Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader

[ND-Dem]

Philadelphia's transit system has been ordered to accept provocative ads that include a 1941 photograph of Adolf Hitler with a former Arab leader after a federal judge ruled in favor of a pro-Israel group's free-speech lawsuit.

The proposed bus ads carry a tagline saying: "Jew Hatred: It's in the Quran."

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority believes the ads violate "minimal civility standards" and will consider an appeal. The Philadelphia Inquirer first reported on Wednesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg.

The ad in question features a photograph of a 1941 meeting between Adolf Hitler and Hajj Amin al-Husseini, described by the group as a Palestinian leader and Hitler ally.

The ads are produced by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, a New Hampshire-based group that opposes U.S. aid to Islamic countries and has filed similar lawsuits in New York and other cities.

http://news.yahoo.com/philly-buses-ordered-accept-ads-featuring-hitler-200901893.html

[cali]

1. appalling that they're forced to carry hate messages.

[Nye Bevan]

2. The First Amendment certainly protects some very distasteful speech (nt)

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. DC Metro got slapped down when it tried to bar pro-marijuana reform ads.

A few years ago.

[JaneyVee]

3. Someone should put up one with Bibi and Bush.

[daredtowork]

34. Could we mix in some porno with that?

as long as we're pushing the boundaries of good taste and free speech, we might as well have Bibi and Bush getting nekkid with each other on the bus.

[JaneyVee]

60. Perhaps Bush painting a nude Bibi.

[daredtowork]

5. That should hit the limits of free speech somehow

Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2015, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Like hanging a noose in the workplace.

Like displaying full frontal nudity in a public ad.

We have placed limits on free speech in the name of preserving physical safety, human rights, and public decency. Free speech is what we maximize, but it is not an absolute. Like all freedoms, one person's freedom reaches a boundary when it infringes on the freedom of another.

I am pretty sure Hitler is not in the Quran. That's even false advertising!

Could we say the same level of Jew hating can be found in the New Testament? Why pick on the Quran?

This is just going to cause trouble.

[Nye Bevan]

6. You're certainly welcome to place ads that refer to Jew-hating in the New Testament,

and because of the First Amendment they would not be able to refuse to run those ads. Even though some people might be very offended by them and consider them to "hit the limits of free speech".

[RobinA]

109. I Have No Problem

with the ruling and would not be offended by the ad. However, I think it's a counterproductive ad and can't imagine way anyone would come up with such a thing. As someone who has no dog in that hunt, I see that going by on the side of a bus, immediately look to see who is sponsoring it and don't think particularly well of them. Not how to win hearts and minds, but have at it.

[NuclearDem]

10. How is this in anyway comparable to those examples?

It's disgusting yes, but it's not anything like those examples.

[daredtowork]

20. I think its closest to the "fire" one

The sign gives a false impression of Muslims that is intended to stir up fear of them and hatred against them - which will likely lead to violence or restriction of them just on the basis of their faith. Or possibly their appearance. After 9/11 Hindu men were beaten by roving American mobs because they wore turbans.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Actually, I think you're vastly misinformed about the 1st Amendment, and you're also dragging out a

repeatedly over and mis-used "exception to free speech" which, actually, isn't.

To wit, to argue that "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" and then claim that somehow any speech which might piss people off is equivalent to that, is doubly incorrect. For one, aside from on the palatial estates of commonly accepted wisdom which isn't, actually, legal precedent, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" isn't some sort of tried-and-true exception to the 1st Amendment.

But leaving aside that, again, vastly overused limited circumstance example, no, "saying something that might piss people off" or "saying something nasty that might make some people not like other people" are NOT 'like yelling fire' nor are they exceptions to the 1st Amendment. If a gay man were to get up on stage at CPAC or a Southern Baptist convention and say "I'm Gay", it very well might piss a bunch of people in the audience off, some of them so much that they might argue they were "forced to" respond violently.

Does that mean the man does not have the 1st Amendment right to speak? No, it does not.

Furthermore, even bigoted speech, obnoxious speech, racist speech or so-called "hate speech" is likewise still protected by the 1AM. Whether or not it "might stir up fear and hatred" is irrelevant. Doesn't mean the speech isn't obnoxious and, yes, hateful, but it is still protected by the 1st Amendment.

Now, none of that to my mind means that a metro bus system has to accept all ads, but if it is strictly a 1st Amendment issue then on those grounds, yes.

[daredtowork]

41. I get your drift - and you are saying this is "KKK giving march down mainstreet"

Though I think the KKK one is also skating close to the edge because it might also be sending subliminal cues that lynching is okay, I think the Hitler/Muslim association is a more direct incitement to violence because of the association between Muslims and terrorism. I gave the example in my other comment of the Hindi men who were beaten merely because they were mistaken for Muslims after 9/11.

Comparing Muslims to Hitler in a book would still be free speech, but the response wouldn't be as visceral as it would be to a bus ad.

Lets look at another comparison: holocaust deniers. Those who write books on the topic are probably pushing the boundaries of free speech since they are influencing opinion with a lot of lies. But we rely on other speech to argue them down. If someone starts issuing pro-holocaust literature that might be enacted upon in the vicinity of a Jewish neighborhood...well, that might look more like speech inciting a hate crime.

As a woman, I would want to see the deliberate inciting of rape limited. Anyone who points the empty abstraction of free speech over that has not needed the protection of their own rights: good for them, but their "total defense of free speech" will be a very lonely fight indeed.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Again, I don't think you really understand the 1st Amendment.

Holocaust Denial is protected by the 1st Amendment. Saying "lynching is okay" is also protected by the 1st Amendment.

That does not mean those are admirable pieces of speech, however, they are absolutely protected speech.

Beating Hindi, or Sikh IIRC, men for wearing turbans after 9-11 was a crime. However, that was not "speech", it was assault.

"speech inciting a hate crime" is an essentially meaningless distinction, and certainly not one which would fly in a US court of law. Someone could issue pro-holocaust literature in a Jewish Neighborhood- they would be an asshole, but they would still have the right to issue whatever literature they wanted. They could not, of course, vandalize a synagogue, but again, that is a separate crime and quite different from 'issuing literature' . Threatening someone, burning a cross on their lawn, etc- not protected... but simply being an asshole or a bigot, even one who spreads hateful or violent ideology, is not by itself illegal.

For me- and I had relatives in those camps, by the way- this is not an "empty abstraction" argument at all. I see the principle of free speech and the 1st Amendment as one of the greatest bulwarks against the sort of totalitarianism the Nazis represented, that we have. The principle is far more crucial than people doing away with speech they don't like. Free speech is ONLY as good as the right of the most noxious speech to be heard.

[Demit]

57. I remember when the KKK wanted to march in Skokie & the ACLU argued for them.

I was young, and I thought it was abhorrent that the ACLU would come to their defense…but that's the event that got me to understand the First Amendment. Disgusting people are protected by it too.

[snooper2]

119. roving american mobs?

[daredtowork]

120. yep, happened after 9/11

gangs were looking for Muslims to beat up.

[ND-Dem]

29. more like putting up a photo of catholics with hitler + some

hate mongering text about how lousy catholics are; that would go over well in philly.

[leftynyc]

106. I'm wondering how much effort

DU would be into trying to drum up outrage at the same ad attacking the Catholic Church. I'm thinking very very little effort.

[ND-Dem]

128. you haven't seen the anti-catholic threads here?

[leftynyc]

140. You're making my point

NOBODY would be trying to defend the Catholic Church if the same ad was made for them. Only one religion gets that kind of defense on DU.

[ND-Dem]

141. i disagree with both points.

[leftynyc]

142. Let me know when you've

been around here as long as I have. Then we'll talk about it.

[ND-Dem]

143. I didn't realize that the criteria of 'truth' was 'longevity at DU'. But no problem, now I know.

[redgreenandblue]

102. It is actually pretty close to hanging a noose. nt

[onenote]

32. Progressive icons like William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan

would be rolling over in the graves at some of the anti-First Amendment views that get expressed on this board.

Too many people think that the purpose of the First Amendment is either to protect the speech they agree with (even if its offensive to others) or to protect speech that doesn't offend anyone.

[daredtowork]

33. I think it's more difficult than that to determine the limits of free speech

When the ACLU defends the right of the KKK to hold a march, that's a hard to decision to make - it's not just "weeeeeeeeeeeee, Free Speech!" Because - as stated above - one person's woohoo freedom may lead to limits or harm to someone else. So if someone is going to push the boundaries, that's worth deliberating about.

IMHO, associating the Quran with *images* of Hitler (which is more powerful than mere verbal speech) is a move toward inciting violence. But I question whether whether this is false advertising as well? I bet we could probably make a stronger bus-side case for Christians being woman-hating based on all the misogynistic statements in the Bible. But I think we've all just decided to overlook that and agree it's a historical/spiritual document...

[Warren DeMontague]

36. you have the 1st Amendment right to 'deliberate' about it all you want.

However, like it or not, it's protected by the 1st Amendment. No amount of rationalizing or complaining or hand-wringing is going to change that fact.

[daredtowork]

39. You STILL can't scream fire in a crowded theater

I love the First Amendment, too, but sometimes you have to think about it for a minute.

Same thing with the hanging nooses.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Saying something offensive - even REALLY offensive - is not screaming fire in a crowded theater

Sorry.

[onenote]

58. You must have stopped following the First Amendment sometime in the 1920s I guess

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

The "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example of the "clear and present danger" standard adopted by the Supreme Court in a 1919 case that ruled that passing out flyers opposing the draft during World War I was not protected by the First Amendment. Schenck v US, 249 US 47 (1919). It gave rise to a subsequent case, Whitney v. California, 274 US 357 (1927) that upheld,c citing Schenck, a law that made it illegal to engage in "utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow."

Now, if the First Amendment was still that was still the law, there's a whole lot of people, myself included, who should have been prosecuted for the things we did during the Vietnam War.

Now maybe you'd have been in favor of prosecuting people like us. But I doubt it.

The fact is that the Schenck and Whitney cases pretty quickly came under criticism and even Justice Holmes, who authored the famous "fire in a crowded theater" line, retreated from such a narrow view of the First Amendment. In 1969, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Whitney, implicitly limiting Schenck with it. I recommend to you the decision in that case and, in particular, the concurring opinion of Justice Douglas. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).

[daredtowork]

61. My view is not that narrow - I'm outraged over how easy it is for corps to get away with SLAPP cases

"Fire in a crowded theater" is shorthand for a line of thinking about the limits of free speech not the direct citation of legal precedent.

My thought on the matter is we need good judges to determine where the line is, but there IS a line. Free speech is close to absolute, but it's not absolute. Hopefully the judges deciding the matter are Ginzburgs and not Scalias.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Basically it's shorthand for "any speech I dont like"

If the standard to limit free speech- which you've pulled out of your own thin air, here- is "something that is so offensive someome might be caused or 'forced' to act violently", that can be applied to any speech. "Offensive" is completely subjective.

And the only SCOTUS justice in recent decades who has come anywhere close to agreeing with your reasoning here, IS Scalia. (The religious right wing is mad because they cant censor all the sex and naked bodies on HBO, for instance.)
Congratulations, on that.

[daredtowork]

70. As I said, I leave it up to a Judge

You are the one who keeps projecting "free speech crimes" on others.

If you think free speech should be limitless, no matter who it endangers, then all I can say is we're all pretty darned lucky you aren't a judge.

And it seems like your protest claims you've led a pretty privileged fear-free life if you don't see the need to be protected from threats.

I don't equate naked bodies or even hardcore porn to rape threats: it is usually MRA "activists" trying to malign feminists as "social justice warriors" who make that false equivalency. Scroll up a little and you will see me making a joke about a Bush/Bibi porno ad on a bus. D'oh! Keep trying.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. I think if you're actually interested in the subject, you might consider actually reading some of

the relevant decisions which HAVE BEEN made on the topic, several of which have been referenced for you in this thread.

That will tell you all you need to know about the 1st Amendment and the well-established body of current legal precedent surrounding it. Because how did we get here, and by "here" I mean why am I in this subthread with you? We got here because you were trying to suggest that a noxiously offensive and bigoted bus ad was somehow an "incitement" which was not protected by the 1st Amendment.

You were wrong, and every other example you've tried to dredge up to back up your position has either been likewise wrong (to wit, again, stuff like Holocaust Denial IS protected by the 1st Amendment, and so is "hate speech&quot or else it has been wildly off-topic, from assaults on people wearing turbans to the dissemination of classified material, neither of which has anything to do with "incendiary" bus ads.

Now, back on the original topic, I'm not convinced there isn't some other rationale by which the bus system could control the content of their ads- however, those ads ARE absolutely protected 1A speech.

And if pointing this stuff out means "I think free speech should be limitless" -uh, okay - although I hardly think that recognizing the established legal fact that hateful speech and bigoted speech and even totally inflammatory or bigoted bus ads are protected by the 1A is some sort of craaaaaaazy radical position (another "only on DU" moment, I guess)... I don't need to be a judge, although how do you know I'm not? no matter, the position I'm articulating is already hard-baked into several decades of supreme court precedence, or more.

