IT ISN’T A FREE-SPEECH ISSUE

Considering the legal mess Phoenix has made in its First Amendment fight over bus-stop advertising, it is tempting to side with the civilliberties lawyers.

But even governments should retain the right to control — to some degree — the content of advertising on the property they maintain.

Bus stops are places where strangers gather to travel, not to debate the political controversies of the day. A city’s first responsibility to those travelers is to assure them a clean and safe spot to begin their journeys.

Ads intended to spur debate over hot-button issues such as gun control are not exactly conducive to that mission.

Attorneys are arguing before the Arizona Court of Appeals this week the degree to which cities can exercise control over public-transit advertising.

Three years ago, gun-rights activist Alan Korwin bought space for 50 poster ads at bus stops that declared “Guns Save Lives.” Phoenix concluded the ads violated its policy limiting non-commercial (read: political) advertising and removed them. Korwin sued, arguing the city violated his right to free speech.

A year ago, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge concluded the city had a right to exert reasonable guidelines for its advertising.

Had Phoenix been a little more consistent in applying its rules, it likely would be in a far better position to defend them.

Alas, city officials have been all over the map in asserting this rationale and that rationale for denying bus-stop space to Korwin’s ads, while allowing others that to a reasonable person appear just as, uh, non-commercial.

By maintaining consistent policies, newspapers, TV stations and other media long have been able to assert reasonable standards for display advertising. Cities, whose mission is to maintain civil order for their citizens, should have a right to assert reason- able and (yes) consistent advertising standards as well.

A fervent Second Amendment advocate, Korwin suspects that city officials refused his poster ads because they are politically opposed to gun rights. But his suspicions of their motives are difficult, if not impossible, to prove in court.

The old saw about lawsuits being the worst way to resolve conflicts applies here. Rather than striking a solid blow on behalf of the First Amendment, a Korwin victory would prompt cities to quit selling advertising space altogether, thus losing a taxpayer-friendly revenue stream.

The operative term in this First Amendment debate is “reasonable.” What are reasonable guidelines for display ads at bus stops? What is a reasonable method for applying those guidelines?

It is pretty clear the city has done a reasonably botched job on both counts. But that is an organizational and management issue, not a First Amendment question.

As a manager of public spaces, a city has a right (make that a duty) to maintain those spaces in a peaceable and orderly manner. It also has a duty to make its policies coherent.

Those aren’t constitutional issues. The courts shouldn’t make them into one.