Right to refuse advertising?
Brenda Mills
I recently set up a business that creates web pages for customers that
want to sell real estate, cars, or personal property. In my
advertising, I recommend that the customer advertise in the local
newspaper using their web site address that I have assigned them . For
example, they may advertise: 4 BR, 3 BA, $200,000, more info at
www.soldfast.com/aa2.html. When you type in that address, it goes right
to their page.
My problem: The local newspaper (Kansas City Star) is refusing to run
classifed ads for my customers (or myself). They refuse to say why and
I get the same speech all the way up the management line ("we reserve
the sole right to refuse advertising, and have decided to refuse your
advertising").
Some history:
1. They did allow one of my customers to advertise once, so there is
precedence.
2. They consistently allow other customers to advertise web site
addresses.
3. My site is perfectly legitimate and should not be considered
offensive or illegal in any manner.
My question:
Do I have any legal grounds to force them to allow me and my customers
to advertise in the classifieds?
I'm assuming they think I'm competition (although I've made it clear
that my system depends on the customer continuing to run classified
ads). Please, any suggestions. If I can't get them to allow me to
advertise, it completely changes my business strategy!!
Thanks in advance.
Daniel M. Press
Brenda Mills wrote:
> ...
> to advertise in the classifieds?
>
> I'm assuming they think I'm competition (although I've made it clear
> that my system depends on the customer continuing to run classified
> ads). Please, any suggestions. If I can't get them to allow me to
> advertise, it completely changes my business strategy!!
A newspaper has a first amendment right to publish what they want, and
only what they want. They can refuse any ad for any reason or no reason
at all. Your solution: find another newspaper.
Dan Press
Chung & Press, P.C.
McLean, VA
Stan Brown
[posted and emailed]
In article <68e470$n...@panix3.panix.com>, dpr...@chung-press.com (Daniel
M. Press) wrote:
>Brenda Mills wrote:
>> ...
>> Do I have any legal grounds to force them to allow me and my customers
>> to advertise in the classifieds?
>
>A newspaper has a first amendment right to publish what they want, and
>only what they want. They can refuse any ad for any reason or no reason
>at all. Your solution: find another newspaper.
Is it really that simple? Certainly they have very wide discretion
(perhaps absolute discretion, though I shy away from absolutes) in the
editorial pages.
But the classified ads are quite clearly _not_ endorsed by the newspaper.
They are paid by the word. Absent anything fraudulent or obscene, does
the newspaper really have the right to refuse a paid ad? If so, please
cite the applicable statute or decision.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
"If you have nothing to say, say nothing." --Yes, Prime Minister
Wm. Randolph U Franklin
Some large newspapers, such as the LA Times and SJ Mercury News
are reported also to refuse to run ads for competing web services.
However there is a conflicting (Supreme?) court decision from
about the 1950s. Then, some newspapers refused to accepts ads
from businesses that also advertised on the radio. So this is
somewhat different, but related, to your case. Nevertheless, this
practice was ruled illegal.
--- Wm. Randolph U Franklin, WRFUSE at MAB.ECSE.RPI.DELETETHIS.EDU
Mark Eckenwiler
In <68jbt0$2...@panix3.panix.com>, envi...@accessone.com writes:
>
>There is an exception for political advertising under the fairness
>doctrine. If ean opponent puts ads in a paper they cannot refuse the
>candidate (or issue committee in a ballot issue).
It is my understanding that the "equal access" laws relate only to
FCC-regulated media (radio, TV), and that no such law applies to print
media. (Indeed, I think it would be plainly unconstitutional as
applied to print media.)
--
"I think of it as a party held in very very large house. In one room people
are drinking espresso and discussing translations of Rilke, while in another
they're sucking nitrous out of a garbage bag and setting fire to a couch."
