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

How does this change? How are we not finished as a country? Can anybody describe to me a believable departure from the trajectory we’re on with respect to political correctness and cultural orthodoxy? Without a new breed of warriors for freedom (and it AIN’T Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan), we’re finished. Breitbart’s death was catastrophic. If we don’t find more like him soon — and NO ONE has emerged since he died — it’s over. This war we’re in cannot be fought at the level of policy and polite parsings on Meet the Press. We need warriors.

rrpjr on September 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

“The land of the free and the home of the brave”?

It once was but not any more. Now it’s the opposite.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 5:03 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

It doesn’t matter because the bigger issue is the first amendment and the left’s incessant eroding of it in favor of not offending anybody.

I was just curious because this has been going on for a few weeks and, like you said, I am certain that the ad is so innocuous but one more reflection of those that you describe that don’t think with their head but act on their rage for anything from the West. And certainly our lovely media is not helping in constantly describing it as an “anti Muslim” ad.

It would be interesting to learn what the ad said so that the first idiot I hear saying “See all the bigotry in this country?” can be shut by what the ad actually said, which I am certain is benign.

ptcamn on September 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM

This is what happens when you accommodate people whose values are rooted in tribalism. It’s only going to get worse.

Basilsbest on September 28, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Pam Geller at Atlas writes”

“The fact is, the MTA doesn’t mean that it will be enforcing the Sharia or adhering to the blasphemy laws under Islamic law. The enemedia is assuming that they will prohibit our ad, but it is not necessarily so. And if they do, we will certainly fight back. It’s fairly safe to say that the MTA is referring to prohibiting ads that genuinely incite to violence, such as ads from Occupy Wall Street calling for people to get guns and shoot businessmen and police. It’s the same as it was before. If they block us, we’ll sue again.

moc23 on September 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM

We need warriors.

rrpjr on September 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Just don’t waste time looking at the Army or Marines as they are now commanded by dhimmis.

VorDaj on September 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Unless Dante comes on this thread and condemns this abridgment of the First Amendment, he is a damned hypocrite and a fraud.

stefanite on September 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM

The enemedia

moc23 on September 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM

heh.

the_nile on September 28, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Unless Dante comes on this thread and condemns this abridgment of the First Amendment, he is a damned hypocrite and a fraud.

stefanite on September 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM

…he is a lowlife…but hey!…he may shock you if you call him out……..naaaaaaah!

KOOLAID2 on September 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM

ptcamn on September 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Whom ever is doing this is taking it to the extreme and I believe it is just to take this issue to the Supreme court

You are correct it is the slow erosion of the 1st amendment…

I mean we hear it from the Louse in da House on down and most assuredly the DLSM is right on track to take this to the edge and point of no return if possible…

They do not care… being PC and advancing the ’cause’ celeb of Multiculteralism is all the left is concerned about and ‘being fair’…

We sure cannot have people saying unkind things about others now can we?

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 5:13 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

This. This says it all and is the problem. No one cares (or the majority does not care) and they are going to vote for Obama and all the ones on public assistance will get a phone.

djl130 on September 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

So Democrats reward violent people with coddling- this means Christians, particularly white Christians, need to start defending ourselves and our religion with violence in order to be respected.

Spartacus on September 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Some Americans are essentially ‘cutting’ their own throats all in the name of Greed and Envy… sad innit…

A reminder:

The enemies of liberty are artful and insidious. A counterfeit steals her dress, imitates her manner, forges her signature, assumes her name. But the real name of the deceiver is Licentiousness. Such is her effrontery, that she will charge liberty to her face with imposture; and she will, with shameless front, insist that herself alone is the genuine character, and that herself alone is entitled to the respect, which the genuine character deserves. With the giddy and undiscerning, on whom a deeper impression is made by dauntless impudence than by modest merit, her pretensions are often successful. She receives the honors of liberty, and liberty herself is treated as a traitor and an usurper.

James Wilson, Delivered on the Fourth of July, 1788, at the procession formed at Philadelphia to celebrate the adoption of the Constitution of the United States…

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 5:23 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

The ad in the NYC subway says:

IN ANY WAR BETWEEN THE CIVILIZED MAN AND THE SAVAGE,

SUPPORT THE CIVILIZED MAN.

SUPPORT ISRAEL

DEFEAT JIHAD

PAID FOR BY THE AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE

ATLASSHRUGS.COM SIOAONLINE.COM JIHADWATCH.COM

Scroll down on this link to see pictures of the ads in various places:

http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/

wren on September 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

The solution seems to be for conservatives to become violent at the drop of a hat. If we start to riot over everything that offends us, they will have to stop allowing the ads, right?

If you can’t beat them, join them.

OBQuiet on September 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Also this needs repeating again and agan and again and again:

From HillBuzz:

Barack Obama has just doubled-down on the sentiment his ghostwriter Bill Ayers expressed for him in his book, “Dreams of My Father” where he said he’d stand with Islam when the winds of change blew against it…or some other nonsense.

Today, Obama spoke out against free speech and wished for a world where those who criticize Islam will be punished (or even executed) worldwide.

Let’s be really clear about this, folks: the man sitting in the Oval Office thinks it’s a good idea for global blasphemy laws to be enacted to serve a worldwide state religion, ISLAM.

If you are a Christian and vote for Barack Obama, you are a damn fool.

If you are a Jew and vote for Barack Obama, you are suicidal.

If you are a Buddhist, a Hindu, or anything besides a Muslim and you vote for Barack Obama, then something is wrong with you.

Obama has taken a side, and that side is with anti-blasphemy laws to protect Islam at the expense of long-treasured American right like free speech.

What Obama did at the UN in this speech is against everything an American president should ever do while in office.

Honestly, I think he did it because he knows he’s not going to be in office much longer. This is not a speech given by someone who thinks he is going to win re-election. This is a Muslim man taking advantage of his position while he still can and saying things he wants established as precedent before he leaves office. While he’s still president, Obama is giving Islam everything it wants so that in the future Muslims can point to things Obama has done and demand future US Presidents follow his example or face the fury of Islam for not going along with the established Obama Doctrine of dhimmihood to medievalist member of a death cult.

I would not be surprised if sometime between November 6th and January 20th Barack Hussein Obama called a press conference and revealed to the world that he in fact considers himself to be a Muslim, and always had, but needed to conceal that while he was running for office. He will then declare himself to be the historic and unprecedented first Muslim president. He will then demand the history books record him as such, so that Islam can boast that a Muslim was the 44th President of the United States.

This is a gay biracial man who every day alters his personal identity in whatever way he deems best suited to achieving some personal goal. His true colors regarding Islam are now clearly on display. Not even Jimmy Carter would have gone to the UN and demanded punishment for “those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

As my friend Reba would say, “I’ve lived too long. I can’t take this weird s*** anymore. This should be a joke…but I know that it’s not.”…

Scrumpy on September 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Did Allah read this? It’s right from the source of the ad herself:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/enemedia-spins-mtas-refusal-to-drop-cause-related-ads.html

leftnomore on September 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I find the words Mohammad and Islam highly offensive and hearing them will send me into an uncontrolled fit of rage. Hopefully the cops arrest anyone that says either of those words since it is clear, just saying them, is an attempt to get me to act with violence and engage in a fight.

Dino V on September 28, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I think the term “heckler’s video” is inadequate in the context of world events.

I suggest adopting a more accurate term:

1. “murderous fanatic’s veto”
2. “terrorist’s video”
3. “homicidal maniac’s veto”
4. “bully’s veto”
5. “maniacally intolerant religion’s veto”

Etc…..

DrDeano on September 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

It seems to me that everytime a freedom loving New Yorker sees an Obama campaign poster that contains lies (nearly all of them, we should react violently, tearing the poster down, defacing it and screaming bloody murder.

I’ll bet that gets this MTA “guideline” revoked in no time at all.

Fatal on September 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I’m actually okay with this, but only under the condition that the application of the incorporation doctrine be completely rolled back. The Constitution explicitly states, “Congress shall make no law…” It doesn’t say “Congress, state governments, local governments, Michael Bloomberg, Rahm Emanuel, the MTA shall make no law…” The incorporation doctrine has helped the federal government burrow itself into every aspect of our daily lives and its elimination would help roll back increased federal power. Sadly, this will never happen.

taxidrvrfor4 on September 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”

Oh, the irony…the one side puts up a poster with those words…the other side throws a tantrum and tries to spray paint over it.

