Posted on 09/28/2012 11:31:59 AM PDT by barmag25
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.
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 deems could incite violence.
As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was released 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Ban all Obama ads NOW!!!!
I’m enraged and want to spray paint something pink!!!
What happened to the old “clear and present danger” test? Not that I like that one, either.
This is not the “chilling effect.” This is directly violating free speech.
I guess when you cross into New Yawk you give up your Constitutional right to free speech and to a Big Gulp.
Update:
Free speech banned
Free thought outlawed
Freedom ended
Prior restraint ?????
No worries...there are never any Republican campaign ads. However, Manhattan Mini-Storage features anti-Bush, Cheney, Palin and Republicans in general messages in their ads which we've been subjected to for years.
Big Brother is Watching You.
placing crosses in urine, or utting turds on the picture of the Virgin Mary is art AND ALL ok.
kIDS CANNOT HAVE SODA OVER 16OZ, kids can;t have cold candy or sore throat candy in the school, kids can;t buy cold medicine , salt is not allowed in school but hey get a tablet to kill a baby because the 13 year old girl coudln;t keep her legs closed is alright.
NY city might as well join MA and the rest of the north east and form their liberal socialist no common sense, no freedom of speech for the right utopia .
And they can take all their liberals who moved down here too
Shakespeare’s quote was right. “THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET’S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.” ... then the MSM and, and, and..... LOL
Opportunity knocks! Let’s start filing complaints against the ads on buses, subways and shelters promoting “gay” oriented entertainment, and other undesirable stuff. They might lead to violence!
I'm not sure if it's a direct violation. The rule refers to a message that is meant to "incite" violence. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) says speech that is meant to incite "imminent lawless action" is not protected speech. Because the rule could be read to refer to that standard, it is not a direct violation. However, it is not clear from the rule that it is that limited and so it could cause people not to express themselves where the First Amendment would apply. In other words, the rule can have a "chilling effect" on free speech and so it violates the First Amendment.
I use to love freedom and free speech!
Well, the rule does say “incite” and “immediate,” but since without perpetrating violence against the language there is no way an ad that may or may not make someone angry, and that angry person may or may not perpetrate violence is guilty of inciting immenent violence there is no way it passes the Brandenburg test. Therefore, it is out and out violation of freespeech and not a chilling effect.
On the other hand, it may be like in school where the authorities have broad proprietary powers. That is to say you have the right of free speech but not the right to force the transit authority to put things on their wall at your whim. In which case it isn’t a free speech violation nor a chilling effect. But I don’t really see how it can be a chilling effect and not restriction of speech.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.