text:
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes/Opinion of the Court

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A state-owned public television broadcaster sponsored a candidate debate from which it excluded an independent candidate with little popular support. The issue before us is whether, by reason of its state ownership, the station had a constitutional obligation to allow every candidate access to the debate. We conclude that, unlike most other public television programs, the candidate debate was subject to constitutional constraints applicable to nonpublic fora under our forum precedents. Even so, the broadcaster's decision to exclude the candidate was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion.

I
Petitioner, the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC), is an Arkansas state agency owning and operating a network of five noncommercial television stations (Arkansas Educational Television Network or AETN). The eight members of AETC are appointed by the Governor for 8-year terms and are removable only for good cause. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-3-102(a)(1), (b)(1) (Supp. 1997), § 25-16-804(b)(1) (1996). AETC members are barred from holding any other state or federal office, with the exception of teaching [p670] positions. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-3-102(a)(3) (Supp. 1997). To insulate its programming decisions from political pressure, AETC employs an executive director and professional staff who exercise broad editorial discretion in planning the network's programming. AETC has also adopted the Statement of Principles of Editorial Integrity in Public Broadcasting, which counsel adherence to "generally accepted broadcasting industry standards, so that the programming service is free from pressure from political or financial supporters." App. to Pet. for Cert. 82a.

In the spring of 1992, AETC staff began planning a series of debates between candidates for federal office in the November 1992 elections. AETC decided to televise a total of five debates, scheduling one for the Senate election and one for each of the four congressional elections in Arkansas. Working in close consultation with Bill Simmons, Arkansas Bureau Chief for the Associated Press, AETC staff developed a debate format allowing about 53 minutes during each 1-hour debate for questions to and answers by the candidates. Given the time constraint, the staff and Simmons "decided to limit participation in the debates to the major party candidates or any other candidate who had strong popular support." Record, Affidavit of Bill Simmons ¶ 5.

On June 17, 1992, AETC invited the Republican and Democratic candidates for Arkansas' Third Congressional District to participate in the AETC debate for that seat. Two months later, after obtaining the 2,000 signatures required by Arkansas law, see Ark. Code Ann. § 7-7-103(c)(1) (Supp. 1993), respondent Ralph Forbes was certified as an independent candidate qualified to appear on the ballot for the seat. Forbes was a perennial candidate who had sought, without success, a number of elected offices in Arkansas. On August 24, 1992, he wrote to AETC requesting permission to participate in the debate for his district, scheduled for October 22, 1992. On September 4, AETC Executive Director Susan Howarth denied Forbes' request, explaining that AETC had [p671] "made a bona fide journalistic judgement that our viewers would best be served by limiting the debate" to the candidates already invited. App. 61.

On October 19, 1992, Forbes filed suit against AETC, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. Forbes claimed he was entitled to participate in the debate under both the First Amendment and 47 U.S.C. § 315, which affords political candidates a limited right of access to television air time. Forbes requested a preliminary injunction mandating his inclusion in the debate. The District Court denied the request, as did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The District Court later dismissed Forbes' action for failure to state a claim.

Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Forbes' statutory claim, holding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court reversed, however, the dismissal of Forbes' First Amendment claim. Observing that AETC is a state actor, the court held Forbes had "a qualified right of access created by AETN's sponsorship of a debate, and that AETN must have [had] a legitimate reason to exclude him strong enough to survive First Amendment scrutiny." Forbes v. ''Arkansas Ed. Television Network Foundation'', 22 F.3d 1423, 1428 (CA8), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 995 (1994), 514 U.S. 1110 (1995). Because AETC had not yet filed an answer to Forbes' complaint, it had not given any reason for excluding him from the debate, and the Court of Appeals remanded the action for further proceedings.

On remand, the District Court found as a matter of law that the debate was a nonpublic forum, and the issue became whether Forbes' views were the reason for his exclusion. At trial, AETC professional staff testified Forbes was excluded because he lacked any campaign organization, had not generated appreciable voter support, and was not regarded as a serious candidate by the press covering the election. The jury made express findings that AETC's decision to exclude [p672] Forbes had not been influenced by political pressure or disagreement with his views. The District Court entered judgment for AETC.

The Court of Appeals again reversed. The court acknowledged that AETC's decision to exclude Forbes "was made in good faith" and was "exactly the kind of journalistic judgment routinely made by newspeople." 93 F.3d 497, 505 (CA8 1996). The court asserted, nevertheless, that AETC had "opened its facilities to a particular group—candidates running for the Third District Congressional seat." Id., at 504. AETC's action, the court held, made the debate a public forum, to which all candidates "legally qualified to appear on the ballot" had a presumptive right of access. Ibid. Applying strict scrutiny, the court determined that AETC's assessment of Forbes' "political viability" was neither a "compelling nor [a] narrowly tailored" reason for excluding him from the debate. Id., at 504–505.

A conflict with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Chandler v. Georgia Public Telecommunications Comm'n, 917 F.2d 486 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 816 (1991), together with the manifest importance of the case, led us to grant certiorari. 520 U.S. 1114 (1997). We now reverse.

II
Forbes has long since abandoned his statutory claims under 47 U.S.C. § 315, and so the issue is whether his exclusion from the debate was consistent with the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals held it was not, applying our public forum precedents. Appearing as amicus curiae in support of petitioner, the United States argues that our forum precedents should be of little relevance in the context of television broadcasting. At the outset, then, it is instructive to ask whether public forum principles apply to the case at all.

Having first arisen in the context of streets and parks, the public forum doctrine should not be extended in a mechanical [p673] way to the very different context of public television broadcasting. In the case of streets and parks, the open access and viewpoint neutrality commanded by the doctrine is "compatible with the intended purpose of the property." ''Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn.'', 460 U.S. 37, 49 (1983). So too was the requirement of viewpoint neutrality compatible with the university's funding of student publications in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). In the case of television broadcasting, however, broad rights of access for outside speakers would be antithetical, as a general rule, to the discretion that stations and their editorial staff must exercise to fulfill their journalistic purpose and statutory obligations.

Congress has rejected the argument that "broadcast facilities should be open on a nonselective basis to all persons wishing to talk about public issues." Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 105 (1973). Instead, television broadcasters enjoy the "widest journalistic freedom" consistent with their public responsibilities. Id., at 110; FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 378 (1984). Among the broadcaster's responsibilities is the duty to schedule programming that serves the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." 47 U.S.C. § 309(a). Public and private broadcasters alike are not only permitted, but indeed required, to exercise substantial editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of their programming.

As a general rule, the nature of editorial discretion counsels against subjecting broadcasters to claims of viewpoint discrimination. Programming decisions would be particularly vulnerable to claims of this type because even principled exclusions rooted in sound journalistic judgment can often be characterized as viewpoint based. To comply with their obligation to air programming that serves the public interest, broadcasters must often choose among speakers expressing different viewpoints. "That editors—newspaper or broadcast—can and do abuse this power is beyond doubt," [p674] Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 412 U.S., at 124; but "[c]alculated risks of abuse are taken in order to preserve higher values." Id., at 125. Much like a university selecting a commencement speaker, a public institution selecting speakers for a lecture series, or a public school prescribing its curriculum, a broadcaster by its nature will facilitate the expression of some viewpoints instead of others. Were the judiciary to require, and so to define and approve, pre-established criteria for access, it would risk implicating the courts in judgments that should be left to the exercise of journalistic discretion.

When a public broadcaster exercises editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of its programming, it engages in speech activity. Cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 636 (1994) ("Through 'original programming or by exercising editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in its repertoire,' cable programmers and operators 'see[k] to communicate messages on a wide variety of topics and in a wide variety of formats) (quoting Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U.S. 488, 494 (1986)). Although programming decisions often involve the compilation of the speech of third parties, the decisions nonetheless constitute communicative acts. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995) (a speaker need not "generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication").

Claims of access under our public forum precedents could obstruct the legitimate purposes of television broadcasters. Were the doctrine given sweeping application in this context, courts "would be required to oversee far more of the day-to-day operations of broadcasters' conduct, deciding such questions as whether a particular individual or group has had sufficient opportunity to present its viewpoint and whether a particular viewpoint has already been sufficiently aired." Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., supra, at 127. "The [p675] result would be a further erosion of the journalistic discretion of broadcasters," transferring "control over the treatment of public issues from the licensees who are accountable for broadcast performance to private individuals" who bring suit under our forum precedents. 412 U.S., at 124. In effect, we would "exchange 'public trustee' broadcasting, with all its limitations, for a system of self-appointed editorial commentators." Id., at 125.

In the absence of any congressional command to "[r]egimen[t] broadcasters" in this manner, id., at 127, we are disinclined to do so through doctrines of our own design. This is not to say the First Amendment would bar the legislative imposition of neutral rules for access to public broadcasting. Instead, we say that, in most cases, the First Amendment of its own force does not compel public broadcasters to allow third parties access to their programming.

Although public broadcasting as a general matter does not lend itself to scrutiny under the forum doctrine, candidate debates present the narrow exception to the rule. For two reasons, a candidate debate like the one at issue here is different from other programming. First, unlike AETC's other broadcasts, the debate was by design a forum for political speech by the candidates. Consistent with the long tradition of candidate debates, the implicit representation of the broadcaster was that the views expressed were those of the candidates, not its own. The very purpose of the debate was to allow the candidates to express their views with minimal intrusion by the broadcaster. In this respect the debate differed even from a political talk show, whose host can express partisan views and then limit the discussion to those ideas.

Second, in our tradition, candidate debates are of exceptional significance in the electoral process. "[I]t is of particular importance that candidates have the opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates' personal qualities and their [p676] positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election day." CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 396 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). Deliberation on the positions and qualifications of candidates is integral to our system of government, and electoral speech may have its most profound and widespread impact when it is disseminated through televised debates. A majority of the population cites television as its primary source of election information, and debates are regarded as the "only occasion during a campaign when the attention of a large portion of the American public is focused on the election, as well as the only campaign information format which potentially offers sufficient time to explore issues and policies in depth in a neutral forum." Congressional Research Service, Campaign Debates in Presidential General Elections, summ. (June 15, 1993).

As we later discuss, in many cases it is not feasible for the broadcaster to allow unlimited access to a candidate debate. Yet the requirement of neutrality remains; a broadcaster cannot grant or deny access to a candidate debate on the basis of whether it agrees with a candidate's views. Viewpoint discrimination in this context would present not a "[c]alculated ris[k]," Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., supra, at 125, but an inevitability of skewing the electoral dialogue.

The special characteristics of candidate debates support the conclusion that the AETC debate was a forum of some type. The question of what type must be answered by reference to our public forum precedents, to which we now turn.

III
Forbes argues, and the Court of Appeals held, that the debate was a public forum to which he had a First Amendment right of access. Under our precedents, however, the debate was a nonpublic forum, from which AETC could exclude Forbes in the reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of its journalistic discretion. [p677]

A
For our purposes, it will suffice to employ the categories of speech fora already established and discussed in our cases. "[T]he Court [has] identified three types of fora: the traditional public forum, the public forum created by government designation, and the nonpublic forum." Cornelius v. ''NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc.'', 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985). Traditional public fora are defined by the objective characteristics of the property, such as whether, "by long tradition or by government fiat," the property has been "devoted to assembly and debate." ''Perry Ed. Assn.'', 460 U.S., at 45. The government can exclude a speaker from a traditional public forum "only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest." Cornelius, supra, at 800.

Designated public fora, in contrast, are created by purposeful governmental action. "The government does not create a [designated] public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional public forum for public discourse." 473 U.S., at 802; accord, ''International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678 (1992) (ISKCON)'' (designated public forum is "property that the State has opened for expressive activity by part or all of the public"). Hence "the Court has looked to the policy and practice of the government to ascertain whether it intended to designate a place not traditionally open to assembly and debate as a public forum." Cornelius, 473 U.S., at 802. If the government excludes a speaker who falls within the class to which a designated public forum is made generally available, its action is subject to strict scrutiny. Ibid.; United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 726–727 (1990) (plurality opinion of, J.).

Other government properties are either nonpublic fora or not fora at all. ISKCON, supra, at 678–679. The government can restrict access to a nonpublic forum "as long [p678] as the restrictions are reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Cornelius, supra, at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In summary, traditional public fora are open for expressive activity regardless of the government's intent. The objective characteristics of these properties require the government to accommodate private speakers. The government is free to open additional properties for expressive use by the general public or by a particular class of speakers, thereby creating designated public fora. Where the property is not a traditional public forum and the government has not chosen to create a designated public forum, the property is either a nonpublic forum or not a forum at all.

B
The parties agree the AETC debate was not a traditional public forum. The Court has rejected the view that traditional public forum status extends beyond its historic confines, see ISKCON, 505 U.S., at 680–681; and even had a more expansive conception of traditional public fora been adopted, see, e.g., id., at 698–699 (, J., concurring in judgments), the almost unfettered access of a traditional public forum would be incompatible with the programming dictates a television broadcaster must follow. See supra, at 673–675. The issue, then, is whether the debate was a designated public forum or a nonpublic forum.

Under our precedents, the AETC debate was not a designated public forum. To create a forum of this type, the government must intend to make the property "generally available," Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 264 (1981), to a class of speakers. Accord, Cornelius, supra, at 802. In Widmar, for example, a state university created a public forum for registered student groups by implementing a policy that expressly made its meeting facilities "generally open" to such groups. 454 U.S., at 267; accord, Perry, supra, at 45 (designated public [p679] forum is "generally open"). A designated public forum is not created when the government allows selective access for individual speakers rather than general access for a class of speakers. In Perry, for example, the Court held a school district's internal mail system was not a designated public forum even though selected speakers were able to gain access to it. The basis for the holding in Perry was explained by the Court in Cornelius:

"In contrast to the general access policy in Widmar, school board policy did not grant general access to the school mail system. The practice was to require permission from the individual school principal before access to the system to communicate with teachers was granted." 473 U.S., at 803.

And in Cornelius itself, the Court held the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) charity drive was not a designated public forum because "[t]he Government's consistent policy ha[d] been to limit participation in the CFC to 'appropriate' [i.e., charitable rather than political] voluntary agencies and to require agencies seeking admission to obtain permission from federal and local Campaign officials." Id., at 804.

These cases illustrate the distinction between "general access," id., at 803, which indicates the property is a designated public forum, and "selective access," id., at 805, which indicates the property is a nonpublic forum. On one hand, the government creates a designated public forum when it makes its property generally available to a certain class of speakers, as the university made its facilities generally available to student groups in Widmar. On the other hand, the government does not create a designated public forum when it does no more than reserve eligibility for access to the forum to a particular class of speakers, whose members must then, as individuals, "obtain permission," 473 U.S., at 804, to use it. For instance, the Federal Government did not create a designated public forum in Cornelius [p680] when it reserved eligibility for participation in the CFC drive to charitable agencies, and then made individual, non-ministerial judgments as to which of the eligible agencies would participate. Ibid.

The Cornelius distinction between general and selective access furthers First Amendment interests. By recognizing the distinction, we encourage the government to open its property to some expressive activity in cases where, if faced with an all-or-nothing choice, it might not open the property at all. That this distinction turns on governmental intent does not render it unprotective of speech. Rather, it reflects the reality that, with the exception of traditional public fora, the government retains the choice of whether to designate its property as a forum for specified classes of speakers.

