulings on these issues were duplicitous.”
The Parents in Charge Foundation strongly supports Page’s case, and believes that if Page is allowed to be silenced by the District, the education establishment will continue to use its resources as a means to lobby legislatures and distribute political propaganda against school choice initiatives and any other measures that they perceive as threats to their monopoly power. At its core, the issue is whether the government can exclude citizens from a public debate paid for with public funds.
END