But I understand, given OWS and the way liberals comport themselves these days, why liberals would find such a statement to be so offensive. :)

butterflies and puppies on September 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM

all liberals are not islamist sympathizers, but all islamist sympathizers are liberals………. I would have taken her can of spray paint and used it properly.

ultracon on September 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM

stefanite on September 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM
KOOLAID2 on September 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Let’s just enjoy his absence while we can.

slickwillie2001 on September 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM

So Democrats reward violent people with coddling- this means Christians, particularly white Christians, need to start defending ourselves and our religion with violence in order to be respected.

Spartacus on September 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Doesn’t work that way. If Christians did this, they would be thrown in jail, and Field Marshal Nappy would put out bulletins about the threat from ‘radical christianity’. New hate crime laws would be written targeting Christians.

They don’t fear Christians and never will because they know violence is not in our nature. Quite the opposite re muzzies.

slickwillie2001 on September 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The threat of violence works…

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Reason #617 why I won’t live in places like NYC.

HotAirian on September 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

The “fighting words” thing must only apply to groups that will physically fight you for the speech you use. You can say what you want about groups that won’t physically fight you for it because those words can’t possibly be “fighting words” in that instance. The bullies win.

Do you remember all that noise they were making about “bullying” a year or two ago? It’s what you do when you are about to go on a campaign to protect the bullies while going after the bullied and those who stand up to the bullies. Once you grab the anti-bullying soapbox, you get to define who is and who isn’t a bully, and that’s why they claimed the soapbox.

Buddahpundit on September 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Once you grab the anti-bullying soapbox, you get to define who is and who isn’t a bully, and that’s why they claimed the soapbox.

Buddahpundit on September 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Control the language, control the message.

Control the message, control the culture.

Control the culture, control the society.

Brietbart understood that language was a battlefield.

So does Bill Ayers.

Bruno Strozek on September 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

How does this change? How are we not finished as a country? Can anybody describe to me a believable departure from the trajectory we’re on with respect to political correctness and cultural orthodoxy? Without a new breed of warriors for freedom (and it AIN’T Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan), we’re finished. Breitbart’s death was catastrophic. If we don’t find more like him soon — and NO ONE has emerged since he died — it’s over. This war we’re in cannot be fought at the level of policy and polite parsings on Meet the Press. We need warriors.

rrpjr on September 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Sure.

Mitt Romney loses Nov 6.

The Conservatives nationwide win though. They then force the Establishment Republicans out of any leadership in the Party. Then then institute new bylines that prohibit big government candidates in the Party.

The Tea Party. The real Tea Party people in the party take over.

They establish the GOP as a GOD fearing party. One that believes the Constitution establishes Judeo/Christian Law but no State Religion. One that fights for the repeal of the current secular huminism state religion we now have.

The fight to impeach Obama, SCTOUS Justices and others throughout government. Caring not that the Senate will not convict.

The people see they are cleaning up Government and that in 2014 the people can vote for someone to help. The DNC loses that election in epic numbers. The Convictions then start.

With GOD this is very possible.

Steveangell on September 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Odds that the MTA wins in Geller’s lawsuit are about 1 million to 1.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Is anyone working on drafting, and putting out for discussion, Constitutional Amendments to address things like this? I know every time Democrats are out of power, they suddenly get amendment religion and start proposing all kinds of wacky things. But since we obviously have much greater intellect and reason on our side, you’d think we’d have some real viable solutions to tyranny-creep.

Nutstuyu on September 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Doesn’t work that way. If Christians did this, they would be thrown in jail, and Field Marshal Nappy would put out bulletins about the threat from ‘radical christianity’. New hate crime laws would be written targeting Christians.

They don’t fear Christians and never will because they know violence is not in our nature. Quite the opposite re muzzies.

slickwillie2001 on September 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

I wouldn’t be too sure about that last sentence, although I agree with you about the reaction of others.

Psalm 149:5-7
New International Version (NIV)
5 Let his faithful people rejoice in this honor
and sing for joy on their beds.
6 May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,
7 to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,

Nutstuyu on September 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM

…I hope someone follows up to find out what kind of justice that ugly goat gets!

KOOLAID2 on September 28, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Without a new breed of warriors for freedom (and it AIN’T Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan), we’re finished. Breitbart’s death was catastrophic. If we don’t find more like him soon — and NO ONE has emerged since he died — it’s over.

