New York City buses MUST show controversial ad (anti-Muslim) on grounds of free speech

[alhoon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32407880

The gist: A judge has ruled that New York City's buses must display a controversial ad that refers to Muslims killing Jews. It shows a scarfed person, and a Hamas quotation: "Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah." The advert then asks: "That's his Jihad. What's yours?" The ad is already playing in SFrancisco and Chicago.
The ad is paid by the "American Freedom Defense Initiative" and it is listed as an anti-Muslim group a civil rights group,


My reaction was


That's not freedom of speech. That's inciting hate. You're against Muslims and want to take action? Make a video with a Jew talking about Hamas and do it on TV, not targeting teenagers that take the bus after school.

You want to defend freedom of speech and consider me an illiberal butt-hole for trying to silence or something concerned Americans?
I wonder if the video showed dead Palestinians and Netanyahu saying they will build more settlements in West Bank and closed with "Will you let them?" or something, what would the reaction be. I also wonder if the video showed security camera feeds from black persons looting stores\houses and closed with "They are coming for you next, will you let them?" what would the reaction be.
That's the level of this ad, that it targets a "non-protected" minority, that somehow hasn't yet gone under the Politically-Correct so haters can freely hate it, doesn't make this video, or the decision by the judge any less disgusting than the examples I said above.

[Sphere]

The US has a more expansive version of free speech than most of Europe. Inciting hate is allowed. Inciting violence in a broad sense is allowed. Only inciting immediate violence is not.

This is basically the Supreme court case which governs free speech in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branden...action_test.29

In it Mr. Brandenburg, a KKK member, was granted protection for far more vile statements that what is said in this ad.

[Odenat]

So, what will happen now if Muslims pay for an ad showing Israel murdering Palestinian children? The same freedom of expression will exist?

[hellheaven1987]

So, what will happen now if Muslims pay for an ad showing Israel murdering Palestinian children? The same freedom of expression will exist?

I am pretty sure saw that type of advertisement in my university before... so yes it was allowed.

[Sphere]

So, what will happen now if Muslims pay for an ad showing Israel murdering Palestinian children? The same freedom of expression will exist?

Judging by a case pending in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of the United States is inclined to force Texas to allow people to have swastikas stamped into their licence plates if they want them. (The court overall is split on the idea, the vote could go either way).

So yeah, US free speech law is fairly well detached from cultural taboos and biases.

[alhoon]

I am pretty sure saw that type of advertisement in my university before... so yes it was allowed.

Did you see it in bus ads, or just random stuff leftwings post in Universities? Cause I've seen ads in Greece asking for the release of terrorists or, in the aftermath of 9/11 applauding the terrorists for taking down the twins.
But you wouldn't see ads on the TV about that. Not because it's illegal (it is not) but because we're above that. Our channels wouldn't agree to advertise hate.

Judging by a case pending in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of the United States is inclined to force Texas to allow people to have swastikas stamped into their licence plates if they want them. (The court overall is split on the idea, the vote could go either way).

So yeah, US free speech law is fairly well detached from cultural taboos and biases.

They debate it eh? Well, here it's allowed.
Only in Germany it's not allowed. But still, while our neo-Nazis (3rd most populous party) put up their propaganda in their magazines and write in walls, you won't see even them, hard-core neo-Nazis that keep SS-helmets in their houses, paying for ads that go that low.
What they say on TV is another matter, but that's free speech.

The US has a more expansive version of free speech than most of Europe. Inciting hate is allowed.

I'm not saying that weirdo American should not be allowed to make hate-inducing ads. I'm saying that NYC bus companies should have the right to say "Hell no! I'm not putting that in my bus."

[Sphere]

Well, here it's allowed.

In Greece you can get a licence plate with a swastika stamped in it?

The debate in the Supreme court is over a group who wants this...



Texas rejected their request on the grounds that the Confederate Battle flag is linked to white supremacist movements. The group brought a first amendment case agaisnt Texas.

I'm not saying that weirdo American should not be allowed to make hate-inducing ads. I'm saying that NYC bus companies should have the right to say "Hell no! I'm not putting that in my bus."

That's what is being mulled over in the Supreme Court right now. When a government entity sells advertising space, (or takes donations of objects), does it get a say over content? The answer from the courts has generally been no. That is why you get a festivus tree in the Florida state capitol and the Satan statue in Oklahoma. When something gets opened up to the public for them to put content on, the government is generally not allowed a veto that content.

[alhoon]

Ehhh... in Greece you can have a tattoo with a Swastika. Or Swastika sticker. Or whatever.
In license plates you're not allowed to put anything. We don't have those weird plates you all seem to be so fond of. The state puts the number and letters and that's all.

