I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]
An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.
Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.
Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.
The Thomas More Law Center has filed suit on behalf of clients against the SMART bus system in Southeast Michigan for refusing to run ads on the sides of their buses that encourage people to leave Islam. The ad, sponsored by the conservative group Freedom Defense Initiative, says:
“Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!”
This is the second time in recent months that SMART has gotten involved in a controversy over a religiously-charged ad. In March, the bus authority accepted an ad by the Detroit Area Coalition of Reason that promoted atheism. That ad said: “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
The legal complaint (PDF) in this case argues that by accepting such ads, SMART has established a public forum and therefore cannot reject an ad on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses.
Ironically, SMART’s own advertising guidelines say, “First Amendment free speech rights require that SMART not censor free speech and because of that, SMART is required to provide equal access to advertising on our vehicles.” Why it chose to refuse this particular ad in light of that policy is unclear.
This should be a relatively easy case. The TMLC is correct in its legal arguments and I would expect the district court to rule in their favor, probably by summary judgment.
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter