NY MTA anti-blasphemy rule in everything but name

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ratbarf**

It is in the same way you have to rent to whomever gives you the best price, the fact that the advertising space is for sale and that the supporters of the ad are willing to pay the fee for it to be put up means that to not do so for reasons of viewpoint is a limitation of their speech.

**d-usa**

Are you allowed to out sings in the Capitol? Can I put my signs at the court house, the White House, the majors house, the highway?

Bitching about jihadists and calling them savages has nothing to do with "Freedom of Religion".

**Polonius**

Ratbarf wrote:
It is in the same way you have to rent to whomever gives you the best price, the fact that the advertising space is for sale and that the supporters of the ad are willing to pay the fee for it to be put up means that to not do so for reasons of viewpoint is a limitation of their speech.

Well, a private actor can sell to who they want (within limits, you can't not rent a house based on race or something). But ABC could choose not to run those ads.

MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."

**Ratbarf**

Does the Palestinian you know live in Palestine?

Born there, lived there for several years before moving to Baghdad, when the Americans invaded his house got hit by a bomb or missile of some sort and they used the reparation money to move to Canada.

Y'know, except the regular mass protests they have every week or so. But lets not let reality get in the way a defense of Israel, that always spoils it.

I'm sorry, I don't really move in circles that talk about arab protests in which someone isn't either killed or a flag is burned.

Huh?

I was wondering which group Israel keeps in their basement and rapes Pulp Fiction style for the entertainment of their citizens.

MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."

That's pretty much what I meant, thank you for saying it more clearly.

**Peregrine**

Polonius wrote:
Unless the government is offering a forum. In this case, advertising space to the highest bidder. Which it is.

Except that they have every right to put conditions on that auction. For example, should hardcore porn be allowed? Should an "ad" that consists of nothing but profanity directed at the passengers be allowed? Should a poster from the KKK be allowed? Declining to publish this "ad" is no different.

And yes, there would be an issue if they were, say, allowing campaign ads for democrats but not republicans, but that's not the case here. The government is not abusing its power to favor one position over another, it's simply declining to assist in publishing speech that would cause more trouble than it's worth.

Also, keep in mind that political speech of any sort is the most protected speech possible.

Sure, which is why it would be wrong for them to arrest someone for holding a sign with that message, or for standing on the corner yelling it to anyone who will listen, or whatever. But that's not the case here. You don't have a right to have the government help you publish your message, so no rights are being restricted.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."

Except nobody is saying that. There is no restriction on saying that message in that area, they simply aren't going to help you to do it.

**Polonius**

Peregrine wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Unless the government is offering a forum. In this case, advertising space to the highest bidder. Which it is.

Except that they have every right to put conditions on that auction. For example, should hardcore porn be allowed? Should an "ad" that consists of nothing but profanity directed at the passengers be allowed? Should a poster from the KKK be allowed? Declining to publish this "ad" is no different.

And yes, there would be an issue if they were, say, allowing campaign ads for democrats but not republicans, but that's not the case here. The government is not abusing its power to favor one position over another, it's simply declining to assist in publishing speech that would cause more trouble than it's worth.

Well, they can argue that they have a compelling interest in not accepting the ads. It's not that you can't ever regulate content, it's just that it's a high burden.

As for pornography and profanity, neither are considered (fully) protected speech. Also, they no doubt have an internal regulation on the nature of an ad. Meaning, they can say "anybody can run an ad, just no swears." That's fine, it's an even approach.

Also, keep in mind that political speech of any sort is the most protected speech possible.

Sure, which is why it would be wrong for them to arrest someone for holding a sign with that message, or for standing on the corner yelling it to anyone who will listen, or whatever. But that's not the case here. You don't have a right to have the government help you publish your message, so no rights are being restricted.

Lol, I'd like to see you argue that in front of a Federal Judge. There is no assistance here. The government isn't helping anybody publish the message. It is offering to publish messages. By picking and choosing what messages it will allow, it is stifling speech.

By your argument, allowing the Dems to hold a parade, but not the GOP, would be perfectly fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."

Except nobody is saying that. There is no restriction on saying that message in that area, they simply aren't going to help you to do it.

cute, but by "here" i meant, "this place where you want to put an ad."

**Peregrine**

Polonius wrote:
As for pornography and profanity, neither are considered (fully) protected speech. Also, they no doubt have an internal regulation on the nature of an ad. Meaning, they can say "anybody can run an ad, just no swears." That's fine, it's an even approach.

And any sensible internal regulation would exclude this ad. It's obviously controversial, and the language is offensive.

Lol, I'd like to see you argue that in front of a Federal Judge. There is no assistance here. The government isn't helping anybody publish the message. It is offering to publish messages. By picking and choosing what messages it will allow, it is stifling speech.

Sure it is. How exactly is providing a space for ads to go NOT helping publish it?

By your argument, allowing the Dems to hold a parade, but not the GOP, would be perfectly fine.

Except:

1) Holding a parade isn't a case of the government helping you. You have a right to hold a parade (as a form of speech), but you don't have a right to, say, have the government pay for the decorations for your parade.

and

2) This isn't a good analogy because it's a clear case of the government picking sides, while the ad is a case of the government declining to assist in publishing a controversial and offensive message.

cute, but by "here" i meant, "this place where you want to put an ad."

What exactly is special about that particular spot compared to the spot a few feet away where you could hold a sign and yell at people?

**Polonius**

I guess before I go any further, you do realize I'm basing my arguments on actual First Amendment jurisprudence. I'm not arguing this out of idle theory, there's actual case law on this stuff.

I think the key here is that when the MTA first refused the ad, a Federal Judge struck that decision down. and nobody tried to appeal.

What exactly is special about that particular spot compared to the spot a few feet away where you could hold a sign and yell at people?

I'm not sure, I"m not the one that made the open offer to rent it for speech. It's special because it's the spot the MTA specifically set aside for messages.

**ShumaGorath**

Born there, lived there for several years before moving to Baghdad, when the Americans invaded his house got hit by a bomb or missile of some sort and they used the reparation money to move to Canada.

So... Vague childhood memories?

I'm sorry, I don't really move in circles that talk about arab protests in which someone isn't either killed or a flag is burned.

It's ok, not everyone watches the bbc, cnn, msnbc, fox, or reads blogs and or twitter posts.

I'm sorry, I don't really move in circles that talk about arab protests in which someone isn't either killed or a flag is burned.

Primarily the ones whose houses are bulldozed and who now have a giant wall between them and their crops. To a lesser extent the 700 children Israel killed in it's last conflict in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Though really, when you look at the numbers the biggest thing Israel rapes with it's rhetoric and military is the truth.

**Peregrine**

Polonius wrote:
I guess before I go any further, you do realize I'm basing my arguments on actual First Amendment jurisprudence. I'm not arguing this out of idle theory, there's actual case law on this stuff.

Sure, but legalism is a bad ethical system. The mere existence of case law on a subject doesn't mean that the law is correct.

I think the key here is that when the MTA first refused the ad, a Federal Judge struck that decision down. and nobody tried to appeal.

Sure, most likely explanation being that the MTA didn't have a solid policy in place that would exclude the ad. You'll notice that their response was to change their policy and continue to exclude the ad, and there hasn't been a ruling on the new policy yet. That doesn't mean that they were wrong to exclude it in the first place, it just means that they didn't do a good enough job of writing the initial policy.

I'm not sure, I"m not the one that made the open offer to rent it for speech. It's special because it's the spot the MTA specifically set aside for messages.

IOW, there's no difference. Legalism aside, the people behind the ad are not being denied the right to speak their message since they could stand right next to the space holding a sign and communicate the message just as effectively (if not more effectively). When someone gets arrested for doing that I'll have sympathy for them, but not until then.

**Polonius**

Ah, so this is another episode of "The Way Things Ought To Be," with our host Peregrine.

**Peregrine**

Polonius wrote:
Ah, so this is another episode of "The Way Things Ought To Be," with our host Peregrine.

The entire thread, right from the beginning, is a question of "the way things ought to be". Nobody gives a

about whether or not "case law" on the subject justifies the decision, what they're arguing about is whether it was the right decision to make.

**Chongara**

I'd hardly call this ad subtle. It's a pretty blatantly bigoted nonsense. Seriously does a sign have come out and say "Down with all the dirty sand-eating eating towel heads" before people can recognize it as a bit off? Seriously, you must "Defeat Jihad" to challenge "Savages" jeez lousie, they may as well just draw a little cartoon Koran with googly eyes, arms & legs shooting an AK47 into the air.

**Relapse**

Polonius wrote:
The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.

So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.

Now, if the MTA were at all smart, they would document the vandalism rates, and argue that they are choosing to remove the ads to prevent destruction of public property, not because of the content of the ad.

That's it right on the nail.

**LoneLictor**

It's horribly, horribly racist. But they should be allowed to say it, just like we're allowed to call them out on it.

**Relapse**

Chongara wrote:
I'd hardly call this ad subtle. It's a pretty blatantly bigoted nonsense. Seriously does a sign have come out and say "Down with all the dirty sand-eating eating towel heads" before people can recognize it as a bit off? Seriously, you must "Defeat Jihad" to challenge "Savages" jeez lousie, they may as well just draw a little cartoon Koran with googly eyes, arms & legs shooting an AK47 into the air.

Then again, a little warning, the n word features heavily in this poem that was written by a black activist:

http://foetry.com/forum/index.php?topic=1146.0;wap2.

How is this lauded as great poetry while the bus sign is called ignorance and bigotry? Just to be clear, I find both detestable and ignorant, but it seems that there is a very one sided view here, and not just on the forum. I remember reading about this poem being read at a Harvard grabduation years ago, and it seems like it's still considered great. What about music that celebrates various forms of human degradation being blasted at top volume in public areas?
I think we all know that censorship is a real slippery slope. I think the best thing we can do is to arm ourselves and our children mentaly against this kind of hate and just act like respectful humans to each other as best we can in this world.

**Harriticus**

Manchu wrote:
This has nothing to do with blasphemy.

This sign calls the people of the nations that oppose Israel "savages." It seems pretty clear to me that this is just hateful language.

It calls Jihadists savages. I don't see the problem with that.

**Kovnik Obama**

It's a horrible ad and should constitute hateful 'speech' under any sane legal system.

What is this, 'let's piss off Muslims' Month?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Harriticus wrote:

It calls Jihadists savages. I don't see the problem with that.

Hopefully someday you'll evolve enough to feel ashamed by this statement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

How is this lauded as great poetry while the bus sign is called ignorance and bigotry?

Its the difference between the locutory content and illocutory effect. A word in itself is just a marker for a neutral signification. The context, the person using it, the person it's aimed at, that's what decides the actual pragmatic (i.e. moral) side of the statement. ''Savage'' can be used without being inappropriate, like when I say to a chick, ''I want to savagely rip your fishnets off'', or it can be used, like in this context, as one of the most offensive word possible.

**Harriticus**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hopefully someday you'll evolve enough to feel ashamed by this statement.

Uh huh, keep up those ad hominems. Does it say Muslims or Arabs there? No, it does not. It says Jihadists. Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you need this to fit your own narrative. I wasn't aware it was evil and racist to insult Jihadists.

**Mannahnin**

But Israel isn't just opposed to Jihadists. Israel is also opposed to the Palestinians; a population which includes some Jihadists, but which also includes a lot of innocent people, including children, who suffer on a daily basis under a policy not too dissimilar to Apartheid.

Relapse wrote:
Chongara wrote:
I'd hardly call this ad subtle. It's a pretty blatantly bigoted nonsense. Seriously does a sign have come out and say "Down with all the dirty sand-eating eating towel heads" before people can recognize it as a bit off? Seriously, you must "Defeat Jihad" to challenge "Savages" jeez lousie, they may as well just draw a little cartoon Koran with googly eyes, arms & legs shooting an AK47 into the air.
Then again, a little warning, the n word features heavily in this poem that was written by a black activist:
http://foetry.com/forum/index.php?topic=1146.0;wap2.

How is this lauded as great poetry while the bus sign is called ignorance and bigotry? Just to be clear, I find both detestable and ignorant, but it seems that there is a very one sided view here, and not just on the forum. I remember reading about this poem being read at a Harvard grabduation years ago, and it seems like it's still considered great. What about music that celebrates various forms of human degradation being blasted at top volume in public areas?

Okay, this is really off topic, but I'll bite.

Giovanni wrote that poem in the 60s, didn't she? In the context of the 60s, with black people still being murdered in the streets and young black men being sent to Vietnam in the draft, to kill on behalf of a society which still disenfranchised and often despised them, the anger in that poem makes perfect sense. It's emotionally evocative and meaningful. The poem speaks to the need for black men to be smarter and better than to be manipulated into violence. To be Black Men, not [see forum posting rules]. Have you ever seen the Chris Rock routine where he talks about the difference between black people and [see forum posting rules]? Same thing. The poem confronts the black man with the decision of whether to act like a proud and intelligent man, or be goaded by anger and desperation into being something less than a man.

