In New York, a new censorship standard has been announced. The following ads are not to be allowed:
The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.
Notice that they are not banning material that incites violence. They are banning material which might provoke someone into violence. What this means is that those who threaten in or engage in violence are the ones who get to define the standard.
That is not how the First Amendment works, DOH! There is no exception for speech which might provoke someone into violence.
I hope the MTA is sued, and I hope they lose.
Comments
3 responses to “Surrendering our freedom to those who threaten violence?”
I say give them the Charles James Napier Treatment:
“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.” [4]
“Did he ever return?
No he never returned
And his fate is still unlearn’d
He may ride forever
‘neath the streets of Boston
He’s the man who never returned.”
Another MTA, but I wonder if that song would be banned under New York’s new law. Poor Charlie – no one would ever even know he was missing.
Just giving the lawyers a nice precedent to cite.
I LOVE that song…
And regarding your title “Surrendering our freedom to those who threaten violence?”
I’m afraid that’s becoming more and more the case for much of the population. The rest is divided between the wolves and the sheepdogs. And I’m afraid the wolves are winning.