Heckler’s veto: NYC subway authority bans ads that might “provoke violence”

posted at 4:01 pm on September 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

Pop quiz: Where does the boldfaced language in the excerpt below come from? Con law junkies will know, but anyone who’s been reading this site for the past two weeks should have a hunch.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for advertisements on Thursday, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

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…

“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.

Give up? Re-read this post for the answer. It’s the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, the trojan horse by which anti-blasphemy laws and other fun “sensitivity” regulations will eventually be smuggled into American law. Here’s how the Supreme Court described the standard for “fighting words” when it first announced the doctrine in 1942:

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

The “fighting words” exception, as I’ve said before, amounts to a heckler’s veto to your freedom of speech. It’s pernicious in two ways. One: It makes your First Amendment rights contingent upon the sensitivities of others. If the object of your criticism is prone to responding violently, then it’s incumbent upon you to shut up and not offend them. A “right” that disappears when someone gets especially angry about your exercise of it ain’t much of a right. Two: In practice, it operates as moral sanction by the state for vigilantism. The point of the “fighting words” doctrine is to let the cops step in and arrest an offensive speaker before any violence goes down; it’s essentially a form of appeasement to the insulted party, signaling that they don’t have to do anything crazy because the state will punish their enemy for them. (Seems familiar.) Needless to say, the incentive this creates for an offended audience to resort to, or at least threaten, violence is high. Between Mona Eltahawy spray-painting a pro-Israel ad that she didn’t like and the MTA responding the way they have today, you’re seeing a nifty example of “fighting words” logic in action. Obviously this isn’t a criminal case, just a new state policy on which subway ads they’ll run, but the dynamics are the same. Some people saw the ads and couldn’t control themselves, and therefore it’s the ads that must be silenced. Grotesque.

But wait, you say — isn’t this actually the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard at work, not the “fighting words” exception? Nope. That was the point of the post that I asked you to re-read. The Brandenburg case is supposed to cover situations where the speaker is trying to rile up a mob that’s on his side. There’s no heckler’s veto at work; on the contrary, the speaker in a Brandenburg scenario is trying to use the mob to silence his enemies by intimidating them. Note the Supreme Court’s language in the original opinion:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

“Advocacy,” not insults. Brandenburg has nothing to do with offending an audience and everything to do with, say, an Islamist demagogue telling a roiling mob of fanatics that it’s time to go burn down the local U.S. embassy. In fact, offhand, I can’t imagine a fact pattern where a fixed ad like the “Support Israel, Defeat Jihad” posters in the NYC subway system could meet the Brandenburg test for incitement. Even an ad that’s overtly violent, e.g., “Burn down the Supreme Court,” isn’t “likely” to result in anyone taking “imminent” action. The whole point of Brandenburg is to give speakers a wide berth in using incendiary language, with the state permitted to step in only at the last minute if some sort of riot or violence is already brewing. Whereas the whole point of “fighting words” is to limit a speaker’s ability to use incendiary language by letting his political enemies dictate what he is and isn’t allowed to say. If anything, the legal paradigm should be reversed: Force the guy who’s riling up a mob to be circumspect with his language and force the audience that’s prone to violent reaction to be extra tolerant of people with whom they disagree. Instead, we have the system we have. The sooner the Supremes change it, the better.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Nanny State activism ALERT!!!

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Eunuchs rejoice!

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

We are sunk :-(

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Want to fight back? Here’s how – we pick an advertisement, or, really, anything that’s completely innocuous. We GET MAD about it. All of us. REALLY MAD. SEETHING MAD.

We demand its immediate removal from our offended sight.

Red Cloud on September 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

MTA = fools and cowards.

AZCoyote on September 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Exponential changes, in front of your eyes.

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Eventually?

It’s the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, the trojan horse by which anti-blasphemy laws and other fun “sensitivity” regulations will eventually be smuggled into American law.

It’s already here and rearing it’s ugly damn head…

We are sunk… how can you fight against this?

Once someone ‘gives’ in, it’s all over bar the shouting…

Eventually??????

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Want to fight back? Here’s how – we pick an advertisement, or, really, anything that’s completely innocuous. We GET MAD about it. All of us. REALLY MAD. SEETHING MAD.

We demand its immediate removal from our offended sight.

Red Cloud on September 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Like Bloomburg posters?

BacaDog on September 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

hey, whens american idol starting.

the new screen on the iphone 5 seems really really big to me.

renalin on September 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

The Constitution is on the trashheap.

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

We’re Scroomed, errr choomed…

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Buh Bye NYC

Jabberwock on September 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Future SCOTUS debacle in the making.

FlatFoot on September 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Oh God! I had forgotten about this Shadenfreude…

I am sinking… my heart is sinking…

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Back in the USSA.

kingsjester on September 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The sooner the Supremes change it, the better.

Vote Obama and it’ll get much worse, exponentially. In a 2nd term such arrogance the world will never have known.

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM

This will make its way up the court system.

those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

What kind of immediate breach of the peace can this incite?

This is going to have to be revisited at some time because the Religion of Perpetual Outrage pretty much finds anything in the Western world to incite breach of the peace.

AZfederalist on September 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The Constitution is on the trashheap.

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Damned good thing I didn’t decide to give up drinking today…

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Calling for the defeat of jihad monkeys is fighting words? In America? That’s reasonable?

The apotheosis of Mona Eltahawy begins.

Akzed on September 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

OT

There was a video of Romney not getting cheers after Ryan did on MSNBC Joe Scorboro did a facepalm on Romney over it.

Turns out it was a 100% lie with edited video to distort that Romney was getting cheers and not Ryan.

Guess from now on it is unsafe to believe anything on MSNBC. Mostly Shat Nothing But Crap.

Steveangell on September 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

OT sorry forgot link.

Steveangell on September 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

So…all the ads for “Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” exhibit at the Nahem Gallery in NYC have been taken down, as well…Lord knows, that all those Irish and Italian Catholics in Gotham will burn the city to the ground when they see those adverts.

Designed to prevent violence?

No.

Not one bit.

These laws are designed to placate Mohammedans.

Dhimmitude.

Plain and simple.

coldwarrior on September 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM

In some parts the words, “you didn’t build that” is fighting words…

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Well it appears the 1st and everything else we hold dear is caving to the rop type to dare say what/who they really are in nyc? How long till the mosque will get the go ahead from those nyc slugs?

One inch at a time, one foot at a time, and soon those asleep don’t know that has hit them from these sub-humans to take away our rights here in the US? Believe it or not!

And what is beyond belief, bho/team have given their go ahead with this whole thing with all those around them and by their actions!
L

letget on September 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Don’t forget this.

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Under a SWalker Presidential Administration I would implement a new Stimulus Program, one which provided a one way ticket to the worst Islamic hellhole on earth to any individual within the borders of the United States of America claiming membership in the Religion of Pieces.

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Leftist trolls to defend liberties in…3, 2, 1…never

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

So it’s apparently now legal to react violently if you are offended by something you hear or see, and can simply point to it and claim this as an exemption from consequences…

Interesting.

Wonder how I might react to watching one more episode of Chris Matthews’ show. Or The View. I mean, I could go berserk, deface their vehicles, maybe go so far as to accost them personally – and that would apparently be ‘ok’?

Time to turn the tables? Just askin.

Midas on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I wish I could say what I REALLY REALLY want to say, but will go in silence… and scream internally…

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

OT

There was a video of Romney not getting cheers after Ryan did on MSNBC Joe Scorboro did a facepalm on Romney over it.

Turns out it was a 100% lie with edited video to distort that Romney was getting cheers and not Ryan.

Guess from now on it is unsafe to believe anything on MSNBC. Mostly Shat Nothing But Crap.

Steveangell on September 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

The regime media started a small race war over “white-hispanic vs son of obama” , nothing should surprise anyone about what media will do.

They are evil.

the_nile on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

NYC has gone soft. It peaked in the late 80′s…that was the city’s cultural zenith, IMO.

visions on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I wonder if Eric Holder is reading this thread..?

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

The agency needs to be flooded with complaints to remove every possible ad for every basis of offense – religious, modesty, every facet of offense (especially those that are ones the Left would like).

krome on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Yea, these morons are inviting a bus/train bombing, the second the Islamo-Fascists, decide they are aggrieved again! I am truly getting sick of these libs committing suicide and us being sprayed with the shrapnel! Keep telling me how these libs have the best interest of the country at heart, when they are continually doing everything they can to undermine our safety! These morons refuse to look at the consequences of their actions! It’s ingrained in them not to! We really have to start segregating these MORONS from decisions that will kill us and the country!

Update for those following, How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on September 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Con Law is really pretty simple. It’s a 4 credit hour class, and they try really hard to make it sound complex – but I can make it a 4 second class, and simplify it, easily.

The Constitution says what the politics of the majority say it says.

This is how Socialist medicine becomes Constitutional. This is how we are ordered to do something. This is how tyranny becomes the law of the land.

I have more respect for chum, than I do for the Supreme Court.

OhEssYouCowboys on September 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

This existential threat to our Constitution must be ended.It is imperative that the Supreme Court Justices who will be retiring in the next 4-8 years replacements are selected by a GOP led President and Congress.

thatsafactjack on September 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Yeah thanks, read about this earlier…

Big Brother is a-coming!! Uh, correction…

Big Brother is HERE!!!

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Yeah thanks, read about this earlier…

Big Brother is a-coming!! Uh, correction…

Big Brother is HERE!!!

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

/Jedi Mind Trick… That is not Big Brother standing on your neck…

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Want to fight back? Here’s how – we pick an advertisement, or, really, anything that’s completely innocuous. We GET MAD about it. All of us. REALLY MAD. SEETHING MAD.

We demand its immediate removal from our offended sight.

Red Cloud on September 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You mean like an Obama/Biden poster?

bigmacdaddy on September 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I wonder if Eric Holder is reading this thread..?

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Ooh, let’s hope so!

Hey, Eric… bite me, jerk.

Midas on September 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

If the Westboro baptist “church” can protest private funerals then these idiotic thought police laws should be overturned as well.

Daemonocracy on September 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

That lady is a hack.. good grief..

gatorboy on September 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Turns out it was a 100% lie with edited video to distort that Romney was getting cheers and not Ryan.

Guess from now on it is unsafe to believe anything on MSNBC. Mostly Shat Nothing But Crap.

Steveangell on September 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Didn’t you mean “that Ryan got cheers, not Romney”?

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

paratisi on September 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Have you been in touch with R&R?

You have the smarts to put them on the right track!!

They need someone like you on their team!!

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:22 PM

If someone yelled fire in a crowded theater and people started murdering that person should that be protected under the first amendment?

Republican Yogi on September 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

If I can recall correctly, when I was down in DC in July, there were billboards in the NOVA said that called pro-lifers extreme.

blammm on September 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

NYC has gone soft. It peaked in the late 80′s…that was the city’s cultural zenith, IMO.

visions on September 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Under Koch and Dinkins? You’re kidding, right?

Try Giulliani years. The only times one could walk NY streets at ALL hours, free of human garbage and free of garbage.

riddick on September 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

So, AP is saying: take it to court and kick Mona’s and the NYC Subway Authority’s collective a$$es.

Blake on September 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

And, of course, Mitt Romney or any Republican ads might “provoke violence” – Right?

Pork-Chop on September 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Blake on September 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Somebodys *ss needs to be kicked and it ain’t mine!!

For the love of Pete…

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

NYC, the emirate of an eccentric despotic sharia financier

burrata on September 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Pork-Chop on September 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

The last straw that breaks the camels back…

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

This is going to be great NY is going to become the Gaza Strip hahahah keep voting dem you idiots . I could care less about lib states

Conservative4ev on September 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I don’t think even the left wants to seriously think of letting that particular demon, ‘fighting words’, out of the box.

Who’s to say what qualifies?

If people start simply getting violent first, invoking ‘fighting words’ and sorting the details out in court later, leftists won’t be able to burn flags, desecrate the Bible or religious images, tear up or burn copies of the Constitution, spit on our military service members, hang effigies of GOP political figures, or depict former Republican President’s or their families in unflattering ways, etc. without fear of immediate physical reprisal.

When I think of how much speech and expression on the LEFT that would be immediately curtailed, I’m pretty sure they don’t want to see ‘fighting words’ become the law of the land, either.

The sooner the Supreme Court remedies that little error, and disposes of that demon permanently, the better for all concerned, left and right.

thatsafactjack on September 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The Fundamental Transformation continues…..

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on September 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

This is going to be great NY is going to become the Gaza Strip hahahah keep voting dem you idiots . I could care less about lib states

Conservative4ev on September 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Closer to ‘Escape from New York’ than we think? Where’s Snake Pliskin when ya need him?

Midas on September 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Islamist demagogue telling a roiling mob of fanatics that it’s time to go burn down the local U.S. embassy

A riot is a terrible tink.

unclesmrgol on September 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

And, of course, Mitt Romney or any Republican ads might “provoke violence” – Right?

Pork-Chop on September 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Yup , the banning will be very selective.

the_nile on September 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I’ve had to see these dumb ads for a storage company which spout liberal talking points such as “This lack of gun control is killing us,” for years – and that’s for a storage company! How is an ad completely unrelated to the product being sold somehow valid yet calling savage behavior for what it is is racist? Ugh… only in New York.

Ukiah on September 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

This is going to be great NY is going to become the Gaza Strip hahahah keep voting dem you idiots . I could care less about lib states

Conservative4ev on September 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Closer to ‘Escape from New York’ than we think? Where’s Snake Pliskin when ya need him?

Midas on September 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Nice forgot about that one :)

Conservative4ev on September 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Hey, I guess this means I can spraypaint over ever Obama bumpersticker I see.

Midas on September 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

It’s NYC. You know…the ones who ban smoking in bars, salt in restaurants, 32 oz drinks. Just more leftists nonsense.

Whenever someone asks where I’m from I make sure to tell them I grew up in Upstate New York.

Mitoch55 on September 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Closer to ‘Escape from New York’ than we think? Where’s Snake Pliskin when ya need him?

Same place he’s always been… being kept by Goldie Hawn.

thatsafactjack on September 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Time to start spray painting Obama ads, yard signs, etc.

Obama ads offend me to point of breaching the peace.

BobMbx on September 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

So what else will be banned in NYC because it incites muslims to kill and riot ?
Teddy bears ? Women without burkas ? Gays ? Synagogues ? Churches ? Women with no genital mutilations ?

burrata on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Next time I hear “Yankees suck, Yankees suck” from fans in Fenway I expect riots and bonfires in the Bronx.

But probably not, because New Yorkers are now just a bunch of big pussies, right?

Bruno Strozek on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

America Held Hostage – Day xxxx.

Held hostage to the threat of Muslim tantrums.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

And, of course, Mitt Romney or any Republican ads might “provoke violence” – Right?

Pork-Chop on September 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Who has been provoking all the violence of the last few weeks?

Bush?

IlikedAUH2O on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Closer to ‘Escape from New York’ than we think? Where’s Snake Pliskin when ya need him?

Same place he’s always been… being kept by Goldie Hawn.

thatsafactjack on September 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM

A lesson to the wise right there about fishing blonds out of the drink… ;)

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Who has been provoking all the violence of the last few weeks?

Bush?

IlikedAUH2O on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Well obviously…

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

But probably not, because New Yorkers are now just a bunch of big pussies, right?

Bruno Strozek on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

A majority of them are stupid – very stupid.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

The Constitution is on the trashheap.

Schadenfreude on September 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

An email from the WH in response to your comment might say:

“But its the right to do”

BobMbx on September 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Does anyone know what this ad in the subway actually said? Because it was described in most lamestream media as “anti muslin” but I believe it was simply pro Israel.

ptcamn on September 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Yeah, we can always count on John Roberts…? Does this have anything to do with a tax?

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Bruno Strozek on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

A majority of them are stupid – very stupid.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Aint many folks in America can give us Californians a run for our money in the Stupidity department… New York City Residents manage it rather handily though… ;p

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

“anti muslin” but I believe it was simply pro Israel.

ptcamn on September 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

If you are an Arab, Liberal or Muslim it’s the same thing.

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

This issue is actually more complex than is given credit, and the mta has handled it badly with its “likely to incite violence” construct. But, a couple of things:

The First Amendment does not guarantee your right to buy ad space. Hot Air has no obligation to sl me a pro-Obama pop-up — though who knows, they might — and I find it hard to believe that even this libertarian (for the moment) crowd would force the mta to display ads from NAMBLA.

This case is more fraught,as it involves a public entity and political speech. However,

2) it’s fairly obvious that the mta should be able to impose some sort of condistent standards on its advertisers. I don’t see a case where the mta could be forced to allow pornography or “graphic language,” to accept a pro-Palestinian poster that referred to “Christ Killers,” or, indeed, anything specifically designed to provoke violence or even incivility. A lot of grey, I know, including a poster that is arguably racist – and arguably not – seeming to refer to all Muslims as savages (I’d be inclined to lea e the poster up, but barely). These cases are different from limiting speech because of ideology — rejecting all anti-jihad posters or all pro-Palestinian ads simply because of the ideas behind them — which would be unacceptable.

Bottom line: the mta — within limits — has not only a right, but an obligation to make public transport in NYC pleasant and safe. You and I, on the other hand, do not have an absolute right to force the mta or any other potential host to accept our advertising.

Using the violence excuse was stupid and lame. If they objected, the should have asserted their right to for e advertisers to meet consistent standards (no racism) and, in this case, accepted the coutr’s decision when they lost.

urban elitist on September 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Allah, I’m still trying to figure out how having an opinion on something won’t PO someone. Do we all need to just talk about the weather?

Limerick on September 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The “fighting words” rule will be overturned in court. As soon as Geller submits another ad and if it is rejected on that basis she will surly win. Fighting words have to be directed to an individual. Otherwise, I could declare that anything less than adulation for Romney causes me to become violent.

scrubjay on September 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So what else will be banned in NYC because it incites muslims to kill and riot ?
Teddy bears ? Women without burkas ? Gays ? Synagogues ? Churches ? Women with no genital mutilations ?

burrata on September 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM

High buildings.

the_nile on September 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Needless to say, the incentive this creates for an offended audience to resort to, or at least threaten, violence is high.

Yes. Using this logic, Conservatives should react with violence anytime the left, anywhere, anytime, says the right is dumb, mean, or racist. We could stop all criticism in a few years. And have fun doing it.

jaime on September 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yeah, we can always count on John Roberts…? Does this have anything to do with a tax?

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Obamacare is a tax which , exempts muslims.
So Obamacare is a jaziah on the kafirs.

Obama took out a hit on us kafirs when he threatened us with
“no future” if we dared say anything about islam. Since we paid with our freedom , I think this is jazia too.

burrata on September 28, 2012 at 4:44 PM

If I can recall correctly, when I was down in DC in July, there were billboards in the NOVA said that called pro-lifers extreme.

blammm on September 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

This is what happens to pro-life billboards in San Francisco:

Two weeks ago, liberal artists, or perhaps politically active drunks, took it upon themselves to completely redesign the political message, as you see here. CBS Outdoor replaced the defaced billboard with its original don’t-abort-your-baby message, only to have it redesigned again — but with less taste. You can view that disgrace here.

So the conservatives behind that pro-life billboard finally took a hint. And that’s how politics in San Francisco works.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/09/pro-life_billboard_saga_ends.php

Here is a link to the before and after pictures of the Pro-life billboard which never mentioned abortion and simply focused on “A Father’s Joy.”

Be sure to scroll down to see how the billboard was “redesigned” by San Franciscans. There are other variations on the “redesign” available if you click on other links.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/09/hackers_give_pro-life_billboar.php

Tell me again, which side is “extreme”?

wren on September 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Another Success by the Liberals

Truly changing America’s image in the Middle East would have required shifts in policy—both toward Israel and in America’s antiterror war—too dramatic for Obama to seriously contemplate. Instead, he has pursued a Middle East policy relatively similar to his predecessor’s, just with less hubris and greater subtlety. The benefits are evident today; the costs harder to discern. But the liberals who backed Obama in 2008 because they believed in the importance of changing America’s image among ordinary Muslims weren’t wrong. In fact, we may yet learn how right they were.

How Obama’s Mideast Policy has Worked online, Daily Beast, July 16, 2012…

IlikedAUH2O on September 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

only in Bloomberg’s NYC…

burserker on September 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

So if some crazy Mormon firebombs the theatre on Broadway showing The Book of Mormon, will they not put posters up for it in the subway?

oddjob1138 on September 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM

urban elitist on September 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

A liberal and an idiot.

The MTA is not a private entity. It is government. In the same way it is immune from the consequences of what it does in many cases, it is also required to do things that private entities are free of.

That’s really one of the main problems with the left, isn’t it? Endowing government with rights to be free of government (free speech), and oppressing private entities with ever more government. It’s a disease.

jaime on September 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Just as one is either pregnant or not pregnant, one is either a friend of Free Speech or an enemy of Free Speech. There is no in between. There never has been and there never can be. Anyone who does not understand this, knows nothing about free speech. And anyone who even thinks about misapplying “Fire in a crowded theater” or “Fighting words” to try to justify what is clearing being held hostage to the lowest common denominator on the planet knows even less than nothing about free speech.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

ptcamn on September 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Does it really matter eh?

Anything to do with America and the West p*sses off the crazed beserk idiots from the ME…

And it seems leftists ideologues…

Anything to make a point and stir the pot…

Stupid is as stupid does…

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM

“anti muslin” but I believe it was simply pro Israel.

ptcamn on September 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

If you are an Arab, Liberal or Muslim it’s the same thing.

SWalker on September 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Yes, I know. I oversimplified the question. I was wondering if this sign was saying something directly againts muslims or was just a pro- Israel ad that those you describe find offensive even if it just says “visit Israel”.

ptcamn on September 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM

In the new America we have the right to not be offended, provided we are among the approved, protected classes.

MJBrutus on September 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Guess who gets to decide what is provocative and inciteful? Yep, the same government who wrote the rule.

So, is the Piss Christ art exhibit in NYC procative and inciteful? No, because it only provokes Christians.

Is the portrait of the Virgin Mary smeared with feces provocative and inciteful? No, because it onlyprovokes Christians.

Is an ad supporting Israel provocative and inciteful? Yes, because it hurts the feelings of Muslims.

I’m sick of this.

Muslims have a right to say whatever they want about Christians and we as Christians, and every other religion, should have the right to respond.

BMF on September 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

blammm:

Here in DC we had a kerfuffle a few years back when one of this groups that claims to “heal” gays tried to by subway ads and the usual suspects claimed that the ad violated DC Human Rights laws. After a little back and forth, Metro put up the ads, a surprisingly sensible decision. No viennese ensued; I guess Act Up isn’t the force it used to be.

urban elitist on September 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

“Muhammad declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion against all the rest of mankind.” -John Quincy Adams

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

BMF on September 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Right On!!

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Dante’s silence on this speaks volumes.

stefanite on September 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

BTW, I am quite sure that the traitorous b-astards in the Mega Mosque of Dhimmitude that some still call the Pentagon vey much approve of what New York has done.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Jaime:

So your asserting that the MTA has no control whatsoever over its walls? Certainly it can be required to do some things that a private entity would not be required to do — as i said — but I doubt you’d find an unbiased court that says it had no control whatsoever over what goes on its walls.

urban elitist on September 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Muslims have a right to say whatever they want about Christians and we as Christians, and every other religion, should have the right to respond.

BMF on September 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

There is no reciprocity in Islam.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

So we could get Bill Maher off the air by rioting outside of his office – for say – his many anti-Christian remarks made on a daily basis? Hmmmmm.

foxforce91 on September 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2