“And The Onion is exactly what the founders were thinking of when they protected speech — it’s a satirical weekly that regularly pummels the government. It’s the epitome of what the First Amendment was written to protect.”

I’m not sure that The Onion deserves a pedestal as high as the one you’ve invoked the founding fathers to build, but, I’m not trying to censor it or anything else. They’ve certainly had some good ones over the years! (My favorite was an abortion “lover” article that was taken literally by some irony deprived anti-abortionist elsewhere on the internet. Meta-hilarity ensued.) Anyway.

Like a lot of people I started reading The Onion online, when they were only publishing a print edition at some midwestern college. I was glad when they first moved to New York. I picked up the edition a few times, would read a few eye-rollers, and junk it. I was not being liberated from governmental tyranny of thought. I was generating trash. This also seemed to be a low point for the magazine, creatively; they were running lots of recycled stories, and the scant new material was not very funny. So you pick up something that is half advertising and half not very good content, which is the only thing in this huge lashed together blob of plastic blocking the crosswalk that might possibly interest you, and it doesn’t leave you with a good feeling about the street press “industry” (or whatever it is).

Particularly as I think of The Onion as primarily an internet publication (and I’m sure that is where they reach the vast majority of their readers) the idea of reining in their belated advertising-supported tabloid-format old-media insult of a distribution mechanism does not seem that threatening to our democracy. Their redundant print publication is literally trash, and the people who can’t find theonion.com are not going to appreciate its occasional satirical “pommeling” of the government anyway. (Plus you miss out on their excellent video section, which is better than any written work they’ve done.) It’s a bit late in the game for paper-bound rhetoric about a free press.

But I accept that the street press business in general will continue for a while yet—I only hope to see it well regulated and I’m glad that John is on the case!

What we’re doing here is fighting over the scraps – it’s the same issue as bikes on the sidewalk (going slowly, for short distances), sidewalk cafés, street vendors, etc. I’ve been a member of Transportation Alternatives for thirteen years, and this was the only issue I disagreed with them about enough to write a letter.

As for the bus shelters, the advertising deisplayed thereon generates revenue for the MTA, which, God knows, can use the money. I’d also like to see the development of community-oriented kiosks for the display of public information, but a lot of street poles get cluttered up with flyers from commercial enterprises that have no interest in the cleanliness of our streets.

An extra few feet of sidewalk and they’d be easy to walk around.

Frankly, I’m more put out by these huge, overly lit new billboards masquerading as bus shelters.

And The Onion is exactly what the founders were thinking of when they protected speech — it’s a satirical weekly that regularly pummels the government. It’s the epitome of what the First Amendment was written to protect.

I agree with rhubarb on the poster issue, too. While I hate “Houses Bought Cash” signs and their ilk as much as the next guy, I like tag sales, apartments, neighborhood events and such to be on the street. I’m surprised that Streetsblog’s position runs the other way, truth be told — newspapers are more vital than clean sidewalks.

And the kind of restrictions it seems like people are talking about will necessarily mean that someone — perhaps the government or some quasi-government group (like a business improvement district) will be making up the rules about who can put up their publication’s box and who cannot.

In addition, the courts have consistently ruled that there is a difference between commercial speech and political and press freedom. The “private print media corporations” — like the companies that publish the Voice and amNewYork, etc. — that Ed refers to are typically engaging in protected speech, and should be granted wide leeway in how they choose to distribute their publications.

That does not mean they can put their boxes in the middle of the crosswalk (as a few do) or in the middle of the sidewalk (which I have never seen), but it does mean that we should avoid restricting distribution as much as possible, even if there is a legal way do this.

I’d urge the folks who want to impose strict restrictions to be careful what you wish for. These kinds of restrictions seem likely to backfire and affect your own desires to distribute information and publications.

I do understand the desire–and based on these photos–the need for some improvement. And since the law definitely recognizes allows harsher rules for commercial-only publications (like those advertising real estate with no editorial content), perhaps that is a route for the MAS. (though I also think this is a low priority).

In general, though, the tendency is to go overboard on these kinds of rules. Maybe this kind of public shaming is enough.

At least for me, this is about 1,245th, to be generous, in the list of public improvement projects the MAS and others should be taking on in our burg.

Placement of newsracks on public streets has never been a constitutionally protected right.

I am in favor of a standardized design and placement criteria that eliminates or minimizes these problems. Design them so each one can be covered in its own original artwork, that will distinguish them from each other and make the interesting. At present, they are distinguished from each other by suffering from unique forms of decrepitude or presenting unique and unexpected hazards.

If you go to other cities (and even a few places in New York, like on Madison just north of 42nd Street), like San Francisco, the newsracks all look the same, are bland and make me wonder who is doing the deciding about which publications can get space. While the plastic racks are none too pretty (though I think the Voice racks are ok), they are hardly the most disturbing feature on the streets.

I like walking outside and, if I’ve run out of things to read, grabbing a Voice or an amNewYork or another publication easily. And a wide variety of publications easily available in a free society is vital.

It’d be nice if MAS and others were thinking of ways of expanding ways for publications and others to get their voices heard. The new bus shelters, while nominally better looking, continue the practice of leaving no place for posters (other than those paid for by well-off companies). I’d love a design that acknowledges that the bus shelter is a perfectly appropriate place for people in my neighborhood to advertise meetings, sales and causes.