That’s part of the Atlanta international airport’s Wi-Fi System Acceptable Use Policy, which travelers must agree to in order to access the system. A slightly longer quote:

The following constitutes examples of violations of this AUP. You agree NOT to use the Wi-Fi System to:

Transmit any material (by uploading, posting, email or otherwise) that is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; …

Impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin or any material transmitted through the Wi-Fi System; …

Transmit any material (by uploading, posting, email or otherwise) any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, “junk mail,” “spam,” “chain letters,” “pyramid schemes” or any other form of solicitation …

Resell the Wi-Fi System;

Use the Wi-Fi System for high volume data transfers, especially sustained high volume data transfers, hosting a web server, IRC server, or any other server.

This is pretty clearly unconstitutional. The WiFi system is either a “designated public forum,” which is to say a facility for speech that’s opened up by the government for use by speakers generally, or a “limited public forum,” a facility opened up for speech by certain speakers on certain topics. A “public forum” need not consist of physical space (such as a room or a park), but may include any subsidy program through which the government facilitates a wide range of private speech, such as the printing fees reimbursement program involved in Rosenberger v. Rector (1995). But even if it isn’t a designated or limited public forum, but is merely a nonpublic forum, in any case viewpoint-based restrictions on speech in such programs are unconstitutional. (See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector(1995).) And a restriction on “hateful or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable” discriminates against speech based on viewpoint (and the “otherwise objectionable” provision is likely also unconstitutionally vague).

Read more

Related Articles