M.T.A. Amends Rules After Pro-Israel Ads Draw Controversy

[SecularMotion]

Source: NY Times

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for advertisements on Thursday, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

The 8-to-0 vote by the authority’s board came three days after pro-Israel ads characterizing Islamist opponents of the Jewish state as being “savage” began appearing in subway stations, setting off vandalism, denunciations of the authority and calls for the ads’ removal.

The authority had initially rejected the ads, citing their “demeaning” language. The group responsible for the ads, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued, and in July won a federal court ruling on First Amendment grounds.

“We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today,” Joseph J. Lhota, the authority’s chairman, said at a news conference on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html?hp

[47of74]

1. Pam Geller's little hate group defended these ads

Ugh

[heaven05]

3. well

common sense is common sense. no two ways about it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Actually many laughed at your concern troll posts

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. So if we are not on your concern troll bandwagon we support Geller?

What utter nonsense.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Fortunately a minority here on DU support your platform of banning speech we don't like

In favor of supporting more speech to counter bad speech. You might try it some time

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Defended? That group paid for the ads and had to sue to get them posted.

[azurnoir]

13. Defended? no they originated these ads check out the bottom of the ad

?4

atlas shrugs is Pam Geller's blog

[oberliner]

21. What if you changed the word savage and said Muslim?

Would that still fly?

I seriously doubt it.

[oberliner]

30. Sounds like it won't

The MTA is making changes to ensure your situation doesn't occur in the future.

[alp227]

34. So what? Do bigots NOT have first amendment rights too?

I would consider the responsibility that chimes with their free speech rights not a de jure ban like that of the MTA but rather the residents of the city humiliating and shaming the bigots into pulling the ads.

As for inciting violence, hatred does NOT inherently incite violence unless with explicit threats or eliminationism.

[brooklynite]

4. Not sure this will pass muster by the Courts

"imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace" is a pretty specific standard. Plaintiffs could argue that there's no record of anyone being assaulted by virtue of this add, so an equally incendiary ad has no greater likelihood.

[alp227]

38. Exactly! Racial violence has existed long before talk radio, fox news, and rw blogs.

Which is why I am skeptical of most arguments that right wing media incites violence but acknowledge that hatred is spread.

[JDPriestly]

5. The ads are, no doubt, horrible.

But the new guidelines give the right to minorities to censor the speech of others. Put the shoe on the other foot. Let's say the ads were extremely pro-Muslim or pro-Palestinian and people who sided with Christians or Israel were to demand that they be removed because the ads incited to violence.

This cycle would never end. Who is to decide whether an ad incites to violence or not? It's just words.

This seems like such a good solution until you think about what it really means.

The real solution is to put up ads encouraging tolerance on all sides. You cannot fight one extreme, hateful opinion about religion or ethnicity with another opposing but equally extreme, hateful opinion. And the First Amendment prohibits censoring speech based on its political content.

The people tearing the signs down need to cool it. They need to put up their own signs.

I'm not expressing this well, but I hope you will understand. This kind of censorship is more dangerous than the obnoxious signs themselves.

Talk about Sharia law. When we can't insult the Muslim religion (or the Jewish religion) or the Christian religion because we incite to violence then we are imposing religious law on ourselves.

This is a bad move. It goes in the wrong direction.

[loli phabay]

6. plus a million. scares me that people want to censor due to whos the most violent.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Those that would surrender to the Hecklers Veto is always a concern to those who value free speech

[loli phabay]

12. its not just free speech its all freedoms that are put on the table once you start

After you have to shut up then its who you worship then what you wear and it just keeps going.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. So those who support constitutional freedom of expression

are allies of the bad guys? And you thing others are using hyperbole?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. I support free speech for all

It means tolerating things I disagree with, but it allows me to speak freely when other disagree with me. Its called freedom, you might try it some time.

I know more about rights to privacy and how to protect privacy than you have any clue...I actually do things to enhance it.

You blew the DU quota for hyperbole this month, but never fear, a new month starts soon.

[azurnoir]

14. so you do not consider Jihad Watch and atlas shrugs to be hate groups? n/t

[erodriguez]

7. bullshit The taxes I pay to fund the MTA should not be used to promote hate speech

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Paid ads are a money maker for the MTA...this one maybe not so much

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Your poutrage does not change the facts

1) MTA sells opinion/political ads
2) They were forced by the courts to carry these ads

You and Geller are birds of a feather, both irrational and knee jerk in your responses.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. No substantive response so you degenerate to ad hominems

Free speech is a bed rock of US laws and character. Some can at times annoy us, but I would rather have the annoyance to preserve my right to speak out, even if it annoys TPTB.

[alp227]

37. You are using the same argument by conservatives

who oppose funding PBS/NPR because those public broadcasters DARE criticize conservatism and religion, or who wanted to defund the National Endowment for the Arts over NEA funding blasphemous art.

Besides, do tax dollars even fund bus ads very much?

[Stewland]

19. Those signs are in poor taste

The subways are a public place and why put any signs up that are offensive to Muslims. People might choose to work for the common good rather than spend money on divisiveness.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. MTA was forced by the court to run them

MTA has since changed its policies in an attempt not to have to do that in the future.

[alp227]

35. Those policies might violate the first amendment, right?

In 1977 the supreme court ruled that neo Nazis had a first amendment right to march in a majority Jewish suburb of Chicago. I don't see how these bus ads are different. If white nationalist groups want to install billboards in the Bronx or Harlem, the city should let those ads be displayed...and let the racist groups embarrass themselves.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Don't know

The wording I read made it sound like they would support a Hecklers Veto. I have a real problem with that. A better choice would be "Coexist" signs and the like.

Some here and elsewhere confuse supporting free speech, even disagreeable speech, with supporting what the speaker says. For those people, high school civics must have been really hard.

[Stewland]

20. Objectity

It's hard work to keep people sympathetic towards Zionism.One only has to see its cruel and devastating effects on the Palestinians. All the money the AIPAC spends on lobbing could be spent creating win win scenarios. If all had nice homes and careers and something constructive to do there might be less hostility.

[Kablooie]

39. Seems a clear case of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater which is prohibited free speech.

[LeftishBrit]

40. These are not 'pro-Israel' ads; these are Islamophobic ads

Calling them 'pro-Israel' muddies the waters. It's as though a KKK ad was described as 'pro-American' or a BNP ad 'pro-British'.

[Nye Bevan]

41. So any religion or group that doesn't want to be insulted needs to riot and get violent.

For example, if the Pope starts encouraging Catholics to riot and throw bombs when they see insulting ads, the MTA will ban anti-Catholic ads because it could then be "reasonably foreseen" that anti-Catholic ads would "incite or provoke violence". If, however, Catholics simply roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders, then anti-Catholic ads would be permitted.

I'm not sure if we are setting up the right incentives here.

[Junkdrawer]

42. So Geller's ads go up, but the inevitable reaction ads will not....

kind of like Gore v Bush.


Who'd a guessed it?