#EpicBattle: the Sanction of the Savage

Commenter name: hani
Commenter email: [email protected]
IP address: 65.93.179.31

Let me make this perfectly clear. I will never sacrifice my freedom so as not to offend savages. And neither should any other American. The MTA may have injected an ambigous, unconstitutional, and thoroughly reckless revision into their ad policy in order to appease a lawless mob, but it will not stand.

And where were these same gutless cowards protesting against fascists and enemedia tools when the anti-Israel ads were running? Their ugly anti-semitic bias is painfully obvious.

"Since 1838, there have been only a handful of blasphemy prosecutions in the United States, and a broad consensus has emerged that Jefferson and Adams had it right. In 1952, the Supreme Court of the United States finally put the matter to rest in Burstyn v. Wilson, holding in a unanimous decision that "it is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine" or to protect "any or all religions from views which are distasteful to them." The First Amendment, the Court declared, renders any such government action unconstitutional. Religions and religious figures, like political parties, politicians, businessmen, and other members of society are fair game for criticism, condemnation and even mockery." […]

"Apply this to the current situation, and the implications are obvious. If we punish American citizens for engaging in otherwise constitutionally protected speech in order to prevent foreign terrorists from engaging in violent acts, then we cede to those very terrorists the meaning of the First Amendment. That doesn't sound very promising, does it?"

Geoffrey R. Stone

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. From 1987 to 1994 he served as Dean of the University of Chicago Law School and from 1994 to 2002 he served as Provost of the University of Chicago. He is currently Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. (thanks to FS)

Here is the bottom line. Whatever capitulation the MTA is hoping to make to the sharia, the fact is that our ads are running, and based on this new ruling, I intend to expand and increase my New York buy.

And the message the MTA is sending is that if you don't like something — riot, destroy, attack, spray paint innocent people with toxic paint, and you, too, can impose your barbaric agenda on civilized people.

Conservative’s Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could ‘Incite or Provoke Violence’ Billy Hallowell, The Blaze

The epic battle between American Freedom Defense
Initiative executive director and blogger Pamela Geller and
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) culminated with a court
decision that forced the transit authority to permit the display of
controversial ads about radical Islam. But the story didn’t end there.
As TheBlaze reported this morning,
Geller’s case caused the MTA to rethink the manner in which it handles
First Amendment issues, leading to the adoption of some
potentially-controversial measures.

(Related: Read TheBlaze‘s initial report about the MTA’s changes here)

On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of
the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that
passed on Thursday. As noted, one of the emergent provisions that was
added into the public company’s advertising standards in the wake of the
Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite
violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes).

As previously noted,
a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was provided by the MTA to
TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authority’s advertising
standards and reads, in part, “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’)
shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or
more of the following categories.” One of the category sections reads:

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is the portion presented in bold that is new to the regulations.
It’s inclusion is interesting for a number of reasons. On the surface,
it appears oddly placed in the list of grievances that could lead to the
banning of an advertisement. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity
regarding what led to the inclusion of the “violence” reference in the
first place.

Here’s a screen shot from the official document:

A portion of the new advertising standards, with the highlighted "violence" reference (Photo Credit: MTA)

In an e-mail reply, MTA spokesperson Aaron Donovan told TheBlaze that
the change was among the “outstanding issues” that the agency was
looking to tackle in the new regulatory document.

“Since we hadn’t updated our advertising standards in 15 years, we
used this opportunity to address several outstanding issues or potential
hypothetical situations,” he wrote. “This is one of them.”

TheBlaze responded with additional questions about the motivations
for the change, asking how, in particular, the MTA’s court battle with
Geller impacted the new restriction on violent ads. Donovan responded,
admitting that the dilemma did play an integral role in the decision to
make the change.

“The ad, and more specifically the litigation surrounding it, caused
us to think about a variety of potential scenarios and review our
standards more carefully within a prism of First Amendment law,” he
commented.

Considering that the MTA has made its opposition to the ad’s message
known in the past — and taking into account continued calls for bans on
blasphemy and offensive messages — the natural question is: Will this
new regulation serve as a backdoor method for banning controversial ads
that take aim at specific faiths, like Islam?

Photo Credit: American Freedom Defense Initiative/ABC News

To gain a better perspective, TheBlaze asked who would be involved in
the process of defining which messages incite violence and what the
metrics for doing so would be.

“It would go through the same process we currently use to determine
whether ads meet the overall guidelines,” Donovan explained. “Ads are
submitted to our advertising contractor, CBS Outdoor, for posting and
approval.”

Once the ads are submitted, Donovan said that CBS then decides which
ones need to be scrutinized more closely to ensure they meet guidelines.
Considering the other MTA regulation that was adopted on Thursday — the
requirement that political, religious and morality-based ads include a
disclaimer separating their ideals from the agency’s — the spokesperson
said that CBS would also be involved in flagging ads for that purpose.

“The MTA’s final determination is made by the MTA’s Director of Real
Estate, in consultation with CBS Outdoor (our ad contractor), the MTA’s
General Counsel, the Chairman, and others he may choose to consult
with,” he continued, highlighting how potentially-violent ads will be
assessed.

Still, considering these elements, the issue needs further
exploration. The language seems fluid enough to present further
First Amendment battles in the future — especially considering the
guidelines’ subjective nature.

UPDATE: Atlas reader LC comments:

I would like to make two points about the MTA's new rule:

1) With this rule, the MTA is allowing ads criticizing groups of people that probably will not commit violent acts, as a result of said ads. So, public criticism of the most dangerous ideologies/ behaviors/ groups will not be allowed. These are the groups that most deserve public scrutiny and criticism.

2)The MTA is acknowledging the truth, in this case, that jihadists are likely to become violent. Are they also making a "racist" statement with this new rule, as Ms. Gellar is accused of doing? Just what are they admitting? Apparently, they are afraid of acts of savagery being committed. But, I thought jihad was a peaceful, inner struggle.