The rioter’s veto
Although Collyer reached the right result, her openness to the argument that speech can be restricted based on the anticipated violence of people it offends was troubling. So was her description of the AFDI ad as “hate speech,” a constitutionally irrelevant category.
The heckler’s veto also remains a threat in New York, where the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) initially turned down the AFDI ad on the grounds that it “demeaned” Muslims. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer rejected that rationale in a July 20 ruling.
On September 27, three days after the AFDI ad began appearing in subway stations, the MTA adopted a new policy barring any message it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.” For defenders of free speech, those are fighting words.
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
Liberal: a power worshipper without power.”
– George Orwell
logis on December 25, 2012 at 9:52 PM
Don’t like a ruling?
Move the goalposts and have them try again. Lose that one? Try again. Typical progressive tactic.
Mimzey on December 25, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Remember the “rioter’s veto” when you try to ban all guns, and the gun owners decide to riot. But I suspect their rioting will be a tad more selective.
RoadRunner on December 25, 2012 at 10:21 PM
LOL. The koran demeans muslims. “Now, kiss the ground five times a day you worthless, insiginificant piece of cannon fodder,” – mo in the koran, preparing his lunatic zombies with a daily ritual of demeaning.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM