NEWS
Federal Appeals Court Issues Significant Ruling in Newsrack Case
Friday, July 16, 2010
A seven-page decision issued on Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit offers the "most significant statement on the right to distribute news by any federal appeals court in the country," says SNPA First Amendment Committee Chair John Bussian. The Fourth Circuit (in Richmond) covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.
Bussian represented The News and Observer Publishing Company (Raleigh, N.C.), The Durham (N.C.) Herald Company, The New York Times Company and Gannett Co., Inc., in its suit against the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority. He says Tuesday's 7-4 ruling gives "the most amazing covering fire" to a decision handed down earlier this year in the newspapers' favor by a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court.
The case centers on whether the Raleigh-Durham Airport can ban newsracks in its airport terminals. The airport argued that its master business plan only allows newsstands, whose operating hours are limited, to sell newspapers. It also contended that security, passenger flow and airport aesthetics are compromised by newsrack placement.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a former editorial page editor for The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, wrote an impassioned decision that "could help force the airport to put down its guns and help us move onto the issue of where to place the newsracks on the concourses," Bussian said.
"Airports typically offer a variety of publications for travelers to purchase," Wilkinson wrote, "reflecting the fact that travel is one of those times when Americans are particularly desirous of the opportunity to read. After all, travelers dealing with not infrequent flight delays have more time with the paper than they might at the breakfast table. Thus a ban on all newsracks at an airport is anything but trivial. Resolution of the issue on summary judgment was entirely appropriate."
He noted that the record indicated that the airport shops "not infrequently opened without papers in the morning, ran out during the day and closed before the last passengers arrived or departed." He wrote that complaints had been received by newspaper customers who were unable to buy a paper at the airport. And, he rejected the airport's claim that its ban was justified by revenue, security, congestion and aesthetic concerns – since the airport allowed installations "dispensing every other item a traveler might conceivably buy."
Wilkinson's opinion noted the airport made room for racks with free publications, soft drinks, snacks, luggage carts and even a display motorcycle. "I have the greatest respect for the Airport Authority's desire to provide an array of amenities to travelers, but there does come a point when public restriction of political speech should not take a complete backseat to lemonade and motorcycles."
