MTA to Only Run Ads that Muslims Will Not Vandalize

Have you heard about that Bill of Rights we used to have? It went a little something like this.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”

Now it goes something like this.

Congress shall establish Islam as the tolerant and peaceful religion of the land, without prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, so long as such speech does not offend the practitioners of the peaceful and tolerant religion lest they begin killing people.

After Mona Elhatawy a fameball Egyptian Muslim immigrant vandalized a pro-Israel subway ad that displeased her, the MTA is springing into action to make sure this never happens again.

The New York Times reports the MTA will prohibit any advertisements that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.” Those “viewpoint” ads that do not meet this criteria will be allowed, so long as a disclaimer is included saying the MTA does not endorse them.

How do you define “provoke violence?”

If Muslims declare that they will react violently to something. If they demonstrate that they will behave violently in response to something, that thing can now be treated as inciting and provoking violence.

Muslim violence, once again, becomes the determinant of what can and cannot be said in this country. This is thuggery and this is exactly why so many people have a problem with Islam… and why they have to be silenced lest Muslims go Mohammed again.

At today’s public meeting of the MTA, audience members held signs in support of Eltahawy saying the subways “belong to the 99%.

I didn’t realize that Muslims were already 99 percent of the planet. And can we have an election on this 99 percent crap already? The “99 percent” can run their candidate in favor of closing all the banks, shooting all the Jews and turning over our weapons to the Mexican Communist Party. I don’t think they’ll even get 1 percent.

While being handcuffed by the NYPD officers in the video, Eltahawy shouts, “this is what happens in America when you express yourself.”

Yeah this is what happens. Some Egyptian Muslim jackass comes and spray paints your form of expression and then shrieks about it on Twitter.

  • chowching259

    Eight million Christians and eight million Israeli Jews are being held hostage by Morsi. He has the power to kill every Egyptian Infidel and unleash his air force on Tel Aviv. When Morsi speaks Obama bows and listens.

  • modres

    It doesn't matter what policy the MTA comes up with. Atlas Shrugs had to sue in court to win the right to have their ads placed there in the first place. What makes them think by simply making a new policy, they won't be taken to court again?

    I guess then I can go and complain about all the propaganda that is advertised there in which Israel is held up as the bad guy. Would MTA decide to take down the "offending" ads? I doubt it.

  • https://www.facebook.com/NoahDavidSimon Noah David Simon

    does it take a riot to get free expression? Maybe it's time for a real Tea Party… and I mean a party where something gets broken. Why not? The media will say we did it anyway

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "does it take a riot to get free expression? Maybe it's time for a real Tea Party… and I mean a party where something gets broken"

      It may come to that, but let the decent lawyers have their chance with American justice and due process.

  • Ghostwriter

    There'll come a point when the Muslims will go TOO far in their attempts to deny our free speech rights and then,we in America are going to push back,REAL hard.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "There'll come a point when the Muslims will go TOO far in their attempts to deny our free speech rights and then,we in America are going to push back,REAL hard. "

      I'm dreaming of that day. Can we start now?

  • BLJ

    I heard the Muslims are not offended by deodorant ad's. It is sort of like their kryptonite.

    • BLJ

      meant are "now" offended.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I've heard reports of ads in London being spray painted with Sharia compliant clothing, including veil.

  • Cat K

    Hey, any other Jews out there ready to spray paint anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ads and media? Oops that means I have spray paint the entire mainstream media. What would they do to a Jew who reacted by defacing anti-Semitic media?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Determining what defines incitement, like pornography, is a slippery slope that challenges any judge called up to make a ruling. With political correctness (which is all about exploiting these difficult issues), we have, "Incitement is determined in the heart of the violent subject." The liberal won't articulate that definition, but that is what they imply in their use of the word. Laws in many European nations have been passed supporting this premise. If you upset a Muslim, you may be guilty of disturbing the peace on the basis of his or her testimony alone.

    There was recently a man in the USA who wore a costume of Mohamed the Zombie. He was assaulted, and when it went to court, the victim was rebuked by the judge, and I don't recall what happened to the violent defendant. It was outrageous. I'll look for some details.

    • Anonymous

      Ezra Levant of Sun News Network interviewed Sam Nunberg (attorney for the man who was assaulted while wearing a Zombie Mo costume). The attorney wants the judge to be removed from the bench. (Check for the video, "the Source", aired Sept 17, 2012.

    • scum

      It's not a slippery slope. Pornography or anything else is someone else making a ruling on what you can publish. No one is saying you can't publish anti-Muslim stupidity, just find another vendor, or publish yourself. If you publish a book of anti-Muslim hatred, and your'e censored, then that IS suppression. You have to understand the difference here. Case closed.

