While it has attracted little media attention, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has quietly changed its policy on the posting of ads deemed controversial after the outcry over an ad campaign by American Freedom Defense Initiative executive director and blogger Pamela Geller. Muslims and others objected to the ads and at least one columnist was arrested for destroying the posters. The ads read “In any war between civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” Now MTA has announced that it will reserve the right to refuse any ads deemed likely to “incite” violence or “other breach of peace.” It is another measure rolling on free speech and forcing speakers to adhere to the anticipated reaction of third parties.
The new regulation states “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories.” This includes the following category:
The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.
So speakers will now be denied if any group is likely to react as did columnist Mona Eltahawy by destroying posters. It rewards the lawless conduct of such individuals and forces speech to meet the demands of the lowest common denominator of expression. It also leaves ample opportunity for selection denials of some speech in favor of others. Under this standard, any poster discussing subjects ranging from religion to homosexuality to environmentalism could be considered disruptive. The agency will no doubt demand deference in such agency decisions and it will be hard to contest the mere prediction of possible violence or disruptions. It will be interesting to see the MTA cite violent riots in other countries as the basis for such action.
We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard. Now that effort has come to a head with the new President of Egypt President Mohamed Mursi calling for enactment of an anti-blasphemy law at the United Nations. Mursi is also demanding legal action against the filmmaker by the United States despite the fact that the film is clearly protected by the first amendment.
The MTA’s regulation is a prime example of how the West is yielding to the demands to silence different forms of speech under the guise of tolerance and good public order. The vote was 8-0 to adopt the new rules in the wake of the recent controversy. Joseph J. Lhota, the authority’s chairman simply insisted that “We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today.” That point appears to have been reached when people objected that they found the views in the ads to be offensive. Few forms of political or social advocacy do not offend someone. Indeed, many commercial ads are viewed as offensive by some, even the cartoonish image on a Starbucks cup. Will those who call the image the “Starslut” now succeeded in forcing the withdrawal of Starbucks ads or will the MTA pick and choose between who is legitimately incited or offended?
Source: New York Times
Well Tom, Everything is becoming more and more clear. NYC is “Hymie Town”, right Tom. Reload, and shoot the other foot now.
Nick S,
Why do you take to ad hominems in reply to sharp arguments. You are brushing up you humdo perhaps?
“f@cking clueless as to what it means!”
How about the same with regard to your liberterian views. Clueless IMHO. But I never would say it. But am glad to echo you so you see what I’m talking about.
Don’t let me bother you. Keep on kicking Stedham’s ass, I don’t mind, but a bit of reasoning would be preferable to read.
We’re all clueless, so what is it with that?
Have you moved to California yet? Did you take any badgers with you. I got a coat with a badger fur collar. Nice.
Oh, and I’m pretty sure had the poster said
“ZIONISM IS RACISM. ALWAYS.
Support the rights of the ethically-cleansed Palestinians.
They have a REAL “right of return””
then the media discourse would be 180 degrees opposite…
We would be reading “we must stop hate speech!” and the major media would be falling over itself to host certain groups in support of this viewpoint.
Tom, Political speech is the MOST protected speech. This is getting more and more scary!
Nick… again: we seem to be arguing about two different things. You are talking about “political speech” and I am talking about “ad space on public property”…
Under the guise of “free speech”, is the gov’t obligated to sell ad space to any loon or hate-filled foreign agent that wants to buy it? That seems… dangerous.
Pamela is free to spew her hateful message anywhere she wants. But, as most people noted, when the gov’t sells ad space, it is an appearance of ENDORSEMENT.
I propose that the gov’t exit that field, and simply sell ad space to commercial things. If she was hawking a book… fine. If that was the title of the book, and it was a picture of the book, with a link to Amazon, etc… Fine.
See? No censorship; no “PC”… A book is a book. Controversial? Sure. But legal.
See the difference? I don’t give a damn WHAT someone is selling. I just think we should make our public spaces for that purpose.
See my comments about “Zionism is racism”, and would the MTA sell ad space to David Duke for his book “Jewish Supremacism”? Or even Walt’s book “The Israel Lobby”?
Why or why not?
Well, I was criminally prosecuted for standing on the street adjoining my home in the afternoon on one day only and accusing my neighbors who were 30 feet away and had two construction workers with them of violating the zoning. They were violating the zoning too as is supported by the fact that 1.) My neighbor was a convicted felon who didn’t release his criminal record to the public at the time when he was the highest local elected official 2.) When I went to Court to get an injunction against their construction I was not allowed an evidentiary hearing 3.) The building that they were building on that day is not included in the square feet calculation on the County assessor description for that property even though it was listed as over 2000 square feet on the building permit.
Ralph,
Civilization was not “good while it lasted.”
We never tried civilization, to see whether we liked it.
Let’s be clear, this isn’t simply censoring someone’s right to criticize a broad swath of people, this limiting someone’s ability to criticize a broad swath of people by using space on a public utility, which goes a ways to creating the impression that the the speech has the imprimatur of the gov.
Political correctness run amok as often.
Feyd Rautha, Good Jay played last night. But, you know Bad Jay will be back!
Tom, I understand your frustration, being a journaist you are not only a purveyor of truth, but also it’s keeper. What’s frightening Tom Stedham is a person who owes his profession to the First Amendment is so f@cking clueless as to what it means!
“The truth is never pure and rarely simple.” Oscar Wilde
Nick, I suppose the issue, then, is we disagree over what “it means” means…
“Free speech” means the gov’t can’t prohibit YOU from “saying” something (that whole “speech” part…).
It does not, in any way, mean that you have a right to purchase ad space on gov’t property, and say anything that you want. Well, I’m not a lawyer, but that’s how it has been interpreted. And I don’t view such a restriction as “PC” or “censorship”, or “America going to hell”, just to name a few of the reactions I’ve received.
And then I mentioned what I would “LIKE” to see enacted as a rule/law. That doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the current law, or the Constitution.
It simply means that I, as a free American citizen, stated my opinion as to what I would like to see/wish was the policy.
How does that make me “so f@cking clueless”???
I’m not specifically referring to the pro-Israel propaganda message by a pro-Israel activist. I’m referring to ALL non-commercial ADVERTISEMENT ON GOV’T PROPERTY. period.
Don’t sell ad space to non-commercial things. Seems like an easy-to-understand policy. Oh, and of course: only sell it to AMERICAN companies… and if they actually made things in America and employed only American citizens, I would certainly favor a discount for them…
Off subject, but….The Bears served up a a heapin’ helpin’ of whoop ass with a side of beet down. Followed by dessert: pound(ing) cake and humble pie.
Feyd Rautha,
Back to Dune with you.
I don’t need a middle ground when it comes to free speech. Our freedom of speech went the way of the dodo bird. Whether it is free speech zones, police rounding up peaceful protestors and beating them, or whether it is not allowing advertisements because they may incite the public, this is not free speech. Free speech is supposed to be messy and it is supposed to upset you. Where is William O. Douglas when you need him?
Tom Stedham, The fact that you’re a journalist is more than a little frightening. Thankfully, you’re not an elected official.
Really? I tend to tell the truth in my writing; I guess that’s what makes me so frightening.
Oh, and I ask questions that make certain people uncomfortable.
But… when I started, we still had a sign from a giant, that read:
“Our job is to comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comforted.”
I only tell the truth, and I ask questions that many people feel should be asked.
I’d always thought of myself as a 1st Amendment guy, but lately it seems that many people truly believe that there are no limits on public speech in public spaces. This is a space that people HAVE to use. Regulating speech in that setting would seem to be entirely appropriate.
What’s next? Forcing the USPS to sell wall space for advertising in all post offices? Why not? They currently advertise the heck out of their own products? Shouldn’t political candidates be able to buy that wall space above your box? Why shouldn’t Burger King be able to put up ads in federal buildings? And when they miniaturize drones, shouldn’t agencies be able to program them to follow you down the street, whispering product information in your ear? Is there any line we’re allowed to draw? I think so, and I think this is it.
If Pam Gellar wants to stand in subway stations spewing her hate, let her. If she wants to walk around Manhattan wearing a sandwich board, that’s OK. But that’s no reason to allow her to buy ad space that can insult others 24/7. She couldn’t put that ad on TV, and there’s no reason why she should have been allowed to pollute NYC’s subway stations.
And if I’m wrong, maybe it’s time you hard core absolutists tackled the free speech issue of Clear Channel’s monopoly on billboards, and the political hoops liberals have to go through to rent one.
The real victory tht Osama bin Laden and his co-horts have won is the hate that has been exposed. While I don’t agree with much that’s out there, I still believe we have the right to freedom of speech.
I would like to see a general rule of “only *commercial* advertising on public things”… ie, Cheerios, iPads, Fords, Nike, etc… I don’t mean just big corporations. I just mean: things for sale. No messages; no politics; no causes. Just cash and carry…
“You have something to *sell*? Cool; that’ll be $495 each bus, please.”
“Oh, you want to ‘send a message’, or ‘espouse some viewpoint’? Pass.”
Advertising for commercially-available products seems fair, and sensible. And if you bar ALL other ads/messages, it seems constitutional. But, you’re the lawyer (lol)…
Is the outrage because “public space” is involved? ie: “this is censorship by the gov’t!!!”, or just a general “we hate PC!”?
Surely there is middle ground?
Osama bin Laden continues to score victory after victory in America. It’s all about submission. Islam MEANS submission. Civilization: it was a good thing while it lasted.
“It is another measure rolling on free speech and forcing speakers to adhere to the anticipated reaction of third parties.”
Sounds like politics.
The action is clearly unconstitutional, yet in this day and age who knows what a court’s rulings would be. Personally, I find McDonald’s ads deeply offensive and often have to control the urge to deface them.
Trying to appease fanatics by sh!tting on the Constitution. Yeah…that’s the way to go. This is PC folks, how does it taste?. Correct, it tastes like sh!t.