The 1st Amendment is a bedrock principle for liberty, and it is an indictment of our educational system that so many don't understand it.

[daredtowork]

77. One of my favorite books is the ALA's Freedom of Information Manual

I don't need you creating a reading list for me based on YOUR interests.

The only reason we're still in this thread is you keep making fabulously wrong assertions about my position on free speech based on some unfathomable need to label me as a narrow minded harpy of political correctness. It's frankly pissing me off a lot. Just because I believe that bus ad has the potential for an incitement argument doesn't mean I think "offensive" speech should be banned. Or even that I think the criteria for "incitement" is easy to meet.

I will repeat for the umpteenth time, I think these matters are best left up to a judge. I know you're not a judge because someone who is actually in the legal profession wouldn't be stuck on cheesy strawmen.

All the examples I gave are valid examples despite your petty need to declare whether I'm "wrong" on this or that. You're wrong free speech being absolute. Of course the 1st Amendment is a bedrock principle for liberty - no one is arguing against that. I in fact agree, which is why your strawman attacks on me are making me so angry.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Again, it's not a reading list. It's SCOTUS decisions specifically pertaining to "incitement".

Why it should piss you off when that is directly relevant to the argument... okay, maybe you're not making it, it sure seemed like you were-- in the thread.

As for the rest of it, the stuff about libertarians and harpies and political correctness... it's coming from somewhere, but not from me. Maybe you should examine exactly where all these words are coming from. Just popped into your head, hmmmm?

.....Interesting.

Anyway, be pissed off, don't be pissed off. It's a discussion board. If hearing my responses bothers you that much, hit that little ignore button. Problem solved.

[daredtowork]

81. I do think it COULD be incitement

But I can't argue it because I have no legal training whatsoever and can only give ways I know free speech has been limited in the past. These may not be specific examples of incitement that would apply to this specific case, but they are enough to tell me that a judge might be able to look at a case like this and find that this isn't a matter of free speech. For instance, you pointed out that in the "revenge porn" laws, privacy laws were in play.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. There's no privacy being violated when someone says "all frimhatzes are big stinky warbnozzles"

As a frimhatz I may be deeply, horribly, profoundly and personally insulted and angered by the implication that my frimhatzerry equals warbnozzlage, but that is not a violation of my personal privacy, nothing akin to someone posting a picture of me nude (as much as the world constantly clamors for such delights) without my permission.

[daredtowork]

86. The privacy law doesn't have to be the specific "other law" in this case. nt

[onenote]

107. so every time someone says the word shit should it be left to a judge

to decide if that particular instance constituted "obscenity"?

Or would you think that the issue had been decided under the First Amendment?

[daredtowork]

111. Nope, where did I say that? nt

[onenote]

112. You seem to think that decided questions of law should still be brought for a judge every time.

Or is it only where you don't agree with the state of the law?

[daredtowork]

114. For heaven's sake

Do I have to block you, too?

I'm not putting *myself* in charge of deciding anything. We're on a forum, and I'm giving my opinion in this particular case. In general I think judges should be the ones to decide where there are questions of conflicting rights - and that includes questions about the first Amendment. But as I am sure I've made abundantly clear in many comments, I think freedom of speech should be interpreted very broadly and judges should only be brought in where rights may conflict. Not where petty people get "offended".

[onenote]

117. And I'm simply pointing out

that the issue of whether speech that offends -- not just petty speech -- but speech that strikes a deep chord -- is protected by the Constitution is a settled matter. Now that doesn't mean that judges don't get to decide cases, but you need to recognize that there isn't anything particularly special going on here -- certainly no more so than the offensiveness of Westboro Baptist Church. The right arguably infringed here is the right of the students to engage in offensive speech. There is no "conflicting" right of individuals to be shielded from offensive speech (except in very narrow circumstances which under the current state of the law do not apply here).

I suppose in a way we're in agreement -- if these students had decided to sue (and they appear to have forfeited that right by withdrawing from the university and foregoing their procedural due process rights which would appear to be a prerequisite to any legal action on their part), we agree that bringing such a suit would not be inappropriate and would not be a frivolous action on their part given the current state of the law.

[daredtowork]

118. Westboro Baptist is a great comparison

I understand and support the 1st Amendment on offensive, noxious, nasty speech that strikes a deep chord. The conflicting rights I would look at would be in other realms of the law such as whether the speech constitutes a direct threat.

Btw, my thread discussion is only about the Hitler-in-the-Quran bus ad. The student song thing is a whole other ball of wax.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. No shit.

It's rather telling how the 1st Amendment really bugs the crap out of a particular subset here.

[daredtowork]

40. Well people on both sides of the aisle take turns squealing about free speech

when you want to say something you defend the 1st Amendment. When your rights are being violated, you attempt to defend your other rights. And so it goes.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. What other rights?

I defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie, and I come from a Jewish family that had people in those camps. Not because I love Nazis, but because I understand that to let them march was a loss for what they believed in. To let government censor their views, paradoxically, would have been letting them win.

What "other rights" do you think are being violated? The right not to have no one say something that offends you? That's not a right.

[daredtowork]

62. If your speech directly endangers my life and limb, then that's a limit.

State secrets get invoked all the time - Petraeus and Snowden are both under scrutiny because of their speech.

The 47 mutinous/treasonous Senators - in hot water because of their speech.

The limits are out there. They are called laws.

*lest this comment be misconstrued - I don't believe Snowden broke the law, which has gotten me in more than one argument on DU.

[onenote]

64. Brandenburg v. Ohio

You'll see that under the constitution, what constitutes an imminent threat to life and limb is narrow -- a lot narrower than you seem to think it is.

[daredtowork]

71. What I think hardly matters

As I've said several times, I think a judge should decide.

You and Walter seem to think free speech is ABSOLUTE, which it is not. There always comes a point where one person's rights interfere with another's.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. If you read those decisions, they were written by judges. On the supreme court.

So a judge has decided, repeatedly, on what the 1st Amendment protects.

You're not listening, instead conjuring strawmen about how "Walter" thinks free speech is absolute.

[daredtowork]

90. You're the one not listening

It doesn't matter if Supreme Court Judges decided those cases. They are examples in an argument you are making to make a strawman case against a "Political Correct" person. If you scroll down a little, some other person just took up your flag about how I'm claiming free speech ends when "I'm" offended. THANKS A LOT. =.=

What I want a Judge to decide is the Hitler in the Quran bus ad case.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Okay, then, serious answer? Talk to a lawyer. Or talk to several lawyers.