Here, the debate did not have an open-microphone format. Contrary to the assertion of the Court of Appeals, AETC did not make its debate generally available to candidates for Arkansas' Third Congressional District seat. Instead, just as the Federal Government in Cornelius reserved eligibility for participation in the CFC program to certain classes of voluntary agencies, AETC reserved eligibility for participation in the debate to candidates for the Third Congressional District seat (as opposed to some other seat). At that point, just as the Government in Cornelius made agency-by-agency determinations as to which of the eligible agencies would participate in the CFC, AETC made candidate-by-candidate determinations as to which of the eligible candidates would participate in the debate. "Such selective access, unsupported by evidence of a purposeful designation for public use, does not create a public forum." Id., at 805. Thus the debate was a nonpublic forum.

In addition to being a misapplication of our precedents, the Court of Appeals' holding would result in less speech, not more. In ruling that the debate was a public forum open to all ballot-qualified candidates, 93 F.3d, at 504, the Court of Appeals would place a severe burden upon public broadcasters [p681] who air candidates' views. In each of the 1988, 1992, and 1996 Presidential elections, for example, no fewer than 19 candidates appeared on the ballot in at least one State. See Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Presidential Debates, Let America Decide 148 (1995); Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 92, p. 9 (1993); Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 96, p. 11 (1997). In the 1996 congressional elections, it was common for 6 to 11 candidates to qualify for the ballot for a particular seat. See 1996 Election Results, 54 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 3250–3257 (1996). In the 1993 New Jersey gubernatorial election, to illustrate further, sample ballot mailings included the written statements of 19 candidates. See N.Y. Times, Sept. 11, 1993, section 1, p. 26, col. 5. On logistical grounds alone, a public television editor might, with reason, decide that the inclusion of all ballot-qualified candidates would "actually undermine the educational value and quality of debates." Let America Decide, supra, at 148.

Were it faced with the prospect of cacophony, on the one hand, and First Amendment liability, on the other, a public television broadcaster might choose not to air candidates' views at all. A broadcaster might decide the safe course is to avoid controversy,' and by so doing diminish the free flow of information and ideas." Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., 512 U.S., at 656 (quoting Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 257 (1974)). In this circumstance, a "[g]overnment-enforced right of access inescapably 'dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. Ibid. (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279 (1964)).

These concerns are more than speculative. As a direct result of the Court of Appeals' decision in this case, the Nebraska Educational Television Network canceled a scheduled debate between candidates in Nebraska's 1996 United States Senate race. See Lincoln Journal Star, Aug. 24, 1996, [p682] p. 1A, col. 6. A First Amendment jurisprudence yielding these results does not promote speech but represses it.

C
The debate's status as a nonpublic forum, however, did not give AETC unfettered power to exclude any candidate it wished. As has observed, nonpublic forum status "does not mean that the government can restrict speech in whatever way it likes." ISKCON, 505 U.S., at 687. To be consistent with the First Amendment, the exclusion of a speaker from a nonpublic forum must not be based on the speaker's viewpoint and must otherwise be reasonable in light of the purpose of the property. Cornelius, 473 U.S., at 800.

In this case, the jury found Forbes' exclusion was not based on "objections or opposition to his views." App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a. The record provides ample support for this finding, demonstrating as well that AETC's decision to exclude him was reasonable. AETC Executive Director Susan Howarth testified Forbes' views had "absolutely" no role in the decision to exclude him from the debate. App. 142. She further testified Forbes was excluded because (1) "the Arkansas voters did not consider him a serious candidate"; (2) "the news organizations also did not consider him a serious candidate"; (3) "the Associated Press and a national election result reporting service did not plan to run his name in results on election night"; (4) Forbes "apparently had little, if any, financial support, failing to report campaign finances to the Secretary of State's office or to the Federal Election Commission"; and (5) "there [was] no 'Forbes for Congress' campaign headquarters other than his house." Id., at 126–127. Forbes himself described his campaign organization as "bedlam" and the media coverage of his campaign as "zilch." Id., at 91, 96. It is, in short, beyond dispute that Forbes was excluded not because of his viewpoint but because he had generated no appreciable public interest. [p683] Cf. Perry, 460 U.S., at 49 (exclusion from nonpublic forum "based on the status" rather than the views of the speaker is permissible (emphasis in original)).

There is no substance to Forbes' suggestion that he was excluded because his views were unpopular or out of the mainstream. His own objective lack of support, not his platform, was the criterion. Indeed, the very premise of Forbes' contention is mistaken. A candidate with unconventional views might well enjoy broad support by virtue of a compelling personality or an exemplary campaign organization. By the same token, a candidate with a traditional platform might enjoy little support due to an inept campaign or any number of other reasons.

Nor did AETC exclude Forbes in an attempted manipulation of the political process. The evidence provided powerful support for the jury's express finding that AETC's exclusion of Forbes was not the result of "political pressure from anyone inside or outside [AETC]." App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a. There is no serious argument that AETC did not act in good faith in this case. AETC excluded Forbes because the voters lacked interest in his candidacy, not because AETC itself did.

The broadcaster's decision to exclude Forbes was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion consistent with the First Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.


text:
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes/Dissent Stevens

, with whom and  join, dissenting.

The Court has decided that a state-owned television network has no "constitutional obligation to allow every candidate access to" political debates that it sponsors. Ante, at 669. I do not challenge that decision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals should nevertheless be affirmed. The official action that led to the exclusion of respondent Forbes [p684] from a debate with the two major-party candidates for election to one of Arkansas' four seats in Congress does not adhere to well-settled constitutional principles. The ad hoc decision of the staff of the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC) raises precisely the concerns addressed by "the many decisions of this Court over the last 30 years, holding that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150–151 (1969).

In its discussion of the facts, the Court barely mentions the standardless character of the decision to exclude Forbes from the debate. In its discussion of the law, the Court understates the constitutional importance of the distinction between state ownership and private ownership of broadcast facilities. I shall therefore first add a few words about the record in this case and the history of regulation of the broadcast media, before explaining why I believe the judgment should be affirmed.

I
Two months before Forbes was officially certified as an independent candidate qualified to appear on the ballot under Arkansas law, the AETC staff had already concluded that he "should not be invited" to participate in the televised debates because he was "not a serious candidate as determined by the voters of Arkansas." He had, however, been a serious contender for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor in 1986 and again in 1990. Although he was defeated in a runoff election, in the three-way primary race conducted in 1990—just two years before the AETC staff decision—he had received 46.88% of the statewide vote and [p685] had carried 15 of the 16 counties within the Third Congressional District by absolute majorities. Nevertheless, the staff concluded that Forbes did not have "strong popular support." Record, Affidavit of Bill Simmons ¶ 5.

Given the fact that the Republican winner in the Third Congressional District race in 1992 received only 50.22% of the vote and the Democrat received 47.20%, it would have been necessary for Forbes, who had made a strong showing in recent Republican primaries, to divert only a handful of votes from the Republican candidate to cause his defeat. Thus, even though the AETC staff may have correctly concluded that Forbes was "not a serious candidate," their decision to exclude him from the debate may have determined the outcome of the election in the Third District.

If a comparable decision were made today by a privately owned network, it would be subject to scrutiny under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 unless the network used "pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate in [the] debate." 11 CFR § 110.13(c) (1997). No such criteria governed AETC's refusal to permit Forbes to participate in the debate. Indeed, whether that refusal was based on a judgment about "newsworthiness"—as AETC has argued in this Court—or a judgment about "political viability"—as it argued in the Court of Appeals—the facts in the record presumably would have [p686] provided an adequate basis either for a decision to include Forbes in the Third District debate or a decision to exclude him, and might even have required a cancellation of two of the other debates.

The apparent flexibility of AETC's purported standard suggests the extent to which the staff had nearly limitless discretion to exclude Forbes from the debate based on ad hoc justifications. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the staff's appraisal of "political viability" was "so subjective, so arguable, so susceptible of variation in individual opinion, as to provide no secure basis for the exercise of governmental power consistent with the First Amendment." Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Telecommunications Network Foundation, 93 F.3d 497, 505 (CA8 1996).

II
AETC is a state agency whose actions "are fairly attributable to the State and subject to the Fourteenth Amendment, unlike the actions of privately owned broadcast licensees." Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television Communication Network Foundation, 22 F.3d 1423, 1428 (CA8), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 995 (1994), 514 U.S. 1110 (1995). The AETC staff members therefore "were not ordinary journalists: they [p687] were employees of government." 93 F.3d, at 505. The Court implicitly acknowledges these facts by subjecting the decision to exclude Forbes to constitutional analysis. Yet the Court seriously underestimates the importance of the difference between private and public ownership of broadcast facilities, despite the fact that Congress and this Court have repeatedly recognized that difference.

In Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), the Court held that a licensee is neither a common carrier, id., at 107–109, nor a public forum that must accommodate the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish, id., at 101 (quoting Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 388 (1969)). Speaking for a plurality, Chief Justice Burger expressed the opinion that the First Amendment imposes no constraint on the private network's journalistic freedom. He supported that view by noting that when Congress confronted the advent of radio in the 1920's, it "was faced with a fundamental choice between total Government ownership and control of the new medium—the choice of most other countries—or some other alternative." 412 U.S., at 116, 93 S.Ct., at 2093. [p688] Congress chose a system of private broadcasters licensed and regulated by the Government, partly because of our traditional respect for private enterprise, but more importantly because public ownership created unacceptable risks of governmental censorship and use of the media for propaganda. "Congress appears to have concluded that of these two choices—private or official censorship—Government censorship would be the most pervasive, the most self-serving, the most difficult to restrain and hence the one most to be avoided." Id., at 105.

While noncommercial, educational stations generally have exercised the same journalistic independence as commercial networks, in 1981 Congress enacted a statute forbidding stations that received a federal subsidy to engage in "editorializing." Relying primarily on cases involving the rights of commercial entities, a bare majority of this Court held the restriction invalid. FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364 (1984). Responding to the dissenting view that "the interest in keeping the Federal Government out of the propaganda arena" justified the restriction, id., at 415 (opinion of, J.), the majority emphasized the broad coverage of the statute and concluded that it "impermissibly sweeps within its prohibition a wide range [p689] of speech by wholly private stations on topics that have nothing whatever to do with federal, state, or local government." Id., at 395. The Court noted that Congress had considered and rejected a ban that would have applied only to stations operated by state or local governmental entities, and reserved decision on the constitutionality of such a limited ban. See id., at 394, n. 24.

The League of Women Voters case implicated the right of "wholly private stations" to express their own views on a wide range of topics that "have nothing whatever to do with government." Id., at 395. The case before us today involves only the right of a state-owned network to regulate speech that plays a central role in democratic government. Because AETC is owned by the State, deference to its interest in making ad hoc decisions about the political content of its programs necessarily increases the risk of government censorship and propaganda in a way that protection of privately owned broadcasters does not.

III
The Court recognizes that the debates sponsored by AETC were "by design a forum for political speech by the candidates." Ante, at 675. The Court also acknowledges the central importance of candidate debates in the electoral process. See ibid. Thus, there is no need to review our cases expounding on the public forum doctrine to conclude that the First Amendment will not tolerate a state agency's arbitrary exclusion from a debate forum based, for example, on an expectation that the speaker might be critical of the Governor, or might hold unpopular views about abortion or the death penalty. Indeed, the Court so holds today.

[p690] It seems equally clear, however, that the First Amendment will not tolerate arbitrary definitions of the scope of the forum. We have recognized that "[o]nce it has opened a limited forum, the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set." Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). It follows, of course, that a State's failure to set any meaningful boundaries at all cannot insulate the State's action from First Amendment challenge. The dispositive issue in this case, then, is not whether AETC created a designated public forum or a nonpublic forum, as the Court concludes, but whether AETC defined the contours of the debate forum with sufficient specificity to justify the exclusion of a ballot-qualified candidate.

AETC asks that we reject Forbes' constitutional claim on the basis of entirely subjective, ad hoc judgments about the dimensions of its forum. The First Amendment demands more, however, when a state government effectively wields the power to eliminate a political candidate from all consideration by the voters. All stations must act as editors, see ante, at 673, and when state-owned stations participate in the broadcasting arena, their editorial decisions may impact the constitutional interests of individual speakers. A state-owned broadcaster need not plan, sponsor, and conduct political debates, however. When it chooses to do so, the First Amendment imposes important limitations on its control over access to the debate forum.

AETC's control was comparable to that of a local government official authorized to issue permits to use public facilities for expressive activities. In cases concerning access [p691] to a traditional public forum, we have found an analogy between the power to issue permits and the censorial power to impose a prior restraint on speech. Thus, in our review of an ordinance requiring a permit to participate in a parade on city streets, we explained that the ordinance, as written, "fell squarely within the ambit of the many decisions of this Court over the last 30 years, holding that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional." Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S., at 150–151.

We recently reaffirmed this approach when considering the constitutionality of an assembly and parade ordinance that authorized a county official to exercise discretion in setting the amount of the permit fee. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), relying on Shuttlesworth and similar cases, we described the breadth of the administrator's discretion thusly:

"There are no articulated standards either in the ordinance or in the county's established practice. The administrator is not required to rely on any objective factors. He need not provide any explanation for his decision, and that decision is unreviewable. Nothing in the law or its application prevents the official from encouraging some views and discouraging others through the arbitrary application of fees. The First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official." 505 U.S., at 133 (footnotes omitted).

[p692] Perhaps the discretion of the AETC staff in controlling access to the 1992 candidate debates was not quite as unbridled as that of the Forsyth County administrator. Nevertheless, it was surely broad enough to raise the concerns that controlled our decision in that case. No written criteria cabined the discretion of the AETC staff. Their subjective judgment about a candidate's "viability" or "newsworthiness" allowed them wide latitude either to permit or to exclude a third participant in any debate. Moreover, in exercising that judgment they were free to rely on factors that arguably should favor inclusion as justifications for exclusion. Thus, the fact that Forbes had little financial support was considered as evidence of his lack of viability when that factor might have provided an independent reason for allowing him to share a free forum with wealthier candidates.

The televised debate forum at issue in this case may not squarely fit within our public forum analysis, but its importance cannot be denied. Given the special character of political speech, particularly during campaigns for elected office, [p693] the debate forum implicates constitutional concerns of the highest order, as the majority acknowledges. Ante, at 675. Indeed, the planning and management of political debates by state-owned broadcasters raise serious constitutional concerns that are seldom replicated when state-owned television networks engage in other types of programming. We have recognized that "speech concerning public affairs is the essence of self-government." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74–75 (1964). The First Amendment therefore "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971). Surely the Constitution demands at least as much from the government when it takes action that necessarily impacts democratic elections as when local officials issue parade permits.

The reasons that support the need for narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide licensing decisions apply directly to the wholly subjective access decisions made by the staff of AETC. The importance of avoiding arbitrary [p694] or viewpoint-based exclusions from political debates militates strongly in favor of requiring the controlling state agency to use (and adhere to) preestablished, objective criteria to determine who among qualified candidates may participate. When the demand for speaking facilities exceeds supply, the State must "ration or allocate the scarce resources on some acceptable neutral principle." Rosenberger, 515 U.S., at 835. A constitutional duty to use objective standards—i.e., "neutral principles"—for determining whether and when to adjust a debate format would impose only a modest requirement that would fall far short of a duty to grant every multiple-party request. Such standards would also have the benefit of providing the public with some assurance that state-owned broadcasters cannot select debate participants on arbitrary grounds.

Like the Court, I do not endorse the view of the Court of Appeals that all candidates who qualify for a position on the ballot are necessarily entitled to access to any state-sponsored debate. I am convinced, however, that the constitutional imperatives that motivated our decisions in cases like Shuttlesworth command that access to political debates [p695] planned and managed by state-owned entities be governed by preestablished, objective criteria. Requiring government employees to set out objective criteria by which they choose which candidates will benefit from the significant media exposure that results from state-sponsored political debates would alleviate some of the risk inherent in allowing government agencies—rather than private entities—to stage candidate debates.

Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Talk:Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/3

 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in response to a requirement established in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, Section 1683 (h), as amended by Section 6802(k) of the FY 2023 NDAA (as codified at 50 U.S.C. § 3373).

The report covers unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) reports from 31 August 2022 to 30 April 2023, and all UAP reports from any previous time periods that were not included in an earlier report. The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) received a total of 291 UAP reports during this period, consisting of 274 that occurred during this period and another 7 that occurred during previous reporting periods from 2019–2022, but had not been conveyed in previous submissions.

Reporting from this period continues to depict a strong but shifting collection bias. Most reports still reflect a bias towards restricted military airspace, a result of reporting from military personnel and sensors present in such areas. This bias has been lessened by reporting from commercial pilots showing a more diverse geographic distribution of UAP sightings across the United States. However, these reports mostly cover observations over U.S. airspace and littoral waters, and therefore, as these reports continue to come in, a U.S.-centric collection bias will grow significantly relative to the rest of the world.

During the reporting period, AARO received no reports indicating UAP sightings have been associated with any adverse health effects. However, many reports ftom military witnesses do present potential safety of flight concerns, and there are some cases where reported UAP have potentially exhibited one or more concerning performance characteristics such as high-speed travel or unusual maneuverability. AARO has de-conflicted these cases with potential U.S. programs and continues to work closely with its DoD and Intelligence Community (IC) mission partners to identify and attribute any objects found in these cases. Additionally, AARO continues to investigate and research all cases in its holdings.

While the mere presence of UAP in the airspace represents a potential hazard to flight safety, none of these reports suggest the UAP maneuvered to an unsafe proximity to civil or military aircraft, positioned themselves in flight paths, or otherwise posed a direct threat to the flight safety of the observing aircraft. Although none of these UAP reports have been positively attributed to foreign activities, these cases continue to be investigated.

AARO continues to make progress receiving, standardizing, analyzing, and resolving reports of UAP; working with military and technical partners to improve sensor placement and calibration to better collect against UAP; to elevate the quality of reporting; and to provide risk reduction for improved domain awareness.

While this progress is facilitating collection and analysis of the UAP problem set, the continued volume and unidentified nature of most UAP is a direct consequence of gaps in domain awareness. These gaps are the direct result of insufficient data secured by radar, electro-optical (EO)/infrared (IR) sensors; the presence of sensor artifacts, such as IR flare; and optical


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/4

 effects, such as parallax, that can cause observational misperceptions. Based on the ability to resolve cases to date, with an increase in the quality of data secured, the unidentified and purported anomalous nature of most UAP will likely resolve to ordinary phenomena and significantly reduce the amount of UAP case submissions.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/5

 '''II. SCOPE AND ASSUMPTIONS'''

Scope

This consolidated annual report is provided by DoD and ODNI in response to a requirement established in the NDAA for FY 2022, Section 1683(h), as amended by Section 6802(k) of the FY 2023 NDAA (as codified at 50 U.S.C. § 3373), which states: "Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, and annually thereafter for four years, the Director of National intelligence and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on unidentified anomalous phenomena."

This report was drafted by AARO and ODNI's National Intelligence Manager for Military Integration (NIM-MIL) and coordinated with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs; the Office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters; the Office of the General Counsel of the DoD; the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; ODNI's NIM-Economic Security and Emerging Technology; ODNI's National Counterintelligence and Security Center; ODNI's National Intelligence Council; the Department of Energy; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the National Security Agency; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency; the DoD Joint Staff; the National Ground Intelligence Center; the Missile and Space Intelligence Center; the Office of Naval Intelligence/National Maritime Intelligence Center; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL); the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC); the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; the U.S. Army; the U.S. Navy (USN); the U.S. Marine Corps; the U.S. Air Force (USAF); and the U.S. Space Force (USSF).

Assumptions

The assumptions inherent in this mission set remain the same as outlined in the previous report, which is that a wide range of factors can influence the observation and detection of UAP, observers convey their accurate recollection of their perception of the event, and that sensors generally operate correctly. However, AARO and NIM-MIL recognize that many reports are probably the result of sensor artifacts, equipment error, misidentification, or misperception.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/6

 '''III. UAP REPORTING IS INCREASING ACROSS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (USG), AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVED ANALYTIC PROCESSES IS REVEALING TRENDS'''

A. Overall Trend Analysis

The report covers UAP reports from 31 August 2022 to 30 April 2023, and all UAP reports from any previous time periods that were not included in an earlier report. AARO received a total of 291 UAP reports during this period, consisting of 274 that occurred during this period and another 17 that occurred during previous reporting periods from 2019–2022 but had not been conveyed in previous submissions. Of these reports, 290 occurred within the air domain and one in the maritime domain. No transmedium or space domain UAP reports were submitted to AARO. The increase in reporting is, in part, due to deepening federal relationships and AARO's ability to incorporate new reports into its adjudication and research process. UAP mission partners continue to coordinate, collaborate, and streamline processes. With these new reports, as of 30 April 2023, AARO has received a total of 801 UAP reports.

B. Geographic and Safety Trends Coming into Focus

Reporting from this period continues to depict a strong but shifting collection bias. Most reports still reflect a bias towards restricted military airspace, a result of reporting from military personnel and sensors present in such areas. This bias has been lessened by reporting from commercial pilots showing a more diverse geographic distribution of UAP sightings across the United States. However, these reports mostly cover observations over U.S. airspace and littoral waters, and therefore, as these reports continue to come in, a U.S.-centric collection bias will grow significantly relative to the rest of the world.


text: Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/7


text: Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/8


text:
American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company/Dissent McKenna

dissents, being of the opinion that the case involves a direct and substantial controversy under the patent laws.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/9

 C. Increased FAA Reporting Shifting Geographic Collection Bias and Morphology Trend

AARO has received over 100 UAP incident reports from FAA that contribute to the trend analysis of activity over the United States and its adjacent waters. Of the incident reports FAA has shared with AARO, the vast majority concern sightings of unidentified lights without specific shape at widely varying estimated altitudes (from less than 5,000 feet up to 60,000 feet). None of these reports suggest the UAP were exhibiting anomalous characteristics, maneuvered to an unsafe proximity to civil aircraft, or posed a threat to flight safety to the observing aircraft. AARO will continue to add these reports, as appropriate, to the active archive where they will be used in the overall trend analysis.

D. No Health/Physiological Impacts from UAP Incidents Reported

To date, no encounters with UAP have been confirmed to have directly contributed to adverse health-related effects to the observer(s). ODNI and DoD acknowledge that health-related effects may appear at any time after an event occurs, therefore any reported health implications related to UAP will be tracked and examined if and when they emerge.

E. Data and Intelligence Sources Received Through Various Intelligence Channels

AARO's new integrated analysis process ensures that raw intelligence related to UAP from various intelligence disciplines are assimilated into all-source data packages analyzed by teams of scientists and intelligence analysts. AARO's analysts scour multiple classified and unclassified databases to identify any existing data on each UAP case, prioritizing technical sensor information that yields the highest quantity of pertinent, valuable data for review. As the office employs more sensors specifically tailored for UAP detection, the amount and variety of technical data produced will increase, facilitating more and better analytic fidelity.

'''IV. AARO PROGRAM UPDATES'''

A. Analytic Division

AARO's analytic efforts are confirming that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display interesting signatures, such as high-speed travel and unknown morphologies. The majority of unidentified objects reported to AARO demonstrate ordinary characteristics of readily explainable sources, while a large number of cases in AARO's holdings remain technically unresolved because of a lack of data. Without sufficient data these cases cannot be resolved. For the few objects that do demonstrate characteristics of interest, AARO is approaching these cases with objectivity and analytic rigor. This approach includes physical testing and employing modeling and simulation to validate analyses and the underlying theories, and then peer reviewing those results before reaching any conclusions.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/10

 B. Operations and Collections Division

During the period of reporting, AARO, in close collaboration with the Joint Staff and other DoD components, further normalized UAP operations, led development of reporting standards; informed acquisition of mission-specific sensors; and guided integration of UAP detection, identification, and mitigation efforts. Improving the quality of data from DoD sources is important, since up to this point, most UAP cases have been derived ftom DoD mission reports and are representative of observations in the Department's operating, training, and testing areas.

C. Science and Technology Division

In accordance with the FY 2022 NDAA, Section 1683(g), as amended by the FY 2023 NDAA, Section 6802, AARO has established a multilayered science and technology (S&T) plan that incorporates close partnerships with DoD Services, USG agencies, and other centers of excellence to identify systems that may assist in AARO's mission to detect, track, and characterize UAP. This plan includes a sensor calibration campaign to measure known objects that are often reported as UAP. These objects include balloons (hobbyist and commercial), unmanned aircraft systems, and natural phenomena. The resulting data are turned into models for use in pilot training and algorithm development. AARO and its mission partners have developed models of known and unknown shapes that can be used within a simulator for sensor operators. This modelling will help AARO increase its analysis and resolution of future cases as well.

D. Strategic Communications Division

AARO successfully exercised its process for declassifying data and full-motion videos of UAP events for an open congressional hearing held on 21 March 2023. This process is a complicated, synchronized effort that involves various stakeholders and information owners with differing processes. AARO is working to standardize and routinize this declassification process to ensure as much transparency as possible.

AARO has launched a public-facing website that shares information about its mission, operations, UAP analytic trends and statistics, and declassified UAP data and footage. The website will also link to AARO's secure mechanism for authorized reporting of UAP.

AARO has established classified collaboration mechanisms to encourage cooperation on UAP investigation and research among government agencies.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/11

 V. WAY FORWARD

The space and maritime domains need to be fully integrated into AARO's processes. Airborne UAP continue to dominate UAP reporting with 290 of the 291 reports from this reporting period occurring within this domain and, consequently, the relationship between AARO and air domain elements such as NIM-MIL, the USAF, including NASIC and AFRL, and air command elements remains strong and continues to deepen and expand in terms of collection, analysis, exploitation, and resolution. Collaboration with Space Force, U.S. Space Command, NRO, and NASA is well underway.

Integration of the maritime domain is another area where AARO will seek to make significant progress in the coming year. AARO will work with the U.S. Navy and NIM-MIL to ensure timely and quality reporting via existing reporting mechanisms, and begin conducting research on sensor calibration relevant to the maritime domain.

Mitigating reporting bias and increasing reporting quality. To further mitigate the inherent collection bias and to develop more comprehensive domain awareness, AARO and NIM-MIL are strengthening targeted collection by the IC. This partnership will help organizations focus on the information they should be seeking from UAP observers to provide valuable, complete reporting for subsequent analysis by AARO and its partners.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/12

 '''VI. APPENDICES'''

APPENDIX A: CASE CLOSURE REPORT

Attached is a pilot example of the result of AARO's full-phase analytic process. The files and accompanying data in each case have been given to AARO's IC and S&T partners for their analysis, and this resolution report reflects AARO's determination based on the results. These case resolutions and accompanying unclassified analyses will be published on AARO's website.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/13

 US Department of Defense

(U) Key Findings

(U) AARO assesses that the UAP in this case were almost certainty commercial aircraft travelling on well-established air corridors as far as 300 nautical mites from the platform, based on a thorough review of the data by multiple analytical and scientific entities.

 * (U) Military personnel reported seeing five equidistant lights that they believed represented a potential incursion into restricted military airspace.
 * (U) AARO's intelligence and Science and Technology (S&T) partners independently came to the same conclusion in accordance with AARO's analytic framework.
 * (U) The objects strongly correlated with specific commercial aircraft travelling on different air routes up to 300 nautical miles from the sensor.

(U) Intelligence Assessment

(U) Analysis of the objects' positions and acquisition of additional data led AARO to the conclusion that the objects were significantly farther from the platform than originally estimated by the observers.

(U) Case Essentials

(U) Military personnel reported this case due to the observed UAP presenting a potential incursion into restricted airspace. The UAP were described as equidistant lights that flew at a relatively constant pace

(U) Location: Western United States military airspace

(U) Date(s): 2021

(U) Altitude: between 20,000 to 40,000 feet

(U) Shape: Oblong dots/lights

(U) Reporter: Military personnel

(U) Sensor: Infrared (IR)

(U) Behavior: Equidistant lights that flew at a relatively constant pace

(U) Case Status: Resolved; the lights were aircraft up to 300NM away from the sensor


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/15

 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon (UAP): Sources of anomalous detections in one or more domain (i.e., airborne, seaborne, spaceborne, and/or transmedium) that are not yet attributable to known actors and that demonstrate behaviors that are not readily understood by sensors or observers. "Anomalous detections" include but are not limited to phenomena that demonstrate apparent capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes. A UAP may consist of one or more unidentified anomalous objects and may persist over an extended period of time.

Spaceborne UAP: Sources of anomalous detections above the Karman Line (i.e., 100 km above Earth's mean sea level).

Airborne UAP: Sources of anomalous detections between Earth's mean sea level and the Karman Line.

Seaborne UAP: Sources of anomalous detections at or below Earth's mean sea level within a body of water.

Transmedium UAP: Sources of anomalous detections that transit more than one domain.

UAP Objects and Material: Corporeal artifacts of UAP. UAP may contain one or more UAP objects (e.g., airborne craft exhibiting apparent anomalous capabilities). UAP material are samples, in whole or in part, of UAP objects (e.g., debris).

UAP Data: Any records of UAP detection, observation, identification, effects (on persons or equipment), mitigation, and material-exploitation. UAP data includes but is not limited to written notes, still and full-motion photographs, audio recordings, full-/ partial-spectrum characterization, and digital record from observers, sensors, platforms, debriefers, and investigators.

UAP Incident: Any occurrence where UAP is detected by persons or sensors.

UAP Incursion: Any UAP incident in, on, or near U.S. military installations, operating areas, training areas, special use airspace, proximity operations, and/or other national security areas of interest. Other areas of interest include but are not limited to U.S. critical infrastructure, IC installations and platforms, and national defense equities of Allied military and intelligence coalitions (e.g., Five Eyes).

UAP Engagement: Bringing UAP under kinetic or non-kinetic fire, to deny, disrupt, or destroy the phenomenon and/or its object(s).

UAP Interrogation: The elicitation of UAP location, capabilities, characteristics, and/or intent using passive and/or active sensing capabilities—including but not limited to electro-optical/imagery, infrared/thermal, radiofrequency/radar, light/laser/lidar/ladar, electromagnetic, gravitational, and radioactive means.


text:
Page:FY2023-Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf/16

 UAP Attribution: The assessed natural or artificial source of the phenomenon and includes solar, weather, tidal events; U.S. Government, scientific, industry, and private activities; and foreign (allied or adversary) government, scientific, industry, and private activities.

UAP Risk: A safety hazard to persons, materiel, or information (e.g., from collision).

UAP Threat: A force-protection and/or national-security threat to persons, materiel, or information by UAP that demonstrate hostile intent.


text:
Translation talk:For Milo

Location
If this is a wikisource translation, shouldn't it be in Translation: space ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Translation talk:For Milo


text:
Page:Costume design and illustration (IA costumedesignill00trap).pdf/91

 SOURCES OF COLOR SCHEMES

"Isn't there any such thing as just plain, ordinary green?"

"Oh no! It's the shade, you know, Here, for example, are elephant's breath gray, and tampe."

"Indeed!"

"Yes; and then all the flower colors are represented - rose, vialet, lavender, wistaria, nasturtion, pensy, daf- fodil, American Beauty, eherry blossom, and poppy real."

"Charming! They appeal to the imagination."

"Precisely. Half of the color-pleasure of dress goods is the pleased fancy. We strive for the mique, such as wood shades -wahnt brown, mahogany, oak, and chest- mit; hird colors, such as oxconds, chanticleer, dove. canary, yellow and parrot green; jewel tints, as ruby, sapphire, pearl, amher, topaz, coral, jade, and turquoise bhie."

"I am overwhelmed,"

"Oh, there are others the most fantastic. You can have a claret necktie, a flame ribbon, laces of ivory or Isabella, a sash of creaun, coffee, or chocolate enlor; a gown of monse gray or steel gray, and other articles of your apparel. to assist you to perfect self-expression. Maybe the color of pomegranate, apple green, fawn, delft

FIG. 99.-Reproduction showing the combination printing from the two plates.

Courtesy of Criterion Magazine.

FIG. 99.-Reproduction showing the combination printing from the two plates.


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/53

Rh perhaps it did—to the troubles which were to come. He stood up in the Rostra to make the usual address to the people on laying down his authority. Metellus Nepos had been newly elected one of the tribunes: it was his office to guard jealously all the rights and privileges of the Roman commons. Influenced, it is said, by Cæsar—possibly himself an undiscovered partisan of Catiline—he dealt a blow at the retiring consul under cover of a discharge of duty. As Cicero was about to speak, he interposed a tribune's 'veto'; no man should be heard, he said, who had put Roman citizens to death without a trial. There was consternation in the Forum. Cicero could not dispute what was a perfectly legal exercise of the tribune's power; only, in a few emphatic words which he seized the opportunity of adding to the usual formal oath on quitting office, he protested that his act had saved Rome. The people shouted in answer, "Thou hast said true!" and Cicero went home a private citizen, but with that hearty tribute from his grateful countrymen ringing pleasantly in his ears. But the bitter words of Metellus were yet to be echoed by his enemies again and again, until that fickle popular voice took them up, and howled them after the once popular consul.

Let us follow him for a while into private life; a pleasanter companionship for us, we confess, than the unstable glories of the political arena at Rome. In his family and social relations, the great orator wins from us an amount of personal interest and sympathy which he fails sometimes to command in his career as a statesman. At forty-five years of age he has

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/53


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/54

42 become a very wealthy man—has bought for something like £30,000 a noble mansion on the Palatine Hill; and besides the old-fashioned family seat near Arpinum—now become his own by his father's death—he has built, or enlarged, or bought as they stood, villas at Antium, at Formia, at Pompeii, at Cumæ, at Puteoli, and at half-a-dozen other places, besides the one favourite spot of all, which was to him almost what Abbotsford was to Scott, the home which it was the delight of his life to embellish—his country-house among the pleasant hills of Tusculum. It had once belonged to Sulla, and was about twelve miles from Rome. In that beloved building and its arrangements he indulged, as an ample purse allowed him, not only a highly-cultivated taste, but in some respects almost a whimsical fancy. "A mere cottage," he himself terms it in one place; but this was when he was deprecating accusations of extravagance which were brought against him, and we all understand something of the pride which in such matters "apes humility." He would have it on the plan of the Academia at Athens, with its palæstra and open colonnade, where, as he tells us, he could walk and discuss politics or philosophy with his friends. Greek taste and design were as fashionable among the Romans of that day as the Louis Quatorze style was with our grandfathers. But its grand feature was a library, and its most valued furniture was books. Without books, he said, a house was but a body without a soul. He entertained for these

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/54


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/55

Rh treasures not only the calm love of a reader, but the passion of a bibliophile; he was particular about his bindings, and admired the gay colours of the covers in which the precious manuscripts were kept as well as the more intellectual beauties within. He had clever Greek slaves employed from time to time in making copies of all such works as were not to be readily purchased. He could walk across, too, as he tells us, to his neighbour's, the young Lucullus, a kind of ward of his, and borrow from the library of that splendid mansion any book he wanted. His friend Atticus collected for him everywhere—manuscripts, paintings, statuary; though for sculpture he professes not to care much, except for such subjects as might form appropriate decorations for his palæstra and his library. Very pleasant must have been the days spent together by the two friends—so alike in their private tastes and habits, so far apart in their chosen course of life—when they met there in the brief holidays which Cicero stole from the law-courts and the Forum, and sauntered in the shady walks, or lounged in the cool library, in that home of lettered ease, where the busy lawyer and politician declared that he forgot for a while all the toils and vexations of public life.

He had his little annoyances, however, even in these happy hours of retirement. Morning calls were an infliction to which a country gentleman was liable in ancient Italy as in modern England. A man like Cicero was very good company, and somewhat of a lion besides; and country neighbours, wherever he set up his rest, insisted on bestowing their tediousness on

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/55


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/56

44 him. His villa at Formiæ, his favourite residence next to Tusculum, was, he protested, more like a public hall. Most of his visitors, indeed, had the consideration not to trouble him after ten or eleven in the fore-noon (fashionable calls in those days began uncomfortably early); but there were one or two, especially his next-door neighbour, Arrius, and a friend's friend, named Sebosus, who were in and out at all hours: the former had an unfortunate taste for philosophical discussion, and was postponing his return to Rome (he was good enough to say) from day to day in order to enjoy these long mornings in Cicero's conversation. Such are the doleful complaints in two or three of the letters to Atticus; but, like all such complaints, they were probably only half in earnest: popularity, even at a watering-place, was not very unpleasant, and the writer doubtless knew how to practise the social philosophy which he recommends to others, and took his place cheerfully and pleasantly in the society which he found about him—not despising his honest neighbours because they had not all adorned a consulship or saved a state.

There were times when Cicero fancied that this rural life, with all its refinements of wealth and taste and literary leisure, was better worth living than the public life of the capital. His friends and his books, he said, were the company most congenial to him; "politics might go to the dogs;" to count the waves as they rolled on the beach was happiness; he "had rather be mayor of Antium than consul at Rome"; "rather sit in his own library with Atticus in their

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/56


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/57

Rh favourite seat under the bust of Aristotle than in the curule chair." It is true that these longings for retirement usually followed some political defeat or mortification; that his natural sphere, the only life in which he could be really happy, was in the keen excitement of party warfare—the glorious battle-field of the Senate and the Forum. The true key-note of his mind is to be found in these words to his friend Cœlius: "Cling to the city, my friend, and live in her light: all employment abroad, as I have felt from my earliest manhood, is obscure and petty for those who have abilities to make them famous at Rome." Yet the other strain had nothing in it of affectation or hypocrisy: it was the schoolboy escaped from work, thoroughly enjoying his holiday, and fancying that nothing would be so delightful as to have holidays always. In this, again, there was a similarity between Cicero's taste and that of Horace. The poet loved his Sabine farm and all its rural delights—after his fashion; and perhaps thought honestly that he loved it more than he really did. Above all, he loved to write about it. With that fancy, half-real, perhaps, and half-affected, for pastoral simplicity, which has always marked a state of over-luxurious civilisation, he protests to himself that there is nothing like the country. But perhaps Horace discharges a sly jest at himself, in a sort of aside to his readers, in the person of Alphius, the rich city money-lender, who is made to utter that pretty apostrophe to rural happiness:—

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/57


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/58

46

And who, after thus expatiating for some stanzas on the charms of the country, calls in all his money one week in order to settle there, and puts it all out again (no doubt at higher interest) the week after. "O rus, quando te aspiciam!" has been the cry of public men before and since Cicero's day, to whom, as to the great Roman, banishment from political life, and condemnation to perpetual leisure, would have been a sentence that would have crushed their very souls.

