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:
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 Blaze.com.
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?