Group Sues Transit Agency After It Rejects 'Killing Jews' Ads For New York City Buses

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated Press
First Posted: October 01, 2014 - 8:41 pm
Last Updated: October 01, 2014 - 8:43 pm

NEW YORK — A pro-Israel group sued the city's transit authority on Wednesday, asking a court to force it to accept a bus advertisement including the phrase "Hamas Killing Jews" after it was rejected on the grounds its display could incite violence.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an organization headed by blogger Pamela Geller that's behind the advertisement. The lawsuit sought a ruling forcing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to lift its objections and an award of unspecified damages for violations of the First and 14th amendments.

MTA spokeswoman Amanda Kwan said the agency had no comment. But the MTA on Sept. 19 issued a statement saying it was rejecting ads that include the phrase "Killing Jews" because displaying them on the backs of buses "would imminently incite or provoke violence."

According to the lawsuit, Geller's group buys the advertisements to express its message on current events and public issues "including issues such as Islam's hatred of Jews."

Read more: http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/1ced0c3687c5480994f18f64ac5c1bb3/US--Controversial-Bus-Ads-Lawsuit

[davidthegnome]

1. Nope.

I'm sorry, but there's enough of this shit to go around already - and yes, it damned well could incite violence.

As far as "Islam's hatred of Jews" goes... seems to me that that's an opinion. Seems to me that there are all kinds of Muslims with varying opinions regarding just about everything. Not all of them hate Jews, the same way that not all Jews hate Muslims.

This lawsuit is ridiculous.

[TheVisitor]

2. They really need to keep their political agendas off of public transportation.

[blkmusclmachine]

19. Pure filth.

[branford]

3. I would not be surprised if Geller prevails in the lawsuit

Although I find both Geller and her ads unduly provocative, she has a long history of litigation concerning her ads, and has won most, if not all, of her cases, including those against the relevant transit authority in New York.

The transit agencies in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington and elsewhere unsurprisingly do not want to run ads that cast a negative light on any religious group, Muslims or otherwise. However, except in very, very limited circumstances, if a government run institution accepts advertising, unlike a privately-owned billboard, they cannot pick and choose what to run based upon the content or opinion of the ads due to the First Amendment. The constitutional protections are even more pronounced when, as here, it concerns matters of political speech. Of course, that has not stopped most of the involved agencies from trying to refuse the ads, but ultimately losing their cases when challenged in court. The agencies likely could decline all non-commercial advertising, but the loss of revenue would be drastic, and therefore not a reasonable or practical option to solve their problem.

According to the cited article, the ads to not exhort anyone to actually engage in illegal conduct, violent or otherwise, correctly quotes Hamas television, and has already run in Chicago and San Francisco without any incidents. Just because the ad has the word "killing" in no way dispositively renders it an incitement to violence. Together with the fact that Geller's prior ads, although controversial, have not resulted in any violence, and the transit authority has been trying to decline her ads for years without success, I'm fairly confident that a federal court will see through the obvious pretext of the agency's actions, and rule yet again on behalf of Geller, particularly since the burden of proof will fall on the government that the ad would be almost certain to result in violence akin to criminal incitement to violence, and not that it just may do so. I hope that the government's anticipated loss does not end up funding more of Geller's nonsense.

I would remind my fellow members of DU that the Constitution protects even hateful and offensive speech. There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. In order to ensure that we are always able to speak our minds without government interference or sanction, we have to endure people like Pam Geller and even worse bigots. I would note, however, that Muslim and other groups are certainly free to buy advertising on these same buses with messages in opposition to Geller or in support of peaceful relations with Jews.

[Scairp]

4. It could be interpreted as hate speech

Which is not protected. Never the less, it's just a very bad idea to put such a phrase up in a public place, no matter what it's referring to. I hope they lose this suit.

[TheVisitor]

5. I have an eery feeling if they win...

it will result in hostility and potential bombings of innocent people on public transit... it's a target

[branford]

7. Geller has run her kooky ads for years in a number of cities without any violence.

In fact, according to the article, the ads that NYC does not want to run have already run without incident in San Francisco and Chicago.

Ironically, I would also note that bombing any of the buses or committing any other violent acts in response to the ads would, at least partially, prove Geller right in her accusations. I believe this is why many Muslim and Arab groups who at first protested vociferously against the ads, have now generally decided to ignore both them and her or place their own ads with messages of peace and unity.

[TheVisitor]

8. True...

I think I want to plaster some ads on buses that read:

Every year, police officers kill more Americans than any other gang in the United States.

Maybe they'd respond with some hope of peace and unity? Wishful thinking, I guess...

[branford]

6. There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment

Hateful and offensive speech receives just as much protection as any other speech under the Constitution. This is very much unlike other democracies in Europe and elsewhere, and why Geller has won so many lawsuits against various states and cities when they refuse to run her ads. You need simply Google "Pamela Geller" to see what other "hateful" ads she has already been allowed to run for years, often pursuant to court order.

[Purveyor]

10. So an ad proclaiming holocaust denial should be allowed too?

There are some that would love to have that door opened.

[eggplant]

11. There's no door to be opened.

Speech is speech. Government suppression of speech (and they are government buses) is a no-no. If it was a private bus company, that would be different.

[a2liberal]

12. Absolutely. Just like this one. (n/t)

[branford]

14. An ad proclaiming Holocaust denial would certainly be constitutional

That door has been wide open for many decades and the Republic perseveres. Such issues have been thoroughly litigated well before Geller came onto the scene. For instance, simply Google "ACLU Skokie Illinois Nazis."

Whether I would want to see such an ad or if it would offend me is totally irrelevant (and I lost many family members in the Holocaust). In the USA, we are often exposed to repulsive and hateful speech and we thankfully have no right not to be offended. There is no heckler's veto. It easy to ignore, or better, protest with more speech, not prohibition. I never want the government deciding what I may think, say, read or write. The Founders were wise when they drafted the Bill of Rights.

I want to emphasize, however, that Geller only has the right to publish her ads on government buses and trains, and only so long as they accept advertising. A private company, who also has First Amendment rights, would be free to refuse to run her ads. The various transit agencies can also obviate this issue entirely if they chose to no longer accept any advertising, with the concomitant loss of badly needed revenue.

NYC's claim that the ads will incite violence (under the necessary constitutional framework) is nothing but sham and pretext to try to avoid controversy that Geller periodically brings to the City. They've already been sued by Geller and lost. I think the City, particularly our new and very liberal Mayor DiBlasio, wants to sound tough and will claim that he at least tried to stop Geller when they lose in court and he faces his constituents. Unfortunately, the City will waste taxpayer money to defend the suit, and the damages that will be paid to Geller from our tax revenues (I live in NYC) will fund even more of these ads. Accordingly, I believe the current actions of the MTA are short-sighted, illiberal, wasteful and foolish.

[Hulk]

9. Do they really want to open this can of worms?

What can the Palestinians learn from such provocative "speech"?

[leftynyc]

17. Well, if they're stupid enough

to do anything violent due to the ads, they're just proving her right. They should ignore it - that's the only answer.

[cali]

13. Geller's focus isn't so much "pro-Israel" as it is a virulent form of anti-Islam

[branford]

15. Geller is a nut, but even nuts have First Amendment rights. n/t

[Mister Nightowl]

16. Criterion

If Pam Geller's for it, I'm against it. She is a creature of pure hate.

[LiberalFighter]

18. They should include a disclaimer on the ad

And the address