I’m not a Black Helicopter Guy, but I still think his death was not an accident. Few people truly understood what a game changer he was. Breitbart posed an existential threat to the Left.

On another front, Hakuna Matada, or whatever her name is can be fought, New York style. She sprayed Geller with deadly carcinogines and released propellants and green house gasses into the confined air spaces of the subway system. Sue the CRAP out of her for environmental and health violations!

Kenz on September 28, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Yes, it’s the the “fighting words” precedent that will be seized upon by Øbama’s USSC.

Thanks for good coverage of this, AP.

Guys, grab your balls and cross your heart, if there comes a second term for this little commie. And stock up on Duck Tape for your mouth. Or else be prepared to go to jail.

petefrt on September 28, 2012 at 8:24 PM

More Sharia Law folks..the constitution is getting attacked more and more everyday..we have to fight back against this crap!

sadsushi on September 28, 2012 at 8:26 PM

sadsushi on September 28, 2012 at 8:26 PM

In large measure, November is an election over whether we keep the Constitution or not.

petefrt on September 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

“We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today…”

Wrong!

It’s they who got to a point where they “needed” to take action.

This is such f-ing bull.

JetBoy on September 28, 2012 at 8:37 PM

unstinkingbelievable…..

cmsinaz on September 28, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Ah, creeping dhimmitude.

disa on September 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM

AP is neglecting the famous case of Velez v. Carpenter, in which Velez called Carpenter a “chiseler,” a “no good four-flusher” and a “big mouth,” and Carpenter responded by inciting his friend, who, unknown to Velez, happened to be a Turk, to threaten Velez with a knife. Justice Frankfurter wrote the opinion of the Court.

Seth Halpern on September 28, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Thug 1 Liberty 0

Chaplinsky is one damned poor decision.

AshleyTKing on September 28, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Liberals are not going to like this though they have been forcing it all along…

All signals are now off.

Liam on September 28, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Looks like a win for Mona Eltahawy and her fellow totalitarians. Congratulations, New York. And if you’re hit with another terrorist attack, you can rest easier in the knowledge that America probably had it coming.

Cicero43 on September 28, 2012 at 9:11 PM

It’s reassuring to know we conservatives can rely on Supreme Court stalwarts like Federalist John Roberts to protect us against such abominable affronts to the Constitution.

Oh, wait…

Cicero43 on September 28, 2012 at 9:13 PM

It is sad and pathetic that Hot Air cant even publish the words “Pamela Geller” in a post specifically about Pamela Geller.

Spliff Menendez on September 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM

watch her dominate cnn and msdnc next week

cmsinaz on September 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Unless Conservative activists are willing to break the law and go to prison, nothing is going to change. Mona Eltahawy was willing to be arrested to make a point, and by doing so, the Left won a big victory. Our side must be willing to do the same.

It’s great that the Tea Partiers are peaceful, law abiding citizens who clean up all their trash and don’t make trouble at their rallies. But that doesn’t help us eradicate all these double standards.

Somebody has to have the guts to cause a ruckus at the Piss Christ exhibition and scream “Obama, Hillary, are you going to speak out about THIS disgusting, vile work”, as they’re being dragged away in handcuffs. Somebody has to be willing to spray paint subway ads advertising a retrospective of homo erotic art, in retaliation for the MTA taking down Pam Geller’s ads.

We have Conservative guerilla reporters like James O’Keefe and Lila Rose. The next step is Conservative guerilla pranksters who pick their spots very carefully, and break the law for the specific purpose of pointing out Liberal double standards in the media, government, and popular culture.

ardenenoch on September 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM

If the roles were reversed and Miss Mona was a Christian or Jew caught defacing a pro-Islam ad, she’d be prosecuted for a hate crime, right? Double Standard, anyone?…

sothinbelle on September 28, 2012 at 9:22 PM

If obama says “fair share” at the debates, the kitty gets it.

Ronnie on September 28, 2012 at 9:24 PM

The threat of violence works…

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 6:16 PM

…and that is the lesson.

CW on September 28, 2012 at 9:38 PM

It is sad and pathetic that Hot Air cant even publish the words “Pamela Geller” in a post specifically about Pamela Geller.

Spliff Menendez on September 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Right on! Petty beyond words.

rrpjr on September 28, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I find all ads in the subway offense and they incites me to violence.

ERGO: All ads must go.

The only solution is utter silence.