He was very happy at this time in his family. His wife and he loved one another with an honest affection; anything more would have been out of the natural course of things in Roman society at any date, and even so much as this was become a notable exception in these later days. It is paying a high honour to the character of Cicero and his household—and from all evidence that has come down to us it may be paid with truth—that even in those evil times it might have presented the original of what Virgil drew as almost a fancy picture, or one to be realised only in some happy retirement into which the civilised vices of the capital had never penetrated—

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/58


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/59

Rh His little daughter, Tullia, or Tulliola, which was her pet name (the Roman diminutives being formed somewhat more elegantly than ours, by adding a syllable instead of cutting short), was the delight of his heart; in his earlier letters to Atticus he is constantly making some affectionate mention of her—sending her love, or some playful message which his friend would understand. She had been happily married (though she was then but thirteen at the most) the year before his consulship; but the affectionate intercourse between father and daughter was never interrupted until her early death. His only son, Marcus, born after a considerable interval, who succeeded to Tullia's place as a household pet, is made also occasionally to send some childish word of remembrance to his father's old friend: "Cicero the Little sends his compliments to Titus the Athenian"—"Cicero the Philosopher salutes Titus the Politician." These messages are written in Greek at the end of the letters. Abeken thinks that in the originals they might have been added in the little Cicero's own hand, "to show that he had begun Greek;" "a conjecture," says Mr Merivale, "too pleasant not to be readily admitted." The boy gave his father some trouble in after life. He served with some credit as an officer of cavalry under Pompey in Greece, or at least got into no trouble there. Some years after, he wished to take service in Spain, under Cæsar, against the sons of Pompey; but the father did not approve of this change of side. He persuaded him to go to

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/59


text:
Page:A Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Genesis (Morgenstern, 1919, jewishinterpreta00morg).pdf/52

34 tained, and a firm foundation will have been laid for the Jewish belief, Jewish practice, and Jewish life of the child.

The teacher should endeavor to bring out constantly the story of Israel, to make the children realize that the stories told are, as it were, merely chapters in Israel's great and glorious history. There should be conscious endeavor on the teacher's part to further the children's sympathy with Israel's history and to develop their pride that they are Jews, descendants of the traditional ancestors about whom they have heard, in other words to develop their Jewish subconsciousness and self-consciousness. If this be well done, and be coupled with a proper knowledge of Jewish history and of Judaism, the foundation will be well laid and the children will become in time the conscious, loyal, earnest Jews we need and want, and whom the religious school must help to make.


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/60

48 Athens to study instead, allowing him what both Atticus and himself thought a very liberal income—not sufficient, however, for him to keep a horse, which Cicero held to be an unnecessary luxury. Probably the young cavalry officer might not have been of the same opinion; at any rate, he got into more trouble among the philosophers than he did in the army. He spent a great deal more than his allowance, and one of the professors, whose lectures he attended, had the credit of helping him to spend it. The young man must have shared the kindly disposition of his father. He wrote a confidential letter to Tiro, the old family servant, showing very good feeling, and promising reformation. It is doubtful how far the promise was kept. He rose, however, subsequently to place and power under Augustus, but died without issue; and, so far at least as history knows them, the line of the Ciceros was extinct. It had flashed into fame with the great orator, and died out with him.

All Cicero's biographers have found considerable difficulty in tracing, at all satisfactorily, the sources of the magnificent fortune which must have been required to keep up, and to embellish in accordance with so luxurious a taste, so many residences in all parts of the country. True, these expenses often led Cicero into debt and difficulties; but what he borrowed from his friends he seems always to have repaid, so that the money must have come in from some quarter or other. His patrimony at Arpinum would not appear to have been large; he got only some £3000 or £4000 dowry with Terentia; and we find no hint of his making

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/60


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/61

Rh money by any commercial speculations, as some Roman gentlemen did. On the other hand, it is the barest justice to him to say that his hands were clean from those ill-gotten gains which made the fortunes of many of the wealthiest public men at Rome, who were criminals in only a less degree than Verres—peculation, extortion, and downright robbery in the unfortunate provinces which they were sent out to govern. Such opportunities lay as ready to his grasp as to other men's, but he steadily eschewed them. His declining the tempting prize of a provincial government, which was his right on the expiration of his prætorship, may fairly be attributed to his having in view the higher object of the consulship, to secure which, by an early and persistent canvass, he felt it necessary to remain in Rome. But he again waived the right when his consulship was over; and when, some years afterwards, he went unwillingly as proconsul to Cilicia, his administration there, as before in his lower office in Sicily, was marked by a probity and honesty quite exceptional in a Roman governor. His emoluments, confined strictly within the legal bounds, would be only moderate, and, whatever they were, came too late in his life to be any explanation of his earlier expenditure. He received many valuable legacies, at different times, from personal friends or grateful clients who died childless (be it remembered how the barrenness of the marriage union had become then, at Rome, as it is said to be in some countries now, the reproach of a sensual and effete aristocracy); he boasts himself, in one of his 'Philippics,' that he had received from this source

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/61


text:
Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/62

50 above £170,000. Mr Forsyth also notices the large presents that were made by foreign kings and states to conciliate the support and advocacy of the leading men at Rome—"we can hardly call them bribes, for in many cases the relation of patron and client was avowedly established between a foreign state and some influential Roman: and it became his duty, as of course it was his interest, to defend it in the Senate and before the people." In this way, he thinks, Cicero held "retainers" from Dyrrachium; and, he might have added, from Sicily. The great orator's own boast was, that he never took anything for his services as an advocate; and, indeed, such payments were forbidden by law. But with all respect for Cicero's material honesty, one learns from his letters, unfortunately, not to put implicit confidence in him when he is in a boasting vein; and he might not look upon voluntary gifts, after a cause was decided, in the light of payment. Pætus, one of his clients, gave him a valuable library of books; and one cannot believe that this was a solitary instance of the quiet evasion of the Cincian law, or that there were not other transactions of the same nature which never found their way into any letter of Cicero's that was likely to come down to us.

title: Page:Cicero (Collins 1871).djvu/62


text:
Page:Peter Pan (1928).pdf/13

Rh literary record of that summer, The Boy Castaways, which is so much the best and the rarest of this author’s works? What was it that made us eventually give to the public in the thin form of a play that which had been woven for ourselves alone? Alas, I know what it was, I was losing my grip. One by one as you swung monkey-wise from branch to branch in the wood of make-believe you reached the tree of knowledge. Sometimes you swung back into the wood, as the unthinking may at a cross-road take a familiar path that no longer leads to home; or you perched ostentatiously on its boughs to please me, pretending that you still belonged; soon you knew it only as the vanished wood, for it vanishes if one needs to look for it. A time came when I saw that No. 1, the most gallant of you all, ceased to believe that he was ploughing woods incarnadine, and with an apologetic eye for me derided the lingering faith of No. 2; when even No. 3 questioned gloomily whether he did not really spend his nights in bed. There were still two who knew no better, but their day was dawning. In these circumstances, I suppose,

title: Page:Peter Pan (1928).pdf/13