New York's MTA may ban political ads after 'Killing Jews' ruling

[Little Tich]

Source: Yahoo! News / Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stung by a court ruling ordering it to display a controversial ad from an anti-Muslim group on its buses, New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority may adopt a policy that it said would allow the ban after all.

According to a letter submitted on Friday to U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan, the authority's board plans on April 29 to vote on whether it should exclude "all advertisements of a political nature" from MTA property.

That would include the ad from the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which portrayed a man wearing a scarf around his face, with a quotation "Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah" attributed to "Hamas MTV," and below that, "That's His Jihad. What's yours?"

The group sued the MTA for rejecting the ad. On Tuesday, Koeltl said that rejection violated the group's First Amendment rights because the MTA did not show the ad could incite terrorism or imminent violence, including against Jews.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/york-transit-agency-may-change-rule-block-killing-151451156.html

[still_one]

1. It should be banned. This isn't about freedom of speech this is incendary speech, and would open a

bag of worms that could advertise "open season for _______________" fill in the blank

[PoliticAverse]

3. A federal judge disagreed. n/t

[still_one]

4. I know, however a public transit system should not be a forum for to incite hate crimes

In this case it is directed at Muslims, but it could apply to any ethnic group

[LeftishBrit]

10. Exactly!

[still_one]

16. "That Muslims worship the killing of Jews?", and therefore beware of anyone wearing a burka or

covering.

In fact, based on the article, it looks like the MTA is considering banning such "advertising" anyway, so the management team obviously is concerned about the racial overtones.

[Oktober]

20. Not sure how it crosses an ethical boundary if it is an accurate quote....

[still_one]

25. An accurate quote does not give it validity, especially within the public mass transit authority,

who have pretty much said according in the OP that regardless of the court decision they are going to set a company policy and not allow such ads. So they obviously don't have the same view you have.

[wordpix]

50. I agree & think it best to ban all political ads

Of course that can open a whole can of worms, too. For example, would a Sea Shepherd ad for saving the whales or a Karl Rove "non-profit" org ad be considered political?

[Malraiders]

2. How is violating everyone's 1ST amendment rights a solution? n/t

[brush]

7. The ad in question is too much like yelling fire . . .

in a public space.

It incites hatred against Muslims, plain and simple.

[NutmegYankee]

15. Actually you can yell "fire" in a theater or public space and not get arrested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

[brush]

17. The ad is hate speech. nt

[NutmegYankee]

18. Yes, but still not illegal.

Freedom of speech can frustrate, but it's still the right thing to allow it.

[brush]

23. There are laws against many types of hate speech.

Don't think the Transit Authority is in agreement with running these ads.

Let's see how this plays out. Pamela Geller and her Muslim hate group may have gone to far this time.

[NutmegYankee]

29. None in the United States.

[still_one]

27. It depends. If an employer uses hate speech or throws racial insults at their employees, that can

be considered harassment under the 1964 Civil Rights Act

[NutmegYankee]

30. In such a case, they are not being punished for the content of their speech

they are punished for their actions against people.

[still_one]

31. This is a moot issue, the employer is not going to allow it. They have more common sense

[NutmegYankee]

35. Common sense is defense of the First Amendment.

I'm bothered that I'm reading posts by people who oppose free speech. There will always be speech that annoys you.

[still_one]

45. An employer has the right to set company policy, and if they believe it is bad for business

It is perfectly legal

[Telcontar]

36. Hate speech is free speech

There can be no compromise. The only counter to hate speech is more free speech.

[still_one]

26. Not if it incites a riot

[NutmegYankee]

28. Which yelling fire does not do.

and the speech must incite imminent lawless action - which is different from offending people and them acting out.

[still_one]

32. Actually it might

[NutmegYankee]

34. Panic perhaps, but not a riot.

[Oktober]

21. I have yet to see the 'fire in a crowded theater' bit used accurately and within it's legal context

It always boils down to... ' I'm uncomfortable and this is like fire in a theater... or something'

[brush]

24. It's hate speech plain and simple.

How about that?

That's easy to understand.

[Telcontar]

37. So what? 1st A isnt just for nice speech

[Oktober]

38. Thanks for proving my point...

[christx30]

40. But hate speech is not, and can never be, illegal.

People can say any hateful and ignorant thing they want, and anyone can say anything they want to counter the idiots.
But no one is required to provide a forum for stupidity. The MTA is saying "A judge says we have to let these signs up. But after this, we're not doing it for anyone else."

