Enemedia spins MTA’s refusal to drop cause-related ads

The New York Times has run a piece, and Hot Air is running with it as if it's accurate, claiming that the MTA has changed its guidelines to be able to prohibit my AFDI pro-freedom ads. I
disagree with that interpretation. The New York Times piece is inaccurate, putting as negative a spin as they can on the MTA ruling, out of their hatred for freedom and zeal to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. Hot Air has been very late to the party and has not been following the story at all,
so I'm not surprised that they're slavishly following the Times' lead.

The fact is, the MTA doesn't mean that it will be
enforcing the Sharia or adhering to the blasphemy laws under Islamic
law. The enemedia is assuming that they will prohibit our ad, but it is not necessarily so. And if they do, we will certainly fight back. It's fairly safe to
say that the MTA is referring to prohibiting ads that genuinely incite to violence,
such as ads from Occupy Wall Street calling for people to get guns and shoot businessmen and police.  It's the same as it was before. If they block us, we'll sue again.

After I left the meeting and tried to hail a cab in this UN-paralyzed city, the tolerant and harmonious  "99%" followed me screaming in the street, calling me the most vile names. But at the same time, passengers in cabs that were driving by and saw the scene opened their windows to give me a thumbs-up and said, "You are doing the right thing!" and "keep it going." Which only made the malodorous 99% savages really rabid, banging on cabs that stopped to pick me up and yelling at me all the louder.

I am anxious to post the video of the MTA board meeting so that you can
see the actual event and then read the tales the media spin. They speak
repeatedly of the handful of freaks who make it their life's work to
attend these meetings and scream at everyone for their miserable
attitudes and approach to life. The media feeds off them — it's hard to
tell who is the parasite, the media or the ….99 percent.

New York Magazine was there: Following 'Savages' Controversy, MTA Adds Disclaimer to Subway Ads 
By

Margaret Hartmann

Though the 10 ads were instantly defaced,
several people showed up to protest when the meeting was opened up to
comments from the public. Demonstrators who oppose the ads held signs
with messages like "The subway belongs to the 99 percent," and
repeatedly shouted down Pamela Geller, who leads the group behind the
ads. She insisted
that while many believe that the ad implies Muslims are "savages," it's
actually about "systemic institutionalized anti-Israel bias." "This is
not against Muslims. I love Muslims," Geller said.

Wow, Is Margaret ADD? Deliberately impersonating
Slip Mahoney? Or deliberately misrepresenting my position because
….folks might agree with me? I asked why this meeting had not taken
place when not one, but numerous
anti-Israel ads were up. That in itself shows an institutionalized,
systemic anti-Israel bias.

What I said was that the ad does not say Muslims, it says jihad. I will post the video so that you can see what an incompetent snake Margaret Hartmann is.

"M.T.A. Amends Rules After Pro-Israel Ads Draw Controversy" NY Times By
Matt Flegenheimer

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.

The authority said it believed the new guidelines adhered to the court’s
ruling and would withstand any potential First Amendment challenge.
Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow so-called
viewpoint ads, but each will be required to include a disclaimer noting
that the ad does not imply the authority’s endorsement of its views.

“You deal with a free-speech issue with more free speech,” Mr. Lhota said.

The advertisements have attracted considerable attention in recent weeks amid the violent and sometimes deadly protests across the Muslim world in response to an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad.

ADVERTISEMENT

During the public comment portion of the authority’s meeting on
Thursday, several speakers assailed the placement of the ads. (The
authority said last week that “our hands are tied” because of an order,
by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court in Manhattan, to
post the ads.)

Many at the meeting held signs echoing the Occupy Wall Street movement’s message. “The subway belongs to the 99 percent,” they read. “Take the racist ads down.”

Pamela Geller, the executive director of the American Freedom Defense
Initiative, also spoke, though she was repeatedly shouted down. She
urged the board not to change its ad policy.

“Have the courage of your convictions,” she said, “even if the judge imposed it.”

"MTA votes to add disclaimers to issues-oriented ads"
NY Daily News

The MTA won’t ban controversial political ads like one now running in
the subway that critics say is anti-Muslim — but they will add a
disclaimer.

The Metropolitan Transportation Board voted Thursday to require the
disclaimer — and details on who paid for them — on issue-oriented ads.

Meanwhile the Islamic supremacist savages are howling for more vandalism. Christina Abraham, "Civil Rights Director" of Hamas-CAIR's Chicago office: