Fullerton passes news rack ban at all city facilities except at its main library

At a time when many cities in Orange County are parched in an arid news desert, competing outlets in Fullerton found themselves at the center of a news rack ban debate.

Kelly Aviles, an attorney representing Friends for Fullerton’s Future, an irreverent blog, sent a Jan. 13 email to city officials requesting permission to have a news rack installed in the lobby of Fullerton City Hall.

“My client has secured a financial commitment from a local businessman for a significant amount of private financing,” the email stated, “to launch this new business endeavor committed to contributing to the local community by providing important local news, restaurant reviews, business advertisements, and information that reflects the diverse interests of our city’s residents and their needs for alternative news sources.”

If approved, Fullerton’s Future would have joined the Fullerton Observer, a community newspaper that has enjoyed a rack at City Hall for decades.

The Daily Titan, a student newspaper at Cal State Fullerton, has also been distributed in the lobby in recent years, as well as at the library and the police department.

But Aviles, who also provides outside counsel for the Los Angeles Times, and her email prompted a review by city officials of what materials should be allowed to be distributed at city facilities, instead.

On Tuesday, the City Council considered a news rack ban that would limit approved materials to those published by city departments, government agencies and public utilities that serve Fullerton residents.

Saskia Kennedy, the Observer’s current owner, protested the proposed policy, which would remove the paper from its City Hall rack, at Tuesday’s council meeting.

“We try to make sure that we are as fair as possible to everybody, and sometimes we get it wrong, and you guys call us out on it, and the public calls us out on it, and we correct it,” she told council members. “I feel like this is targeting the Fullerton Observer, mostly because of the letter that was given to the city and published on the blog.”

Other Observer supporters speculated that the email was strategically aimed at removing the newspaper, which was founded in 1978, from City Hall.

Over the years, Fullerton’s Future and the Observer have often found themselves at bitter odds over civic affairs, like the recent fight for Walk on Wilshire, a closed-off street for outdoor dining in downtown that reopened in February.

The outlets often split along a libertarian and liberal-leaning readership.

Josh Ferguson, a former Fullerton’s Future blogger who was unsuccessfully sued by the city in 2019 over the publication of police misconduct files, spoke out in favor of the policy.

He called the Observer Fullerton’s “Pravda” and warned of potential litigation if the city carved out a caveat allowing only for established newspapers to stay.

“It’s not a 1st Amendment issue, it’s a policy issue, and it’s content neutral,” Ferguson said. “That’s the way to go, or you will get sued.”

According to the city attorney’s staff, Irvine and Newport Beach have adopted similar policies. In 2013, San Juan Capistrano walked back a news rack ban of its own in light of a legal fight with Community Common Sense, an outlet critical of its city council.

Fullerton council members mostly favored an overhaul of their current practice.

Councilwoman Shana Charles, who is frequently criticized by Fullerton’s Future bloggers, proposed changing the policy to allow for a “community news space” at the main library.

“We don’t want City Hall saying that we endorse one publication over another or not,” she said. “But we also have a public that would like to be able to access public information in public spaces.”

The library amendment did not sway Councilman Ahmad Zahra from his opposition to a news rack ban at City Hall.

“Weak people and weak politicians and those who have something to hide don’t like the press,” he said. “I’m not afraid, and [Fullerton’s Future has] been after me for six years, and I know even the Observer has been critical of me in the past, so I’m not worried.”

Zahra said that he found Fullerton’s Future an “entertaining” read but called it out for body shaming and made other criticisms of its content.

“They should probably call it the ‘We Hate Ahmad Blog,’” he quipped.

Zahra thought including a print edition of Fullerton’s Future in the lobby alongside the Observer and the Daily Titan would prod it to move away from anonymous bylines. Anything less, he opined, was a retaliation against the Observer and a free speech overreach.

Mayor Fred Jung offered a sharp rebuke of the notion.

“I think it’s neutral,” he said. “And again, the city attorney was pretty clear. It did not single out publications. Are you hard of hearing?”

After discussion wrapped up, council members voted 4-1 to approve the policy resolution.

Zahra was the lone vote against it.

Following the council meeting, the Daily Titan condemned the vote as an attack on press freedom in a joint statement by editor-in-chief Emily Wilson, managing editor Ruben Montoya and associate managing editor Bryan Jimenez.

“The Fullerton City Council will be going down a path of censorship that is deeply concerning,” the statement read.

Aviles called the vote an “acceptable” comprise that seems to be in line with the 1st Amendment.

“While the city could have allowed other publications at Fullerton City Hall, the avenue they chose is also appropriate,” she told TimesOC after the council meeting.

Aviles added that Fullerton’s Future is still planning to reach an offline audience through a print edition, which would be distributed at the main library under the new policy.