| abstract | - The government speech doctrine, in American Constitutional Law, serves effectively to constrain the First Amendment rights of individuals. The doctrine says that the government need not maintain viewpoint neutrality in its own speech, broadly defined. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration need not present alternative viewpoints on the benignity of marijuana, but may unequivocally propound its own viewpoint on marijuana's perniciousness. On its face, the government speech doctrine is unobjectionable, as it is difficult to imagine how a government could accomplish many goals without adopting definite stances on issues. However, when applied in First Amendment cases, the doctrine can be highly controversial. This is because courts often must decide whether a governmental action that prevents an individual from expressing his or her viewpoint is better seen as unconstitutional suppression of individuals' speech in a forum or unbounded government speech. A concrete example of such controversial application of the government speech doctrine is Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 228 F.3d 1003 (9th. Cir. 2000). In Downs, the Ninth Circuit upheld a school board's denial to a faculty member of the right to post anti-homosexual material on a high school bulletin board celebrating Gay and Lesbian Awareness Month. The court based its decision on its finding that the bulletin board was not a First-Amendment protected forum, but rather completely discretionary government speech. As another example, public broadcasting is generally considered government speech, stifling potential First Amendment claims based on unequal, viewpoint-based access to air. See, e.g., Muir v. Alabama Educ. Television Comm'n, 688 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1982).
|