      • traeh

        Case closed? If you were a judge, as you pretend, you would be removed from the bench for being so misinformed about this case yet ruling on it. You fail to understand that the MTA is a government or quasi-government entity. You seem not to know that the MTA already lost an earlier case on this very ad. The MTA tried to reject the ad as alleged hate speech. So the ad makers sued the MTA, and the court ruled on First Amendment grounds that the MTA, so long as it accepts political speech, has no right to pick and choose which political speech it will accept. The MTA was thus forced to accept this ad. Case closed.

        Right now, the MTA is trying to use another legal justification for rejecting the ad — namely the "incitement" or "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment. The MTA will ultimately lose that case too, if only after the ad makers appeal to a high enough court.

  • traeh

    If the MTA is actually going to try to reject ads on the basis that such ads will provoke Muslim vandalism or violence, the MTA must be a glutton for losing legal cases. I doubt that in this circumstance they will win, for the simple reason that Muslims are provoked to violence by all kinds of things that are not intended to incite them or insult them but are merely intended to tell the truth about Muhammad and Islam. Incitement limitations on speech might make sense in a very limited set of situations, but not in the case of Islam, where you can't say anything critical without inciting Muslim violence and threats of violence.

    • scum

      1) They're not ads.
      2) The MTA is not obligated to put anything up at all. Find another vendor: it's not 'suppression.'
      3) If it costs more to clean up trains from vandalism, any free market freak will tell you it's pointless to put up the 'ads,' as you call them.
      Case closed.

      • traeh

        You are mistaken on several counts. The MTA is not a private entity. It is a government or quasi-government entity. That is why it has certain obligations, because it is part of what you call the "powers that be." In an earlier court case, in which the ad maker sued the MTA for rejecting this same ad as alleged hate speech, the court ruled on First Amendment grounds that the MTA, so long as it accepts political ads, is not permitted to pick and choose which political ads it will accept. So the MTA, which had rejected the ads, was forced by the court to put them up. Now the MTA is trying to come up with another legal justification to reject the ads. Namely that Muslims will vandalize the ads or do violence in response to them. This is the "incitement" law making exceptions to the First Amendment. In the past, it has sometimes been ruled that an exception to the First Amendment is possible in some limited situations when someone deliberately utters "fighting words" or other incitement that it is known will cause a riot or the like. Such speech might not be protected by the First Amendment. But the incitement rule should not apply with this ad, because too many Muslims will do vandalism against ANY public critical speech of Islam. To use the incitement rule to outlaw this ad would in effect be to outlaw ALL public critical speech about Islam. They could start outlawing movies about Muhammad because there will be riots in the Middle East. They could start outlawing Islam-critical websites for the same reason. For a totalitarian movement like Islam, ANYTHING can be incitement. So the incitement exception should not apply in this case.

        • traeh

          You are also wrong that they are not "ads." They are ads by the legal definition of an ad. An ad simply means a paid message. It need not be selling a physical or commercial product.

  • scum

    The MTA doesn't have to publish any old thing that someone wants to put up. Rejecting 'ads' as you call them, is not suppression of free speech. Suppression is publishing a book which is then removed (not by the publisher) from the shelves by the 'powers that be.' That's not the case here. If the MTA won't publish, go to another venue and try to sell your 'product,' just like everyone else. Moreover, the MTA is selling ADVERTISEMENT SPACE. While I oppose the commercialization of every square inch of the universe, Anti-Muslim diatribes ARE NOT ADS. If the MTA makes the determination that certain 'ads' are likely to lead to defacement, putting them up would lead to diminishing returns. They're trying to make money, not pay for cleanup and vandalism. Case closed.

    • traeh

      You are wrong and uninformed about this particular case. For example, there was already a court case over this ad, because the MTA previously tried to reject the ad as hate speech. The group that made the ad then sued the MTA in court, and the court ruled that so long as the MTA has a policy of accepting political speech ads, the MTA could not pick and choose as to which political statement was acceptable. The MTA is a government or quasi-government entity and part of the "powers that be" as you put it. So the court forced the MTA to accept the ad. The MTA is now trying to produce another legal justification for rejecting the ad — not that it is allegedly hate speech, but that it provokes vandalism and violence. That court case might initially succeed, though it should not succeed, because many Muslims will do vandalism and violance against ANY kind of critical speech against Islam. To use the incitement standard to prohibit the ad would in this case be to outlaw any kind of critical speech against Islam. And that is not how the incitement law was meant to work. From what I've heard, the group that made the ad will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, and I think at some point along the way of the appeal process (assuming the ad makers lose in a lower court and the appeals process is even necessary) — at some point along the way in appeal, the ad makers will win their case.

      • traeh

        You are also wrong that they are not "ads." They are ads by the legal definition of an ad. An ad is simply a paid message. It need not be selling a physical or commercial product.

  • Jason

    I am very impressed that someone is actually able to defend pure propaganda advertisements that suggest that supposedly substandard people deserve to die and their lives are not as worthy as the lives of some higher nation. This reeks of nazism, to say the least.