[Oktober]

42. Which means what exactly?

Pretty confident that speech expressing an emotion, including hate, is covered by the 1st amendment and frankly I don't think this rises even to that level.

[Scootaloo]

51. it's not violating anyone's 1st amendment rights

You have no intrinsic right to use teh side of a city bus to express your opinion. You have a right to petition for the opportunity to do so, and the city has a right to set stndards for what will and will not be carried on the sides of its buses.

Free speech continues unhindered.

[DLnyc]

5. maybe they should just ban ads altogether

The ads really make an already over-crowded space a lot more unpleasant.

[davidpdx]

6. I think the problem with that is the transit system gets a small part of their

operating budget from that as it is revenue. Most cities with public transportation do the same thing (I know my hometown of Portland Oregon does).

I wish there were an easy solution, but there isn't.

When you have hateful people with an agenda it's always going to cause the worst possible outcome.

[NYC Liberal]

41. Yep. The MTA takes in a little under $120 million from advertising every year.

Fares alone aren't nearly enough to cover the operating budget.

[christx30]

43. Buses in Austin have all kinds of ads on them.

The one I rode today had Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
No reason the ads on the side of buses have to be political at all. Transit vehicles have tons of exposure. Lots of companies and businesses are willing to pay for the ad space. No reason they have to accept political ads.

[starroute]

8. The people running the ad are rightwing trolls

They're not running it to express their freedom of speech. They're doing it to stir up as much trouble as possible -- in this case to potentially incite violence against both Muslims and Jews.

[Oktober]

22. Maybe you could start a nice government committee...

... to determine who is properly exercising their free speech and who is just out to cause trouble and then use force to stop them.

How's that sound?

[starroute]

33. It's not about either "properly"or "force"

It's about the fact that trolls have discovered it's possible to make almost any public forum unusable by being sufficiently shameless. DU survives only thanks to a tight system of moderation. But since you seem to feel that anything equivalent for the New York subways would be an unconscionable intrusion on personal liberties, no doubt the only option is to restrict advertising to frankly commercial pitches and keep opinion out of the public sphere altogether.

Chalk up one more victory for corporate capitalism.

[LeftishBrit]

9. As regards freedom of speech...

what about the freedom of passengers not to be linked to a mobile hate-advert? It means that people just wanting to get from A to B become reluctant collaborators in the incitement of hate and possibly violence. It's not always practically possible to just avoid the bus in question; what if it's your only way of getting to work?

There was an slightly parallel case in London involving homophobic adverts on buses. The Mayor refused to allow them, and was backed up by the courts.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. Hate Speech Should Be Banned.

[Malraiders]

19. And the RW machinery would find some way to label all messages here at DU as hate speech. n/t

[Telcontar]

39. I find your message threatening

And your tone offensive.

Until you can properly forment a reasoned position without resorting to stereotypes and patriarchal, imperialist word choices, your online privelesges should be revoked


Do I really need to?

Yeah, probably

[christx30]

44. And the second that someone says somethings

anti-Christian in protest of laws against abortion, Annie Athiest is going to jail.

[Chan790]

14. That's reasonable.

Ban all political ads on MTA...we could all use more Venmo ads instead.



NYC residents feel very strongly about Lucas. They generally hate his weird, non-specific and generally-omnipresent ads.

[yuiyoshida]

47. So what do they get out of using

the image of an Asian male???

[Chan790]

48. I have no idea.

I don't think Lucas was chosen so much because he was Asian as because he was meant to represent a generic 20-30s urbane savvy NYC resident that would use Venmo's product...software for person-to-person money transfers.

The problem most people have with the ads is that they have nothing to do with the product, they're a little creepy and yet we can't figure out why we should care about the things Lucas does. The entire ad campaign is one giant slightly-off-putting non sequitur.

[yuiyoshida]

49. In a country with Racism exploding...

Its sad they have to use his image, to associate him, and who he is, with things people don't like and promoting a bad stereotype already on to Asians.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

46. “Courts have interpreted the meaning of free speech in a manner...

..that allows government to regulate and limit free speech in a variety of ways. First, certain kinds of contents has been ruled to have either more limited protection, or in some cases, no protection at all. Among unprotected categories of speech are pornography (obscenity), child pornography, “fighting words,” and incitement to imminent violent action, such as threats to kill an individual.”