- Tom Fawcett (faw...@nynexst.com) on Usenet || Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com
William Marvin
In <688in8$s...@panix3.panix.com>, on 12/29/97
>I recently set up a business that creates web pages for customers that
>want to sell real estate, cars, or personal property. In my advertising,
>I recommend that the customer advertise in the local newspaper using
>their web site address that I have assigned them . For example, they may
>advertise: 4 BR, 3 BA, $200,000, more info at www.soldfast.com/aa2.html.
>When you type in that address, it goes right to their page.
>My problem: The local newspaper (Kansas City Star) is refusing to run
>classifed ads for my customers (or myself). They refuse to say why and I
>get the same speech all the way up the management line ("we reserve the
>sole right to refuse advertising, and have decided to refuse your
>advertising").
Well, Dan is right that an advertiser doesn't need to accept all
advertising, but in the housing market, there are some EEO regulations and
Fair Housing laws which at least require them to refuse some types of ads
which violate those guidelines. Maybe somehow they think your ads might
expose them to those rules.
+----------------------------------------------+
|--William D. Marvin, Esq. ++ wdm...@ibm.net--|
|---------Abington, PA (215) 881-9488---------|
|-visit Philadelphia Trial Lawyers on the Web -|
+---------- http://philatla.org ---------------+
Justin Schwartz
Wm. Randolph U Franklin (wrf...@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu) wrote:
: Some large newspapers, such as the LA Times and SJ Mercury News
: are reported also to refuse to run ads for competing web services.
: However there is a conflicting (Supreme?) court decision from
: about the 1950s. Then, some newspapers refused to accepts ads
: from businesses that also advertised on the radio. So this is
: somewhat different, but related, to your case. Nevertheless, this
: practice was ruled illegal.
I think you are think of the LA Times-Picayune case (1953), an antitrust
case where the court said that the T-P could indeed force persons who
bought advertising in the evening paper if they wanted to advertise in the
morning paper. The case is not on point and the facts as the poster
presents them (the KC Star refusing to sell him advertising space) pose no
antitrust questions.
Incidentally in another post on this thread someone mentions the fairness
doctrine. This is triply inapplicable. It held only for broadcasting, where
first amendment protections are lower than for print media because
broadcasting spectra are scarce and broadcasting is uniquely pervasive.
The Court struck down a state fairness doctrine law for print media in the
late 70s and early 80s as violative of the first amendment. The FD applied
only to political statements on the broadcast media and not to commercial
advertising. And the FD has been repealed as of, I think, 1986.
--Justin S.
Ted Mennie
In article <68jc3f$2...@panix3.panix.com>,
Mark Eckenwiler <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>It is my understanding that the "equal access" laws relate only to
>FCC-regulated media (radio, TV), and that no such law applies to print
>media. (Indeed, I think it would be plainly unconstitutional as
>applied to print media.)
A Florida statute attempting to impose a fairness-style doctrine on
newspapers was struck down, I believe.
Ironically, the Supreme Court's reasoning for permitting an abridgement of
speech with respect to radio and TV -- the limited number of outlets --
is far more applicable to the print media in the 1990's than to the
multitude of television and radio stations.
The Fairness Doctrine, when it was in play, had the effect of reducing
political discussion on television and radio, rather than risk opening up
scads of valuable air-time to every nutter with an opposing view; I
believe it is no longer in effect, as such.
--
You're just a drifter who found a bag of mail.
http://www.radix,net/~moe
William Marvin
In <68j4ll$n...@panix3.panix.com>, on 01/02/98
>>
>>A newspaper has a first amendment right to publish what they want, and
>>only what they want. They can refuse any ad for any reason or no reason
>>at all. Your solution: find another newspaper.
>Is it really that simple? Certainly they have very wide discretion
>(perhaps absolute discretion, though I shy away from absolutes) in the
>editorial pages.
>But the classified ads are quite clearly _not_ endorsed by the newspaper.
> They are paid by the word. Absent anything fraudulent or obscene, does
>the newspaper really have the right to refuse a paid ad? If so, please
>cite the applicable statute or decision.
As another poster mentioned, perhaps when newspapers jointly act to
restrict competition, there is a possibility of an antitrust violation.
But you're asking the wrong question when you ask for a cite.
