Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New Sharia-like MTA Policy

via NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could ‘Incite or Provoke Violence’ |

The epic battle between American Freedom Defense Initiative executive director and blogger Pamela Geller and The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) culminated with a court decision that forced the transit authority to permit the display of controversial ads about radical Islam. But the story didn’t end there. As TheBlaze reported this morning, Geller’s case caused the MTA to rethink the manner in which it handles First Amendment issues, leading to the adoption of some potentially-controversial measures.

It is the portion presented in bold that is new to the regulations. It’s inclusion is interesting for a number of reasons. On the surface, it appears oddly placed in the list of grievances that could lead to the banning of an advertisement. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity regarding what led to the inclusion of the “violence” reference in the first place.

Here’s a screen shot from the official document:

Conservatives Anti Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New MTA Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could Incite or Provoke Violence

TheBlaze responded with additional questions about the motivations for the change, asking how, in particular, the MTA’s court battle with Geller impacted the new restriction on violent ads. Donovan responded, admitting that the dilemma did play an integral role in the decision to make the change.

“The ad, and more specifically the litigation surrounding it, caused us to think about a variety of potential scenarios and review our standards more carefully within a prism of First Amendment law,” he commented.

Considering that the MTA has made its opposition to the ad’s message known in the past — and taking into account continued calls for bans on blasphemy and offensive messages — the natural question is: Will this new regulation serve as a backdoor method for banning controversial ads that take aim at specific faiths, like Islam?

Full post at

There’s only one group of people who are perpetually incited to violence by words, pictures, and movies or even the mere suggestion of words and pictures. So it’s likely to conclude, based on the MTA’s original attempt to ban the AFDI’s ads yet permit ads by a unindicted co-conspirator to the first WTC bombing, this is essentially a sharia blasphemy clause. 

That the MTA suggests its new policy would ban the “civilized man v. jihad” ad because it might incite violence simply proves that those who are incited to wage jihad, vandalize property, assault people in the subway, and kill are indeed savages.

This is how sharia creeps. In courtrooms, in classrooms, in the media, and it’s a full frontal blitz on freedom of speech by Muslims right now. Who will stand and defend it?

12 thoughts on “Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New Sharia-like MTA Policy

  1. But it is still ok to display moslem’s antisemtic ads. I just hope the Jews start growing some balls and start suing places when they are ok with displaying anti-jewish ads. One day they will have nowhere to run as they seem to be ok with doing now. They are running away from some cities in Europe now. I don’t know why they think that running away is a solution.

    • BTW, I want to add that if Christians, Hindus, etc are going to be immune – they don’t know islamic history. ALL non-moslems are the aim for moslems that are dehumanized in the koran and are to be either killed or subjugated – while lying to them that islam is peace or some other such nonsense until they can overtake enough to change laws in their favor.

      WE ALL need to stand up and stop their onslaught.

  2. So “.x” is determined subjectively? I see no criteria listed for determining what “reasonably foresees” actually means. It could mean anything! This is nothing more than a “BS” attempt to shut down FREE SPEECH by the “Little Kike” (as opposed to the Little King), Mayor Bloomberg!

    • why use that language? you give truth the the accusations by D’s that R’s are racist bigots, making harder for Jews like me to convince other Jews this is the side to be on-


  4. peel the onion, folks. This language is conforming to what the SCOTUS would ok a ban on – the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” argument. Guess what is the new crowded theater? AMERICA!!!!!! Merry XMas (still allowed to day that?).

  5. They have been burning Christian churches and killing Christians in the Middle East making them flee. Of course, Zorastrians and Bahai have not been excused from harassments. Now, again, the are destroying Buddhist houses of worship. They have an extensive anti-Hindu history. The anti-semitism is only a fragment of their hostility; their hatred extends to all who do not embrace what they hold. This is verifiable through history.

If sharia law continues spreading, you'll have less and less freedom of speech - so speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s