You don't have to pay them, just informally see what they think about this.

My strong suspicion is they will tell you the same things I've been saying, namely that hateful or bigoted speech, speech against a particular group, is not going to be found to be "incitement", in any criminal or censorious fashion, by any court in the land. And if it was it would be overturned quickly.

The rest of it- look, DU takes the 1AM seriously. I'm not the only one for whom this is a sore point.

[daredtowork]

104. I take it seriously, too

Which is why I have been so irked here.

Though my particular peeve is SLAPP suits since individuals cannot hope to match corporations in terms of resources when it comes to defending their rights to speech.

It's also why I defend anonymous speech: I'm well aware that while rights are in theory equal, the ability to defend those rights are dramatically unequal.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Brandenburg v. Ohio. Also Street v. New York (1969) Cohen v. California (71) Gooding v. Wilson (74)

again, you keep trying to bring up totally unrelated examples. Sharing classified information is not even close to an analagous situation as a bigoted billboard. Also, at the time of the pentagon papers the SCOTUS defined a pretty wide berth for free speech even in the case of sensitive "national security" questions.

But, okay, "we have laws" and you're not willing to listen as to how they are superceded, like it or not, by the 1st Amendment: so how about you show me one recent example of someone successfully prosecuted for "incitement", like a billboard with a nasty or bigoted message?

I'll wait.

[daredtowork]

72. I'm not a lawyer

I'm more than happy to hand the task of deciding the limits of free speech off to a judge. But I do know that none of the rights spelled in the Constitution are infinite for any one person because they will always bump into the rights of another. So you can cite your cherry-picked examples to back your libertarian fantasy all day, but in the real world, a judge is still going to be needed to decide these things.

How would you classify these new "revenge porn" laws?

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/13/house-panel-advances-revenge-porn-bill/70297324/

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Wow, you've really got the keywords down, huh.

You sure you're not being coached?

My "Cherry Picked examples" are several important FIRST AMENDMENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. If you want to have a conversation on what the 1st Amendment does and does not protect, those decisions ARE the current state of law.

Anyway, revenge porn is another off-topic example. Someone else's naked picture without their permission is a violation of that person's privacy and property and, in a sense, their first amendment rights to speak or not speak or to share something of themselves.

I'm free to drive my car when I want, I'm not free to drive yours. I'm free to walk in my front door, not free to walk in yours, unless you let me. Not the same thing, right?

But again, that's not exactly a "speech" law. I'm asking you to come up with an example of someone being prosecuted for the crime of "incitement", which you seem to think is the rationale via which these bus ads should be censored.

You won't find it, because, again, bigoted speech or hateful speech is not inherently illegal, and the law is not running around prosecuting people for making hateful, bigoted noises. Doesn't mean those people aren't hateful bigots, but they aren't breaking the law by doing so.

[daredtowork]

80. Coached by who?

Okay, a noose in the workplace spawns lawsuits.

Would a KKK person holding a noose, suggesting activities of his organization for a membership ad on the side of a bus, be "noxious and offensive but protected speech" to you?

As pointed out in my previous post, I don't see why I have to meet your criteria for "citing chapter and verse" to win arguments against you just to make a comment on DU. You seem to be in this just for the perverse joy of labeling other people as against free speech whether they are or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. A noose in the workplace could be a direct threat of bodily harm, for one.

Also note "spawns lawsuits" is not "gets the person who put it there arrested".

Who was being sued, in that example?

[daredtowork]

85. Yes, I wasn't sure arrests were involved once I thought about it

And it's too late at night for me to look it up. But it seems to me that direct threats of bodily harm should involve criminal law, not just civil.

But the noose is a symbol of lynching, a historical reference to racial power as well as a direct threat.

This is the question I have about anti-Semitic symbolism in an atmosphere of current terrorism activity: is an image of Hitler a reference to the Holocaust of the past or is it a "noose" announcing that terrorists will attack synagogues?

[Warren DeMontague]

92. I think the answer is, pretty clearly, only a direct threat constitutes an actual direct threat.

I mean, a swastika- to a jewish person- carries certainly the same sort of historical baggage that an image of a noose or a KKK hood carries to AAs. Yet the swastika, the symbol, is not illegal.

[daredtowork]

94. The swastika isn't a weapon

the swastika can also be attributed with a lot more meanings than a noose, making the message blurrier. So I think the argument is harder to make. But Hitler was a murderer, so combined with the Swastika, you could say that Muslims are following his example.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. A picture of a noose isn't a weapon, either.

Also if a Swastika were big and made out of iron, it could be a weapon.

I think there is basically one main interpretation for what the Swastika represents, particularly if it's on a flag of, say, red and black. A noose is probably the more broad symbol, because lots of people have been hanged by nooses in history. A noose could be an argument for the death penalty, right? Agree, disagree, that's a political position and speech. Hell, someone could start a pro-death penalty party and have the party symbol be a noose. It'd be obnoxious, but it would make sense. Christians have as their symbol the crucifix, which might be pretty upsetting a subset of Romans 2,000 years ago, depending on how they interpreted it.

But it doesn't matter, because in the context of a political statement directed at the general public it's all protected speech.

There is no legal pathway by which I can envision any judge ever ruling that the bus ad in question was other than protected speech. Noxious, offensive speech perhaps, but still protected speech.

Like I said, don't take my word for it. As some lawyers what they think.

[daredtowork]

97. Not to knock all your examples

but I would like to see this particular example be challenged and argued. The Constitution is a living document, as they say.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Well we're gonna have to disagree. But I suggest you take it up with experts in the law.

See what they say.

The Constitution is a living document but precedence holds pretty strong sway, and in light of the decisions which were referenced upthread, I think it would be extremely unlikely that "incitement" would be drastically re-interpreted to include the exact same sorts of things (i.e. the bus ad) which the SCOTUS has repeatedly deemed speech protected by the 1A.


Bear in mind I'm talking about the US, and not, say, Canada to toss out a totally randomly picked example.

...

Other nations might interpret these things differently. Nazi regalia and symbols ARE illegal in Germany, for instance.

[daredtowork]

103. It's not disagreement

Unless you're absolutely certain of the outcome. I already know the KKK is free to hold public marches, and the ACLU defended their right to do that. So I wouldn't bet on "my" side of this argument. But I would like to see it reviewed, and I do think it's possible.

There's always the chance the same Supreme Court that decided Money=Speech could make a poor decision about limits on the First Amendment that would then require a lot of activism and further cases to undo/overthrow.

[onenote]

108. There is no chance this Supreme Court is going to expand what constitutes incitement

This is the court that ruled 8-1 in 2010 that the Animal Crush Video Protection Act abridged the First Amendment. The same court that ruled 8-1 in 2011 that the Westboro Baptist Church's obnoxious picketing of funerals was protected speech under the First Amendment.

The only justice on this court that appears to have any inclination to narrow the First Amendment is Alito. Is that really who you want as a champion? Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor are not going to throw out the precedents that were fought for by progressive champions like Douglas, Marshall, Brennan and others.

Find a different windmill to tilt at.

[daredtowork]

113. Burning the Quran is a one time act

There are different categories of media - though I grant you that's the closest parallel anyone has come up with here, especially since I'm sure that church found ways of reproducing and distributing that act.

I also put "defending the Holocaust" in conferences or magazines as something that would have a different effect as a bus ad. There is no implied "call to action" in the former - but there might be one in the bus ad. That's what I think is worth considering.

Also, if the ad were actually recruiting people to do something, could false advertising laws come into play?

[ND-Dem]

48. i doubt it.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. We should ask them directly

people come back from the dead all the time on DU, it seems.

[KingCharlemagne]

76. The same level of Jew hating is found in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," for

Chrissakes, since we're singling out specific texts.

[Oktober]

87. Is that the legal standard we are going for now?

'Just going to cause trouble'...?

Also, what is this?

We have placed limits on free speech in the name of preserving physical safety, human rights, and public decency. Free speech is what we maximize, but it is not an absolute. Like all freedoms, one person's freedom reaches a boundary when it infringes on the freedom of another.

It sounds suspiciously like 'you can speak until I'm offended and then you are infringing on my freedom'.

[daredtowork]

88. And it sounds suspiciously like you've been reading my other comments

and you just want to see if you can have a shot at pissing me off too by putting putting words in my mouth about you being able to speak "until I'm offended" when I've repeatedly stated that's not the case.

What is this, "free to be jerks" night?

[Oktober]

89. So... Two things...

1) I based my reply solely on your post. Afterwards, I was pleasantly surprised to see post after post pointing out how ridiculously and incredibly wrong that position is on both a legal and ethical level though.

2) It's Monday. That's when all the folks who support the 1st Amendment get together. Seriously, people like you are concerning if only because one day you, or your ethical twin, could fall into a position of power and try use that same shoddy logic you've displayed here to take from the rest of us.

[daredtowork]

93. It's even scarier that guys like you are constantly projecting on to everyone else

you have some point you want to make, and the only way you can think to do it is to make some other person the patsy, even if you have to paint a false picture of their ideas to do it. I've spent all evening arguing with Walter, and still he keeps insisting arguing write past me at some target he has made up just to display his First Amendment points.

It seems like the best "logic" in the world means nothing if you are arguing against a fake opponent.

It does not make me "weak on the First Amendment" to think that the Supreme Court might find a limit in the "Hitler in the Quran" ad. It does not mean I have a "politically correct" character. It does not mean I want to legislate against "offensive" speech. It does not mean I don't thank of the 1st Amendment as a cornerstone of the Constitution. It just means I think THAT case could have brought up 1st amendment boundaries.

Now imagine if you lived in a world where guys like YOU ran it and constantly dealt in fictions about other people instead of the actual situation. Hmm...wasn't that Rome under Nero...?

[Oktober]

98. Lots of words...

A bit light on the content... Let see if we can pick some out...

constantly projecting on to everyone else you have some point you want to make

We are just responding to your fundamentally flawed understanding of the concept of free speech in the United States

It seems like the best "logic" in the world means nothing if you are arguing against a fake opponent.

I don't know what this means...

It does not make me "weak on the First Amendment" to think that the Supreme Court might find a limit in the "Hitler in the Quran" ad

Yes, yes it does...

It just means I think THAT case could have brought up 1st amendment boundaries.

Which boundaries are those again?

Now imagine if you lived in a world where guys like YOU ran it and constantly dealt in fictions about other people instead of the actual situation. Hmm...wasn't that Rome under Nero...?

[daredtowork]

100. And you go on and on with it

Okay well I'll go ahead and block you now since you're not going to cut it out.

Go play your Free Speech strawmen games in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6369786

[Iggo]

7. Atheist ads are still out, though. Right?

[Nye Bevan]

9. Wrong.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/atheists_expand_godless_christ.html

[ND-Dem]

12. is 'human events' now an accepted reference at DU? figures.

[Nye Bevan]

14. I'm not familiar with that site, just picked it at random from the Google results.

But since you find it offensive I edited to replace with an npr link.

[ND-Dem]

16. i tried googling for the article and photo using various search terms but couldn't

find that particular one...

[Nye Bevan]

17. When I google the phrase atheist ads "dc metro" it's the 6th result (nt)

[ND-Dem]

18. interesting. I don't get any 'human events' results on the front page (haven't looked at

the following pages).

I hear the search results one gets are targeted to previous search proclivities.

(in my case, the 6th result = Wikipedia)

[Princess Turandot]

43. Here you go...

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Why-believe-in-a-god.html

The image is on that local station nbc page.

If you go to Google Image search directly at https://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=ii , click on the camera icon. You can then paste the url of the photo posted on DU to the box that opens and it will search for that exact image. It's much better/quicker than using the general search page.

[ND-Dem]

50. i don't think you got the point

[Inkfreak]

59. I googled it and it the showed as 4th article down.

Right under some Christian Faith site & faux news...neither of which I'll EVER fucking visit or read. So to me, your silly lil "point" is weak sauce at best.

[ND-Dem]

129. Didn't show up 4th, or 6th, or even on the front page when I googled it. And it's

not one of google's high referenced pages. Hmm.

Very interesting, so many human events fans at DU.

[Inkfreak]

138. Member since January 2015...

And such a prolific poster. I'm sure you'll be a wonderful addition here to DU. A belated welcome to you.

[Iggo]

15. Is that a Philly bus, from this year? Or a D.C. bus, from 2009?

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Well, I suppose someone could always do a "Jews killed our savior" bus ad.

But that would be inflammatory.

Oh.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. If 'inflammatory' is the standard, then the ad should not go up.

But if it's a pure 1st Amendment question, both would pass.

[Archae]

11. The worst part about this story is the ad is true.

That Palestinian "leader" Hajj Amin al-Husseini was openly pro-Nazi Germany.

And from the Koran itself:

Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85

What is important, most Jews and Christians no longer follow the admonitions of Moses to kill all men and boys of rival tribes, and all non-virgins, taking the virgins for slaves.

Most Jews and Christians have rejected that bullshit.

Most Moslems reject the "all Jews are evil" stuff also, but even a so-called "moderate" Muslim in England will not condemn it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/03/14/moderate-muslim-asim-qureshi-dodges-every-tough-question-in-british-tv-interview-i-am-not-a-theologian/

[ND-Dem]

13. and officials of various faith groups, ethnicities, and nationalities cooperated with the

Nazis. we could probably incite hate with billboards about any of them. when incitement of hate or confirmation of hate is your purpose, any port in a storm.

[Archae]

19. Yes, they did.

The Nazis perverted everything they touched.



The Nazis had a chance to go down in history as having developed a true wonder, the A-4 rocket.
Even just sticking a camera in it would have done incredible science research.
What did they do with it? Made it into a terror weapon, the V-2.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Is that 'hatred' in the Koran?

Don't Christians tell us all the time that various people identified as 'sinners', such as homosexuals, will go to hell, then turn around and tell us that it's not 'hate speech'?

How is not 'hate' for Christians, but it is 'hate' for Muslims?

[Archae]

30. It's hatred period.

Doesn't matter what religion says it.

[ND-Dem]

51. in the torah too; they're all 3 variations on the same texts and they all share the

same habit of attacking their close neighbors

[JonLP24]

42. The Koran itself

Overall it is more friendly to Jews than Christians, a lot of doubt or alternative theories to Christian theories. They both agree Jesus wasn't divine but split regarding the Koran itself recognizes him as a prophet. Then there is a lot of out of context texts that are referencing historical events. The Constitution of Medina from Muhammed himself didn't say "all Jews are evil".

And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter. These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful.
Qur'an 2:4-5

Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people.
Qur'an 5:68

And those who believe in Allah and His messengers and do not make a distinction between any of them-- Allah will grant them their rewards; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Qur'an 4:152

The messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers; We make no difference between any of His messengers; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.
Qur'an 2:285

The above comes from Mohammed, throughout the Quran they make similar arguments

This Koran could not have been forged apart from God; but it is a confirmation of what IS before it, and a distinguishing of the Book, wherein is no doubt, from the Lord of all Being. S. 10:37

I'm sure there are contradictions, Christians are often referred to as "People of the Book" but uses their religious texts as a source & look at it from that way. They make a big deal regarding prophets I don't know about the kill all men & boys & virgins but they do have much love for the Book of Moses, heavily endorsing it but I don't believe that aspect of it is why but why many religious people love the Book of Moses.

O you who believe! believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book which He has revealed to His Messenger and the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels and His messengers and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error.
Qur'an 4:136

[LeftishBrit]

45. So he was, but so, sadly, were lots of leaders of that time

Would people put up anti-Italian ads on buses because Italy collaborated with the Nazis in the war? Or for that matter, ads promoting hatred against all Germans?

At the risk of this getting moved to the Religion forum: all pre-modern (and some modern) religious texts contain a lot of violent and xenophobic material; so does the Bible.

As regards anti-Semitism in particular: that is hardly something specific to Muslims! There is too much of it everywhere. E.g. one poll showed that only half of British UKIP supporters (RW party; explicitly anti-EU but really more anti-immigrant; currently attracts about 15% of voters) would ever vote for a Jewish candidate.

[ND-Dem]

130. The point of the ad is to incite anti-Muslim feeling, period.

[LeftishBrit]

131. Exactly

And it wouldn't be acceptable to put out such ads about Germans, or Italians, or Japanese -so why is it OK about Muslims/ Palestinians?

[ND-Dem]

133. I'd like to see some group try getting hate ads for other groups on. It would be

interesting to see what happened.

[LeftishBrit]

134. Actually, UKIP do try it regularly with 'immigrants'

Not going back 70-odd years for the purpose, however.

[JI7]

46. the point of this ad is similar to those who bring up USS Liberty

while what happened may be true the point of those who bring it up is usually "those horrible jews did this" "those horrible muslims did this".

[ND-Dem]

49. The only point I can see to these ads is to claim that Islam = hatred of Jews.

It's not even an ad; it's hate speech, pure and simple. It advertises nothing; it does no public service. Its intent is to gin up hate.

So it's a bit different from the USS Liberty example IMO though you have a point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. What's wrong with the judge's name?

[PCIntern]

23. …obviously Jewish...

we've been put in this position before.

[Dr. Strange]

24. Mitchell Goldberg

Clearly a Mormon.

[tritsofme]

135. Blatant display of anti-Semitism only hidden by one vote. Pretty pathetic.

[geek tragedy]

27. Please explain how your reference to the judge's last name isn't an

exercise in bigotry.

[former9thward]

28. Jewish judges should be restricted on what they can rule on?

[Nye Bevan]

31. Great hide. Thanks jury! (nt)

[LeftishBrit]

44. Wow. So the buses can be ORDERED to accept blatant hate-messages?

That doesn't sound like free speech to me.

I checked the site - ugh - that's Pamela Geller's group. 'Pro-Israel group' my arse; that's like calling the Ku Klux Klan a 'Protestant' group. They just exist to spew hatred against Muslims first and foremost; then left-wing Jews; then everyone else.

Actually there was a case in London, where some groups tried it on with homophobic messages on buses; but the Mayor Boris Johnson (a Conservative, by the way) refused to accept them and was backed up by the courts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/30/charitians-activists-lose-high-court-bid-over-boris-being-personally-responsible-for-gay-bus-advert-ban_n_5633834.html

[ND-Dem]

47. thanks for that. geller sounds like a peach.

publicly funded bus operations and the like can be ordered to accept whatever a judge tells them = free speech in the US.

private operations can accept or deny whatever ads they please.

[War Horse]

56. Yeah, I figured it was Geller - or someone like her

This is a point the "stop the islamization of Europe" crowd love to bring up. Typical of their rhetoric.

[Reter]

63. City busses should stay clear of politics or anything controversial

If it were a private bus, then fine. What's next, an ad to join the Klan?

[onenote]

65. So we should do away with all public fora an only allow speech on private property?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Maybe they should display this photo next to it.

South Africa's prime minister John Vorster (second from right) is feted by Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (right) and Menachem Begin (left) and Moshe Dayan during his 1976 visit to Jerusalem.


Common aims
Israel was openly critical of apartheid through the 1950s and 60s as it built alliances with post-colonial African governments. But most African states broke ties after the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the government in Jerusalem began to take a more benign view of the isolated regime in Pretoria. The relationship changed so profoundly that, in 1976, Israel invited the South African prime minister, John Vorster - a former Nazi sympathiser and a commander of the fascist Ossewabrandwag that sided with Hitler - to make a state visit.

Leaving unmentioned Vorster's wartime internment for supporting Germany, Israel's prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hailed the South African premier as a force for freedom and made no mention of Vorster's past as he toured the Jerusalem memorial to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. At a state banquet, Rabin toasted "the ideals shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and peaceful coexistence". Both countries, he said, faced "foreign-inspired instability and recklessness".

Vorster, whose army was then overrunning Angola, told his hosts that South Africa and Israel were victims of the enemies of western civilisation. A few months later, the South African government's yearbook characterised the two countries as confronting a single problem: "Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples."

Vorster's visit laid the ground for a collaboration that transformed the Israel-South Africa axis into a leading weapons developer and a force in the international arms trade. Liel, who headed the Israeli foreign ministry's South Africa desk in the 80s, says that the Israeli security establishment came to believe that the Jewish state may not have survived without the relationship with the Afrikaners.

[ND-Dem]

67. +100.

[KingCharlemagne]

84. Squaring the circle: Israel is operating its own system of apartheid in

the occupied territories. Remembering when no less a Democratic personage than Jimmy Carter intimated as much and published a book-length essay arguing against it.

[MFrohike]

79. That's pretty dumb

Yitzhak Shamir's old group, the Stern Gang, tried to form an alliance with Hitler during WW2. They proclaimed their intention to create a totalitarian state in Palestine (their words, not mine). They also proclaimed their admiration for Stalin. Given that Shamir was actually a prime minister of the modern Israeli state, this is a really stupid move.

[ND-Dem]

95. I look forward to seeing the ads featuring hitler and shamir.

[tritsofme]

136. Both of his parents and two of his sisters were killed in the Holocaust.

I think you are unlikely to find that picture.

[ND-Dem]

137. Maybe; but apparently Lehi was looking to ally with the fascists

as late as ~1942.

Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.[2] Believing that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis...After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support for Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.[1] In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)



Israel's Jerusalem Post broke a national taboo today by writing of a 1941 link between Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's Stern Gang guerrillas and Nazi Germany.

The episode, known to historians, is almost never mentioned in a country that reveres the memory of 6 million European Jews, including Shamir's entire family, killed by the Nazis during World War II.

The respected English-language daily, which bitterly opposes Shamir, broke the silence in an editorial blasting "obscene attacks" by the premier and other right-wingers on the Peace Now movement's contacts with Palestinians.

Noting that Shamir said there would be "no KGB in Israel" to hunt down Peace Now activists, the Post commented:

"That might be reassuring, but for the disturbing memory (of the Stern Gang) . . . which, with the Final Solution already under way in all but name, sought out German cooperation in the setting up here of a Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis..."

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-07/news/mn-330_1_stern-gang

[redgreenandblue]

101. I don't see how the 1st Ammendment necessary implies that people need to be provided with a platform

for their speech by the public.

I mean the busses are owned by the city right? Who is to say that this ad should be featured and not another one. Was there any Democratic procedure in which this ad was voted on as the one that should be displayed?

No one is stopping these people from standing on the side of the road like the Westborough Baptist church.

The way the 1st Ammendment gets interpreted in the US sometimes suggests that the most offensive people are handed a megaphone by default.

On the other hand: I think giving the mindset of these idiots some exposure is not a bad thing. People may see them for who they are.

[onenote]

115. The status of advertising on publicly owned buses under the public forum doctrine is contentious

It's hard to generalize, but broadly speaking, certain areas are considered "public fora" where there has to be a a compelling state interest to limit speech (and when it comes to limiting speech based on its point of view, that test rarely can be met). The side of a bus almost certainly is not such a public forum. However, there also are "designated public fora" -- areas that aren't traditional public fora like a public park, but have nonetheless taken on some of the qualities of a public forum through the way it is used. Whether a side of a bus (or space inside the bus) meets that standard may depend on how the bus compnay (and we're talking publicly owned buses so we're talking about state action) has dealt with these areas in the past. Some argue that where the bus company has limited the content of advertising on or inside a bus to "commercial speech" -- ads for products -- they are free to reject issue-oriented advertising. Others say that position turns the first amendment on its head, elevating commercial speech over political speech. They also argue that so long as the bus company is using the space inside or on the bus as a revenue generating tactic, it cannot distinguish between those who are willling to purchase that space based on its content (any more than they could agree only to sell ad space to propoents of one policy or candidates of one party).

Obviously, if a bus company has been selling (or giving away) space for issue-oriented messages, it is going to have a hard time justifying the refusal to sell based on the content of the message being delivered. Which means an opportunity for groups to reach transit passengers is stifled.

[redgreenandblue]

122. Interesting. I was thinking it was more complicated than "this is free speech".

What you write about "public fora" makes sense.

In addition I was wondering about this: Obviously advertising space on the side of the bus is limited, so at some point the operators might be forced to decide between different applicants. I wonder how they go about this. Selling to the highest bidder would violate free speech rights of the less affluent in some sense. One possibility is a "first come, first served" principle, but that would seem like it could lead to long waiting periods. One could imagine some sort of "fairness doctrine" but I doubt that this is in effect here.

And another thing is this: Since the bus is in principle a utility service owned by the government, it could be seen as if the government was endorsing whatever message is written on the bus. And surely there must be some civil rights issues here too, since a Muslim bus driver could argue that this is discrimination at the workplace. Imagine a totally crazy scenario (not 100% inconceivable in the USA...) in which the government decided to rent out advertising space on police uniforms. Could a police officer then be forced to bear a message with a bigoted message against him/herself?

Am I right though that all of this only applies to public busses? A private company is free to advertise what they wish, right?

[onenote]

123. I'll answer the only part that is easy to answer

Yep, the questions you raise, and they're some good questions, only come up with regard to publicly owned transit. Private buses can do and not do pretty much as they please. For example, if a private bus company wants to rent out space to advertise only for candidates of one party, he or she would seemingly be free to do so.

But I sort of fibbed when I said it was easy. Most private transit companies, whether they are buses or taxis or whatever, are licensed by the government. Does that change their status for purposes of the first amendment? Can the government dictate what kinds of messages private, but licensed, transit companies disseminate on their vehicles?

If I was teaching a class in law school, these would make for some damn fine exam questions.

[redgreenandblue]

124. Thanks.

I'm a scientist, not a lawyer, but personality tests that I have done have said that law was my "second calling", lol.

In any case, I suspected the case here was not as cut-and-dry as many in this thread seem to think.

[onenote]

125. Whether its the OU incident, the Logan Act, charging Ernst with an Article 88 violation

for "contemptuous" speech, it's usually not as cut and dried as some seem to think.