Relapse wrote:
[I think we all know that censorship is a real slippery slope. I think the best thing we can do is to arm ourselves and our children mentaly against this kind of hate and just act like respectful humans to each other as best we can in this world.

Agreed.

**Polonius**

Ragnar, are you suggesting that context matters? Typical liberal.

**Peregrine**

Harriticus wrote:
Uh huh, keep up those ad hominems. Does it say Muslims or Arabs there? No, it does not. It says Jihadists. Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you need this to fit your own narrative. I wasn't aware it was evil and racist to insult Jihadists.

No, it doesn't say it explicitly, it just implies that everyone opposing Israel is a "jihadist" and a "savage".

**deathholydeath**

Don't know if anyone's seen this yet, but it's relevant to the topic at hand:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/commentator-arrested-for-defacing-anti-jihad-subway-poster/?ref=nyregion

An Egyptian-American columnist, who rose to prominence on social media last year for her commentary during the revolution in Egypt, was arrested in the Times Square subway station on Tuesday for spraying pink paint on a pro-Israel poster that calls Islamist opponents of the Jewish state “savage.”

The poster was one of 10 placed in subway stations across the transit system this week, on the heels of violent and sometimes deadly protests across the Muslim world in response to an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority had initially rejected the ads, citing their “demeaning” language. The group behind the ads, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued, and in July won a federal court ruling on First Amendment grounds. The group’s executive director, Pamela Geller, also led the effort in 2010 to block construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack in Lower Manhattan.

The columnist, Mona Eltahawy, is a former Reuters correspondent now based in New York who became a dual citizen of Egypt and the United States last year. Her Twitter feed, which has more than 160,000 followers, became popular last year as a source of information on the Egyptian revolution.

Mona Eltahawy
✔
@monaeltahawy
@TheRobinMorgan tweeting 4 me:I'm charged w criminal mischief 4 pink-spraying anti-Muslim 'savages' poster.C judge AM.#ProudSavage #FreeMona
25 Sep 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
The full text of the ad, which refers to a statement by Ms. Geller’s intellectual hero Ayn Rand, reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” Then, between two Stars of David, the tag line appears: “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

Ms. Eltahawy’s arrest was recorded on video by an activist who supports the ad campaign, Pamela Hall, who placed herself in front of the poster. Ms. Hall’s video and photographs of the arrest were later published on Ms. Geller’s blog under the headline: “Mona Eltahawy Arrested for Assaulting Pro-Freedom Blogger While Defacing AFDI Pro-Freedom Ad.”

The standoff between the two women was also captured on video by The New York Post.

New York Post video of the confrontation on Tuesday.
Ms. Eltahawy was charged with criminal mischief, making graffiti and possessing a graffiti instrument, the police said on Wednesday, adding that no additional security measures had been put in place at any of the ads’ locations across the subway system. A spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office said on Wednesday morning that Ms. Eltahawy had not yet been arraigned.

Pamela Geller/The American Freedom Defense Initiative, via Associated Press
The anti-jihad ad that has been posted in the subways.
Ms. Geller said in an e-mail on Wednesday that at least five of the ads had been defaced. Philip Weiss, a New Yorker whose blog Mondoweiss aims to cover the Middle East “from a progressive Jewish perspective,” posted photographs Tuesday depicting some of the defaced ads.

Aaron Donovan, a spokesman for the transportation authority, said that staff members for the agency’s advertising partner, CBS Outdoor, inspect all ads each day and replace those that have been vandalized or defaced, drawing from a pool of “overage copies” provided by the advertiser.

Ms. Geller’s group provided 20 copies, Mr. Donovan said, but could send in more at its own cost if it chose to.

“I had more printed,” Ms. Geller said on Wednesday, “as I expected this.”

She called the defaced ads “a physical manifestation of the way the entire conversation, or lack thereof, always goes.”

“Anyone who speaks about jihad and Shariah is attacked, defamed, destroyed,” she said, “just like these ads.”

As The Lede blog reported last month, activists who see the posters as insulting to Muslims reworked or destroyed similar posters placed in the transit systems in San Francisco and the New York suburbs.

Ms. Eltahawy, initially known for her commentary on the Egyptian revolution from afar, became personally involved in the protest movement last November, when she used her Twitter feed to document her physical and sexual abuse by Egyptian police officers following a crackdown on a demonstration near Tahrir Square in Cairo.

In May, she earned the enmity of many Egyptians for writing a Foreign Policy cover story on women’s rights in the Middle East published with the headline “Why Do They Hate Us?”

News of Ms. Eltahawy’s arrest made headlines in Egypt and earned her praise from like-minded Internet activists. A Lebanese blogger, who was less impressed with the stunt, wrote a satirical blog post accusing Ms. Eltahawy of attention-seeking.

Ms. Eltahawy also has a history with Ms. Geller. When Ms. Geller rallied opponents of the mosque near ground zero in 2010, Ms. Eltahawy attended a counter-demonstration.

**Peregrine**

The group’s executive director, Pamela Geller, also led the effort in 2010 to block construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack in Lower Manhattan.

Yep, let's just keep pretending that this is only about protesting against a violent minority, not open racism...

**Mannahnin**

Polonius wrote:
Ragnar, are you suggesting that context matters? Typical liberal.

Weird, isn't it? The context we're in is one where people think, for some inexplicable reason, that censoring an arguably-racist billboard is somehow an "anti-blasphemy rule", which is so ridiculous I have a hard time imagining the thought process required to make that leap.

I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:

Kidnap Poem
ever been kidnapped
by a poet
if i were a poet
i'd kidnap you
put you in my phrases and meter
you to jones beach
or maybe coney island
or maybe just to my house
lyric you in lilacs
dash you in the rain
blend into the beach
to complement my see
play the lyre for you
ode you with my love song
anything to win you
wrap you in the red Black green
show you off to mama
yeah if i were a poet i'd kid
nap you

**ShumaGorath**

Harriticus wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hopefully someday you'll evolve enough to feel ashamed by this statement.

Uh huh, keep up those ad hominems. Does it say Muslims or Arabs there? No, it does not. It says Jihadists. Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you need this to fit your own narrative. I wasn't aware it was evil and racist to insult Jihadists.

Jihad means "holy struggle" or "duty" and it's something mulsims are expected to go through in their lifetimes.

An accurate interpretation of the concept of Jihad is provided by the BBC about how Muslims describe three different types of struggles:[7]

A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
The struggle to build a good Muslim society
Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary
In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war".[8][9] Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous.[10] Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[11][12]

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

Ignorance and racism go hand in hand, through one you are displaying the other.

**Ratbarf**

What is this, 'let's piss off Muslims' Month?

I think that kicks off with "Lets Draw Mohammed Day" which I think is in may.

So... Vague childhood memories?

Well I didn't really want to bring this up as some people may indeed think of it as an outright fabrication, which it isn't it actually happened. But, we were discussing what we wanted to after High School/College and he espoused the desire to go to Palestine and build bombs with which to kill Israelis. Said Palestinian also bullied a Jewish kid in his science class until the kid dropped it. So I don't think he has a very kind view of Israel.

Primarily the ones whose houses are bulldozed and who now have a giant wall between them and their crops. To a lesser extent the 700 children Israel killed in it's last conflict in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Though really, when you look at the numbers the biggest thing Israel rapes with it's rhetoric and military is the truth.

Well then, maybe they shouldn't set up mortars in schools? Use their own children as meat shields? Or launch thousands of rockets at Israel in an average week during that war? I mean just because they didn't hit crap doesn't mean they didn't try. Bombs are like gifts, it's the thought that counts.

**ShumaGorath**

Well then, maybe they shouldn't set up mortars in schools? Use their own children as meat shields? Or launch thousands of rockets at Israel in an average week during that war? I mean just because they didn't hit crap doesn't mean they didn't try. Bombs are like gifts, it's the thought that counts.

If the thought counts, why do people defend israel? They launch more. It's a puerile fallacy to pretend that mortars are being fired from schools or that the tactics utilized in defense of Israel are even close to proportional. Showing up 15 minutes after a mortar has been fired from a location and leveling the apartment block where it was fired is pure murderous spite. Bulldozing peoples homes, intentionally cutting up peoples farmland, and then building israeli apartments on the stolen soil would be acts of war to any other nation. Fortunately Israel has America in it's little pocket, no other place on earth views it's bs favorably.

**Ratbarf**

But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

**Peregrine**

Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.