The "default setting" under both the First Amendment and basic
principles of contract law is that a publisher has no obligation to print
anything or to enter into a contract. There must be a statute to change
that result, as with the antitrust laws, or anti-discrimination laws. In
other words, I doubt if a paper could decide to refuse all advertising
from black-owned funeral homes.
It's the prospective advertiser which must show some legal authority
which restricted the newspaper's freedom of choice to decline the ad. The
paper does not have to justify its business decision.
DISCLAIMER:
These comments are not legal opinion or advice, but are offered only for
the purpose of discussion. Do not rely on them for your personal or
business affairs. You should not depend on any legal opinion except from
your own attorney. Your own attorney will know all the pertinent facts,
knows what law to apply, and has a professional duty to you.
+----------------------------------------------+ |--William D. Marvin,
Esq. ++ wdm...@ibm.net--|
|---------Abington, PA (215) 881-9488---------|
|-visit Philadelphia Trial Lawyers on the Web -|
+---------- http://philatla.org ---------------+
!fortune.tag
Daniel M. Press
Roger Kluck wrote:
> >>> Do I have any legal grounds to force them to allow me and my customers
> >>> to advertise in the classifieds?
> >>
> >>only what they want. They can refuse any ad for any reason or no reason
> >>at all. Your solution: find another newspaper.
> >
> >Is it really that simple? Certainly they have very wide discretion
> >(perhaps absolute discretion, though I shy away from absolutes) in the
> >editorial pages.
> >But the classified ads are quite clearly _not_ endorsed by the newspaper.
> >They are paid by the word. Absent anything fraudulent or obscene, does
> >the newspaper really have the right to refuse a paid ad? If so, please
> >cite the applicable statute or decision.
>
> doctrine. If ean opponent puts ads in a paper they cannot refuse the
> absolute.
Yes, it is. The fairness doctrine *used to* apply to FCC licensees: TV
and radio broadcasters. It has been effectively repealed there, and was
of questionable constitutionality (it was upheld in the Red Lion case
based on the scarcity of the airwaves and their being a public trust),
but it NEVER applied to newspapers, which are not licensed and not
public trusts. A newspaper is the private property of its publisher,
who can say what he/she/it wants, and can refuse to say whatever he
wants, whether or not someone wants to pay him to say it.
But commercial speech is given less protection than
> political. And in essence it would seem to me you are placing the
> papers commercial speech rights against your own. They have no
> obligation to publish your ads.
Correct, but COMPELLED commercial speech infringes the right not to
speak, which is not subject to diminished constitutional protection.
You can be told by the government what you cannot say in an ad, but you
can't be forced to say something you don't want to.
...
>
> I believe though there are cases where if a paper is the only real public media
> in a community they cannot reject ads comparable to others they have carried.
Nope. Not a one. The solution if there is only one paper is to open
another one.
Peter
Barry Gold
> I live in Bend Oregon. EO Media has a monopoly on the three major print media publishing in Central Oregon, 2 newspapers and one Nickel ads. They are refusing to take my ad which presents opposing viewpoints to a constant stream of nonsense. The issue is there is no other place to advertise. The ad was a small classified ad. The main paper has total control over the news and opinion and it is all on one side of the issues. There must be something about monopolies I can legally use to attack their rejection. It looks like the last posts on this thread are more than 20 years old...maybe someone will pick it up....
freedom to publish what they want(*), and to refuse to publish what they
don't want. That comes from the First Amendment to the US Constitution:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There *might* be an exception for a "Newspaper of public record" -- some
states might require them to accept all "legal notice"-type ads:
"Not responsible for any debts but my own"
"George Williams and Frank March, doing business as "Wilmarch Porcelain"
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
Rick
news:cd0ba9f9-ab55-4b09...@googlegroups.com...
newspaper publish your views. It means that you, as a citizen, have a right
to start your own newspaper or self-publish to present your views. Also, in
the modern world where virtually anyone can get access to the internet, you
can easily find ways to express your views online.
