Latest Breaking News

LeftishBrit

(41,486 posts)

26. First of all, there's a huge difference between advocating hate and advocating rights

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 04:24 PM

Apr 2015

Secondly, putting the adverts on public transport means that the passengers become linked to a mobile message, good or bad, without having a choice about whether they want to be. I would not think that a bus is the appropriate place for a very controversial message, even one that I'd approve of, such as 'Vote Labour' - Tories should not be required to be linked to such a message. Putting such messages on your own car is one thing; but a bus or train should not be used for such purposes. JMO.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MTA Votes to Ban All Political Advertising After Judge OKs "Hamas Killing Jews" on City Buses [View all] brooklynite Apr 2015 OP

excellent decision still_one Apr 2015 #1

Horrible decision... brooklynite Apr 2015 #3

This isn't banning speech Cal Carpenter Apr 2015 #5

Yes, it is banning speech, but it may be permissible. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #9

No it is not. This is a company policy. The government does NOT tell a business what it can or still_one Apr 2015 #14

This is not a private company. It *is* the government. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #16

It is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that determines advertising policy, not the local still_one Apr 2015 #18

The First Amendment applies to ALL governmental entities Jim Lane Apr 2015 #19

The MTAs list of banned items include: violent images still_one Apr 2015 #20

You seem to be signing on to the absolutist viewpoint, which is not the law. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #22

I hear you, but if those believing their 1st amendment rights arr still_one Apr 2015 #23

This new policy was just adopted. There might well be litigation over it. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #24

Well then it is going to be interesting still_one Apr 2015 #29

The MTA is a "public benefit corporation" - LiberalElite Apr 2015 #31

Thanks. That has been explained to me still_one Apr 2015 #32

ok - LiberalElite Apr 2015 #33

The MTA still has a policy on what ads they will accept, so it will be interesting to see if that still_one Apr 2015 #34

it's not discriminating against any particular viewpoint. nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #8

It is reducing the outlets for speech... brooklynite Apr 2015 #10

I don't think political messages have any place on city property. nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #12

This is a public transportation system, that serves the public. Are you saying that the government still_one Apr 2015 #13

Good decision LeftishBrit Apr 2015 #2

Smart move. Behind the Aegis Apr 2015 #4

Hamas is an anti-Jewish group. We all know this, they don't exactly make it a secret. Archae Apr 2015 #6

Everyone knows what Coca Cola tastes like, and that it's cold and refreshing... brooklynite Apr 2015 #11

because it sells Coke.. frylock Apr 2015 #17

And she should have every right to do so... brooklynite Apr 2015 #21

First of all, there's a huge difference between advocating hate and advocating rights LeftishBrit Apr 2015 #26

All -you- have to do is turn your head and look at another ad. brooklynite Apr 2015 #27

Poor Pam Geller. All she has to do is find somewhere else to peddle her bigoted garbage. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2015 #30

This has everything to do with a company being allowed to set a policy on the types of ads it will still_one Apr 2015 #15

Exactly LeftishBrit Apr 2015 #25

Good. Very happy to hear this. closeupready Apr 2015 #7

"No politics" is common ad policy for ManiacJoe Apr 2015 #28