The HYSTERICAL VETO.

profitsbeard on September 28, 2012 at 10:15 PM

The Declaration of Independence incited violence.

It must be spray painted over if posted.

Or, better, banned in the first place from ever being posted.

profitsbeard on September 28, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but:

-Professing Christianity (Saying the Nicene Creed, for example) offends Islam

-Professing Judaism (Supremacy of Moses, Talmud and Isaac) is offensive to Islam

-Professing Hinduism (Idolatry) is offensive to Islam

-Professing Sikhs offend Islam

-Agnostics offend Islam by not acknowledging Allah as supreme

-Atheists offend Islam

-Pictures of people is idolatry and offensive to Islam…

Are we seeing a pattern yet? You are going to grant a veto to a group of people who are perpetually offended and violent to boot? Nice.

“Once you pay the Danegeld, you are never rid of the Dane!”

MunDane68 on September 28, 2012 at 11:02 PM

What this decision says is that if your target group is a bunch of whack jobs as are the Muslim extremists, then you can’t say anything adverse against them. On the other hand if your target group renounces violence, such as the Quakers, then 3-D holograms of them mounting horses can be plastered all over the subway, and that will be allowed, since such gentle folk won’t cut off your head.

But, from my point of view, the even bigger paradox here is why leftists supporting suppression in this case don’t realize that if potential terrorists saw us as itching to send them back to the stone age when they messed with us, then it’s not likely they would mess with us — ever.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 28, 2012 at 11:02 PM

You Hot Air fellas are getting better at understanding and communicating First Amendment jurisprudence… But not always. The case law on this kind of obviously political speech is pretty uniform and straightforward. The poster in question doesn’t even come close to meeting the test set forth in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire for impermissible, “fighting words” speech. Despite what Allah (and Allah) may think, there really is no “heckler’s veto” carved out of the First Amendment, and no body of Supreme Court case law that affirms such, including cases won by citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Maybe I’ve missed something – but as far as I know, its been a winning strategy to argue AGAINST the idea of the offended having veto over any speech other than that which seeks solely to incite an immediate, in person, violent response.

Franklin S on September 28, 2012 at 11:21 PM

This is what we fought and died for?

hawkdriver on September 29, 2012 at 12:59 AM

The threat of violence works…

d1carter on September 28, 2012 at 6:16 PM

…and that is the lesson.

CW on September 28, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Only when that threat allows them to silence voices the left hates anyway for it’s own reasons.. Wether it’s political conservatives.. or pro-Israel Christians and Jews.. or Christians who simply want the right of conscience to opt out of state enforced violations of their faith..

The left will seize any excuse to silence voices which counter their messages..

That they also empower 7th century tribal savages doesn’t not only, NOT bother them, they’ll embrace it.. and wear it like a badge of honor.. see… we UNDERSTAND them.. they’ll listen to us..

So we get these collective idiots telling us over and over and over, that Obama suddenly made the crazy world love us.. and they really hate republicans and their (snicker) “cowboy ways”… The euro’s hate republicans.. everybody does.. cause you’re mean and stupid..

not edumacated like us..

So our “enlightened” left sells us out to the world’s insane tribal butchers.. all while their media lapdogging bootlickers triple down on endorsing that view..

I’m voting for Mitt.. but he has GOT to go balistic on them for this.. has GOT to stand up and show contrast between the left and it’s betrayals.. and the right and it’s stance of standing for American values, no matter how much that “annoys” the muslim “street”

There’s carpet bombing for that..

jes kidding.. I—–.. well no.. I’m not kidding.. When the muslim street learns fear of sticking it’s snout in fire… that will be a start..

mark81150 on September 29, 2012 at 1:18 AM

This is what we fought and died for?

hawkdriver on September 29, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Not what I enlisted to defend either…

what happened to the nation we knew.. grew up in?.. when did the crazies take over?

I swear.. I’m going conservative party if this election doesn’t plug the breach..

mark81150 on September 29, 2012 at 1:29 AM

This ‘restriction’ simply declares ‘open season’ on liberals.

However a free individual wishes to exercise that option.

Liam on September 29, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Steveangell on September 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

I’m not willing to throw away another four years of my life with Obama’s re-election. Besides, your plan, regardless of how lucid it might sound, has a near-impossible chance of working.

Myron Falwell on September 29, 2012 at 2:31 AM

Red Lobster ads make me so angry. Those ads incite violence against lobsters, burnt sienna crayons, native Americans, Target Logos, Ronald McDonald’s nose, cherry icees, and flags from the former soviet union. I’m finally glad that someone has the good sense to get those signs down before they make me do something violent.

Mormon Doc on September 29, 2012 at 2:39 AM

“The ad disgusted me.It was demeaning, revolting, hateful and anti-American. I just HAD to destroy this vile garbage. I just know I speak for all New Yorkers in my anger, frustration and righteous rage by spraying painting over a giant bottle of Coca Cola. Now let’s all celebrate with Krispy Kreme donuts on me.” Mayor Bloomberg.

MaiDee on September 29, 2012 at 6:32 AM

Time to throw Pamela Gellar at Atlashshrugs.com a few coin.

She does great work in exposing these “savages”.

Amjean on September 29, 2012 at 6:37 AM

Mona won, even though she was arrested. Disgusting.

Corporal Tunnel on September 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM

My take.

kingsjester on September 29, 2012 at 7:51 AM

The woman, Pamela Hall, who tried to block the spray painting “liberal muslim” maniac, is my hero. After I saw this video, I looked her up, as I wanted to Facebook friend her. It turns out that she is an off-Broadway actress and director, and we will be sure to attend one of her shows, if not blacklisted. I live in NYC and cannot imagine being openly conservative in her field.
It turns out that she has been a source of inspiration for me for years, anonymously. Pamela Hall is the woman who had a McCain sign torn from her hands and was beaten on the head with it, 4 years ago. When we went down to the 9/12 rallies in 2009 and 2010, she was on my mind (which is why I made a foam board sign and was escorted to the rallies by my husband) Interestingly, she is also the photographer for the misspelled “death to juice” sign picture that has floated around for years.

Here is an article on Atlas Shrugged about her: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/proudsavage.html
Here is Pamela Hall’s own blog: http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/al-jazeera-the-mta-ads-donna-nevel-and-me/

Madisonian on September 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM

While we are at,why don’t we also force women to wear a burka? After all seeing a woman might incite sexually frustrated or deprived men to rape. Since their actions are not their responsibility as men, we must cover up the women. No one is in favor of rape, so let’s pass a rule. My question is, how is the reasoning in this argument different from saying we have to restrict free speech because it might incite someone? If it does incite them to break the law, lock them up. That’s a constitutional solution.

AnotherJones on September 29, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Heck, we are being too nice about this. We should follow Ace’s advise: “We should riot, destroy property, and generally make asses of ourselves until the law goes our way. Because that’s apparently a tactic that works when you want to suppress speech you don’t like.”

You know that’s what the Lefties would do.

(In all seriousness, this NYC suppression of free speech invites violence.)

WannabeAnglican on September 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

So, we should spraypaint P*ss Christ?

faraway on September 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM

We should follow Ace’s advise: “We should riot, destroy property, and generally make asses of ourselves until the law goes our way.

WannabeAnglican on September 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Ace is a moron (not in a good way). That’s exactly what the Left wants us to do.

ALINSKY RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

—————
The Left needs a distraction from Libya. They would blame the ‘radical, racist Tea Party’ all the way through November.

faraway on September 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Faraway, true.

(And I (and I think Ace) were speaking tongue-in-cheek.)

WannabeAnglican on September 29, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Somebody has to have the guts to cause a ruckus at the Piss Christ exhibition and scream “Obama, Hillary, are you going to speak out about THIS disgusting, vile work”, as they’re being dragged away in handcuffs. …

We have Conservative guerilla reporters like James O’Keefe and Lila Rose. The next step is Conservative guerilla pranksters who pick their spots very carefully, and break the law for the specific purpose of pointing out Liberal double standards in the media, government, and popular culture.

ardenenoch on September 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM

+100

petefrt on September 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Well, then use this to your advantage, and declare the Koran “fighting words”. See, the rule can work both ways if ya force it to. Attacking the p!ss Ch!st displays is another example of that.

Rule of law is getting tossed and spun on a hourly basis. We are seeing a snowball of stupidity growing everyday, and I honestly fear that serious, serious violence is gonna result.

Saltyron on September 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Deodorant advertisements cause me to go POSTAL, so THEY. MUST. BE. BANNED.!

locomotivebreath1901 on September 29, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2