[redgreenandblue]

127. Here's another one:

What if some sort of boycott were to take place where people refused to ride in the buses that featured bigoted ads (not sure whether this would ever happen on a large scale, but I can imagine myself waiting for the next bus if I saw one with an ad that offended me).

Now let's say the city is losing a substantial amount of revenue over this. If it were 100% clear that only the buses with the bigoted ads are underperforming, can the city drop the ad or is it forced to accept the loss of revenue? Can they sue the people who posted the ads for damages?

[onenote]

132. I can't imagine any claim for damages

As for whether they can drop the ad, it may depend on the terms of the contract that undoubtedly exists between the advertiser and the bus company.

As I've noted elsewhere, whether or not the side of the bus is a designated public forum and the scope of the rights an advertiser has not to have its message censored by the government through its owned bus company is not an easy question.

[hopemountain]

105. well, that is one way to put an open target

for violent acts against citizens on buses.
the problem with the judges declaration of ruling/argument is this very direct consequence.
now, we must wait until a bus is targeted and people are injured or worse, killed - and or their families to take them to court to sue the bus company for damages in order for the judge to see his/her error in judgment/ruling.

this is when the law is clearly out of pace with consequences, common sense and wisdom.

[Jim Lane]

110. That argument is called "heckler's veto" and it's generally been rejected.

If the incitement to violence is immediate and comes about because people agree with the speaker, then the speech can be limited, to preserve public order. If there's an angry mob gathering outside the house of a professor who's written pro-Palestinian articles, and Pam Geller is up on a soapbox screaming about Arabs and Hitler and whatnot, and one can reasonably see that her diatribe might cause people to attack the house and injure the professor or others in the house, then she's probably outside the protection of the First Amendment.

Suppose, however, that she sets up her soapbox in a public park. There's nobody nearby being directly vilified. Nevertheless, many of the people who walk by and hear her are outraged by her bigotry. Among the people who stop to listen, there's a growing mood to target her -- to rush her, push her off the soapbox, forcibly silence her, injure or even kill her. If you accept that as a sufficient basis for suppressing her speech, then you're saying that people who disagree with a speaker (including a bus ad) can silence it just by credibly threatening violent retaliation.

I'm assuming your comment means that you're addressing a situation like the second one -- people who are upset by the ad target the bus and possibly its passengers. If, instead, you mean that people seeing the ad might be persuaded by it and might attack innocent Arabs, the answer is that any possible incitement is just not direct and immediate enough. When DUers denounce police for killing an unarmed black, it's conceivable that our posts, by lessening respect for the police, could increase the chance of anti-police violence. That possible causal link, however, is too tenuous to support suppression of the speech.

[hopemountain]

139. thank you for sharing this argument

yet, why is the judgement so broad? can it not make the distinction to protect the innocent who are not the private party expressing free speech via an ad on a public bus? why should this form of free speech be tolerated and be considered the same form of free speech as one who makes the personal decision to stand in a park and express free speech? i discern a difference and a distinction ~ why doesn't the court? were one may buy a tshirt expressing a personal opinion or with a slogan or drive a vehicle with bumper stickers - those are personal choices to free speech. so, were one to ride a public bus with a political ad - does the person then make a conscious free choice decision to accept the ideology of the advertisement? hmmmm. i do not believe the judge thought this out far enough to make such a judgement and i sincerely hope it is challenged.

[Jim Lane]

144. The judge's reasoning is that the government can't play favorites

The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities. You can wear whatever t-shirt you want or adorn your car with whatever bumper sticker you want. If a private company is operating a bus system, it can choose to sell ads or to not sell ads to anyone at all.

The government, however, is in a different situation. If the government runs the bus system, it might choose to have no ads at all. No one has a constitutional entitlement to being able to place an ad in a bus. BUT if the government does decide to sell ads, then it can't discriminate by saying that some points of view are acceptable and some aren't.

Consider the atheist ad that Nye Bevan posted in #9. Some Bible Belt cities would probably like to reject those ads while being eager to carry ads from churches. That's what's not permitted.

I've summarized the general principle but it's actually more complicated. For example, the system can probably enforce restrictions against ads with full frontal nudity. Why do we protect the sensibilities of bus riders who don't want to see a yawning vulva or an erect penis, but we override the sensibilities of Muslims who don't want to see an ad linking them with Hitler? (And, yes, I know there are plenty of non-Muslims who'd be offended, too.) Part of the answer is that some forms of speech (obscenity, defamation, etc.) have traditionally been accorded less protection. Another part is that neutrality would still be required to the extent practicable. The system couldn't say that an ad like "Fuck you, Scott Walker, you union buster" gets rejected for language, but "Fuck you, Barack Obama, you Putin appeaser" gets accepted. Accept both, or neither.

The linked article gives me the impression that the judge did think it through:

U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg ... concluded that the transit authority's "anti-disparagement" policy, while well-intentioned, was not clearly defined and therefore potentially discriminatory. He noted that SEPTA has run viewpoint ads on public issues including animal cruelty, birth control, religion and fracking.

[KamaAina]

116. We found an elegant solution when those popped up in SF

[redgreenandblue]

121. I can see this being "discrimination at the work place" against Muslim bus drivers and therefore

a civil rights issue.

That's all.

[RJMacReady]

126. PHILLY AREA: VERIZON's new "ONE AMERICA" TV channel

Hello All DUs, As I am new, I am latching onto this Phila based thread. If you had told me that there would be a channel, broadcast nationwide, that made Fox News seem objective, I would have dismissed it. I just stumbled across the most egregious, unabashedly anti-progressive propaganda masquerading as a news channel in all of my experience: The"One America" channel. This garbage is so nauseating, so overtly racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, GARBAGE I have ever heard. It is an absolute outrage this stream of hate can be allowed to present itself as news. It makes people like Marc Levin, Ann C, Kelly, Hannity and Big Tough Bill, (straight back from the front lines of a war zone, of course) seem like beacons of moderation. This CAN NOT be allowed to stand. Who is paying for this swill, and what can be done to shut them down? I have been outraged by many things in my political awareness, such as the 34% voter turn out in the mid terms, or Mitch McConnell's reelection, but this takes the cake. My head felt like it was going to explode. Please, tell me you have seen this, and let us formulate a strategy to force the FCC to ban this hate speech before it infects even more gullible people. IMHO, this is the biggest threat we face in America today, the progressive message being drowned by a tsunami of pure hate speech in the guise of information. I have never, ever been so angry and disheartened. Help, please... Mac