As for the second part: I disagree with the Supreme Court then; You rent out your space, you put some standards that apply to all. Like, no racism. No religious intolerance.

If I hired ad space from the government, I should not be allowed to advertise heroin, intolerance and other stuff. There are panels for that and those panels should not be government-rented space.

[Stavroforos]

America has a much more expansive version of free speech than in Europe, and the fact that they allow something like this proves it.

[sumskilz]

That's not freedom of speech. That's inciting hate. You're against Muslims and want to take action?

The BBC article left out the fact that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is arguing that it may incite violence against Jews. I guess that bit was too confusing to include considering who is paying for the advertisements, or it didn't fit their spin agenda. How do you paint one side as good and the other as evil if both sides in the case are "Islamophobic".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ays-and-buses/

[Roma_Victrix]

The ad has quotes around the words. Is the ad quoting someone directly, verbatim? If so that makes the ad even less edgy than I first imagined, because the phrase was then not created out of the blue by the pro-Israeli group that funded the ad. I suppose it is easy to find crazy that Hezbollah and Hamas members have to say.

I'm sure the vast amount of New Yorkers don't give a damn, and will continue to ignore ads on buses and subway trains while dozing off, listening to their iPods, music on their iPhones, and such.

[Gaidin]

If I hired ad space from the government, I should not be allowed to advertise heroin, intolerance and other stuff. There are panels for that and those panels should not be government-rented space.

That's a great red herring, heroin. Why'd you bring up a schedule II substance?

[alhoon]

Because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to advertise it in government-rented ad-space, free market, freedom of speech and all.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, there is free speech in USA but it's dependent on where you are and what's your speech is.

[Gaidin]

Because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to advertise it in government-rented ad-space, free market, freedom of speech and all.

Arguing that something could incite something and advertising a schedule II substance are...holy different. Like, wow holy different. You have a magical bloodhound nose for red herrings.

[alhoon]

Free speech doesn't mean that the government should rent their own ad space without any standards...

[Phier]

The US has a more expansive version of free speech than most of Europe. Inciting hate is allowed. Inciting violence in a broad sense is allowed. Only inciting immediate violence is not.

This is basically the Supreme court case which governs free speech in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branden...action_test.29

In it Mr. Brandenburg, a KKK member, was granted protection for far more vile statements that what is said in this ad.

I'm always bemused when people from other countries learn they don't really have free speech. They usually defend it without realizing how dangerous it is for your government to determine what is "hate speech".

[Gaidin]

Free speech doesn't mean that the government should rent their own ad space without any standards...

I'll take you wheeling off in another direction as a concession.

The government hasn't really ever had the right to say "It's our space" like private companies. If they want to sell ad space they pretty much have to sell it to the buyer that comes along. Unless they're advertising something hilariously illegal. Like, you know, heroin. Now, a slightly possible maybe inciteful advertisement? No. Not something they really have a choice in given the standards for incitement the courts have established.

You see, it's a fairly simple concept, the constitutions protect the people from the governments. The people can screw around with each other. New York City's government has it's work cut out for it to show it's a legit incitement, while a private company can just say "no".

[alhoon]

Free speech doesn't mean that the government should rent their own ad space without any standards...

Arguing that something could incite something and advertising a schedule II substance are...holy different.

As a non-native English speaker, I have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

My point was that "Bus companies should have the right to say "hell no!" when it comes to them getting weird, hateful ads". The Islamophobes could practice their free speech rights by putting huge banners outside their houses or going to protests demanding USA to nuke Iran.

I'll take you wheeling off in another direction as a concession.

I haven't read your post. And I replied before reading your answer.
All in all, I didn't paid much mind to your answer, I didn't wheel off. I just wasn't talking to you at the time.

Unless they're advertising something hilariously illegal. Like, you know, heroin. Now, a slightly possible maybe inciteful advertisement? No. Not something they really have a choice in given the standards for incitement the courts have established.

So, you say that if I paid a couple million $ to broadcast "black people are an inferior race, and you're all being puppets by the Jews, break your chains and enslave the blacks again" I would be able to do it, right?
And when riots rightfully started and I was not-that-horribly found butchered in my flat, would you be surprised?
How about if I rent space to shout "gays are evil and will destroy the world"? How would USA react?

The difference here is that islamophobia is being tolerated while racism and homophobia are not. If the message was racist instead of islamophobic, there would be WAY more reaction from people.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is a little bit difference between what some claim and the reality.

Appeals court upholds Metro’s ban of bus ads on Israel conflict

A federal appeals court decided 2-1 Wednesday that King County Metro Transit did not violate free-speech rights by refusing to accept an anti-Israel advertisement.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s decision in favor of the Seattle metropolitan-area transit system, which at first accepted and then rejected an advertisement that called on the U.S. to stop funding Israel.