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
Ralph,
Yes, it’s extreme that we haven’t tried civilization yet. Some of those folks whose names you cited, wanted a civilization worthy of the name, in the worst way.
Even barbaric cultures produce a few luminaries.
Ralph Adamo 1, October 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Bob, you wrote: “We never tried civilization, to see whether we liked it.”
A little extreme, wouldn’t you say?
Think of–just for a few examples, and in no particular order–Moses, Archimedes, DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Kant, Plato, Galileo, Einstein, Franklin, Bach, Mozart, Jimmy Carter, Beethoven, Newton, Von Neumann, Shakespeare, Freud, Aristotle, Spinoza, Jefferson, and Tesla.
================================================
And you. Tesla is the one I like the most.
Bob, you wrote: “We never tried civilization, to see whether we liked it.”
A little extreme, wouldn’t you say?
Think of–just for a few examples, and in no particular order–Moses, Archimedes, DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Kant, Plato, Galileo, Einstein, Franklin, Bach, Mozart, Jimmy Carter, Beethoven, Newton, Von Neumann, Shakespeare, Freud, Aristotle, Spinoza, Jefferson, and Tesla.
In a closed space like the subway maybe it should only be ads for products, like cereals etc.; in open space, who cares, there is enough room to get away from those who would be incited. (more room at least) Private companies certainly have the right to refuse any ad, an arm of the government makes it more concerning. It is nice to say free speech is free speech is free speech and there should be no limitations. At the least the discussion needs, changing the law is maybe way too large a leap.
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.
==================
Screw tolerance. Freedom of speech is what it is.
Hitler was real good at freedom of speech. Until you said something he didn’t like.
As someone once advised me about JTs. When the barroom brawl breaks out between the bikers, the tea drinkers retire to the salon to continue their peaceful sipping and whatever it is they do.
Seems to be the case today, when Nick and Tom got going.
Nick S.,
What me worry. I am delighted that is ended that way, but I had to tease. That is my character, a tease. Or a quibbler sometimes as I was today. You know, I have just defined quibbler. It is a guy who likes to get in his licks, only good well motivated ones, of course. But who doesn’t want to endorse either side, since they in the heat of the battle get excited and make obvious mistakes.
So go have a beer. I think you both are nice but nuts. And so are most of us. Me too. But I say that I am learning.
PS You would not be implying that I am “unreasonable”, are you? Go ahesd. Just give a reason if you come upon one. There are potentially many in my case, but what is yours particularly?
ID, You worry too much. Reasonable people can go @ it and then just have a beer. “Reasonable” being the operative word.
Tom,
That is what I said when I reminded that Congress sells itself to the highest bidder. How square is that? Not at all.
Nick S and Tom S,
Wow, what a debate. Lincoln-Douglas!
From mountain high to gutter low, from first amendment understanding to I just want to buy a pony.
What a fantastic thing. This will go to Blawg history. Be so sure.
Nick concedes with “let’s buddy up” and Tom agrees with “let’s meet for pasta”. Maybe it is lunchtime and hunger calls.
And poor me egging on with my “brilliant ideas”.
Who would ever suggest that we need more public even-steven speech space—and suggest chinese style wall newspaper in Times Square tube station.
Just shows that you can’t get a finger in somebody else’s fight. Well it was not chopped off anyway. I was at least hoping to get a challenge from others. Hello, anybody out there?
Tom Pasta is oxygen to an Italian, but alas I’m diabetic and so it’s akin to chocolate cake. I can live w/o chocolate cake but have to eat pasta prudently. Just a lament, there are folks much worse off than I, something I always remember.
Tom,
“And, as of yet, no-one has directly addressed my statement that “free speech” does not obligate the gov’t to sell ad space on gov’t property to just anyone…”
Ask for your pony if you will. But the government has an obligation of dealing squarely to all comers.
Thus according “free speech” space on government facilities is denial of that principle.
I guess our Congress annual auction to commercial interests has numbed our sensitivity to this breach.
Now you can be damned sure that Congress will change this about ad space in the PO. They’ll use the means justify the end” method. “Support Medicare! Buy ad space at YOUR post office.””
“But the government has an obligation of dealing squarely to all comers.”
Well… to paraphrase: “some comers will be dealt with more squarely than others.”
I will wait on David Duke to be sold ad space. Or a “Zionism is racism” poster.
But I won’t hold my breath.
I want to eat pasta daily and not have it effect my A1C labs.
Now, that’s just CRAZY TALK!!! Pasta is… pasta!
Ok Tom, we will just have to disagree on this one. Being a positive bloak, I’m sure we’ll agree on something in the future.
Hey folks,
Let us turn the discussion to why there is not more space for “people” to write on. Not who and what gets said on ad space.
I mean who would have thought that the Chinese “invented” wall newspapers. Unregulated use of walls facing streets.
Why not here. Of course if too many chinese congregate at 42nd St tube, then it might hinder traffic flow.
But what we don’t need is more “ad space”. It is mind-bending already. But more people gabble IS needed.
PS I think that I’ll go deface a Mac poster. Get my frustrations over for today. See you there, MikeS.
Tom, More than anything else this is cowardice. Because someone is offended then we don’t sell ANY political ads. That’s an anathema to me. I sure as hell don’t consider ads I see on buses, subways, etc. as being supported by the govt. Give people some credit.
Commercial advertising can and should be regulated…..
Yes, Nick, the bad Jay is lurking in the shadows, but I must take my minor and short lived enjoyment today!
Tom Stedham,
“…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…”
Under the principles that apply, all residents must obey the laws here and be accorded ALL the rights here.
I wonder if you do understand the constitution fully.
Even the companies are persons now!!!! The Stupes said so.
Just to clarify, because some don’t seem to understand…
I’m stating MY PERSONAL OPINION of what I WOULD *LIKE TO SEE*.. not publishing a dissertation on the US Constitution in front of Constitutional scholars, outlining my personal understanding of said document.
See the difference?
Yes, SOME things I *want* are probably not specifically outlined in the Constitution. I state that categorically. I’m simply saying “wow, I’d like a pony”, not that I have the money for one…
And, as of yet, no-one has directly addressed my statement that “free speech” does not obligate the gov’t to sell ad space on gov’t property to just anyone…
ID, He’s clueless to what the First amendment means. And he’s part of an occupation that is protected by this arguably most important amendment. The “f@cking” is just a cororful adjective expressing my incredulity. If it offends your sensibilities, c’est la vie.