--
John Levine
>I live in Bend Oregon. EO Media has a monopoly on the three major print media publishing in Central Oregon, 2
>newspapers and one Nickel ads. They are refusing to take my ad which presents opposing viewpoints to a constant
In 1974 in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), the Supreme
Court unanimously voided a Florida law which a right to reply to
political candidates, that if the newspaper attacked the candidate, it
had to publish the candidate's reply. Nope.
That was a very different court. I suppose we will see what the
current court thinks about publishers and compelled speech when it
considers the Florida anti-moderation law, which was blocked by a
sensible 11th circuit opinion, and the Texas anti-moderation law which
was upheld by a deranged 5th circuit opinion. A lot of the current
court seems to want to stick it to big Internet companies, but it's
hard to see how they could do that without also screwing up 1st
amendment law for everyone else. (No, there is no way to make Facebook
a "common carrier", whatever you might imagine that to mean in
practice.)
I can imagine an interesting corner case if a newspaper of record
refused a legal notice. For example, here in New York, when you set up
an LLC, you have to publish a notice in two newspapers of record in
your county. In my county, there are exactly two such newspapers and
if one refused to publish it, you'd be out of luck. But I expect that
if such a case ended up in court, the court would tell the government
to change the requirement rather than to force the paper to publish it.
In practice it seems hard to imagine a realistic legal notice
scenario. Counties publish lists of upcoming real estate foreclosure
sales and maybe if the paper's owner was on the list, he might not
want to publish, but the sale would go ahead anyway.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Stuart O. Bronstein
> Peter <ptworks...@gmail.com> said:
>>I live in Bend Oregon. EO Media has a monopoly on the three major
>>print media publishing in Central Oregon, 2 newspapers and one
>>Nickel ads. They are refusing to take my ad which presents
>>opposing viewpoints to a constant stream of nonsense. ...
>
> In 1974 in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), the
> Supreme Court unanimously voided a Florida law which a right to
> reply to political candidates, that if the newspaper attacked the
> candidate, it had to publish the candidate's reply. Nope.
>
> That was a very different court. I suppose we will see what the
> current court thinks about publishers and compelled speech when it
> considers the Florida anti-moderation law, which was blocked by a
> sensible 11th circuit opinion, and the Texas anti-moderation law
> which was upheld by a deranged 5th circuit opinion. A lot of the
> current court seems to want to stick it to big Internet companies,
> but it's hard to see how they could do that without also screwing
> up 1st amendment law for everyone else. (No, there is no way to
> make Facebook a "common carrier", whatever you might imagine that
> to mean in practice.)
opinion."
> I can imagine an interesting corner case if a newspaper of record
> refused a legal notice. For example, here in New York, when you
> set up an LLC, you have to publish a notice in two newspapers of
> record in your county. In my county, there are exactly two such
> newspapers and if one refused to publish it, you'd be out of luck.
> But I expect that if such a case ended up in court, the court
> would tell the government to change the requirement rather than to
> force the paper to publish it.
California a paper has to apply and get a court to recognize it as a
"newspaper of general circulation." Applying to publish legal
notices implies recognition of the duty to publish legal notices.
Though you're right, the current Court has done things I think are
loopy and inconsistent with recognized precedent.
> In practice it seems hard to imagine a realistic legal notice
> scenario. Counties publish lists of upcoming real estate
> foreclosure sales and maybe if the paper's owner was on the list,
> he might not want to publish, but the sale would go ahead anyway.
--
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
John Levine
>opinion."
>What does it take to become a "newspaper or record" in New York? In
>California a paper has to apply and get a court to recognize it as a
The New York LLC law (sec 206) says the newspapers are designated by
the county clerk, one daily and one weekly. If there is no designated
paper, you can publish in an adjoining county. I suppose if one of
our newspapers misbehaved the clerk could un-designate them and we
could use an adjacent county newspaper but the whole thing seems
pretty far fetched.
The next county over where Watkins Glen is located is so small that it
has no daily paper at all, so I guess they use ours.