METRO Drops all Issue Ads in Response to Pam Geller

[Anonymous]

^^^Pam Geller

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You don't get it , do you? The bikers are planning an ARMED protest. Armed men/women want to show up to terrorize worshippers at a mosque, and that is okay with you? If a group of Muslims stood outside a church with guns at Sunday service, the whole world would go nuts!

No Muslima, we all get it. It is you who clearly does not get it.

It is highly offensive to my personal beliefs when someone burns a bible. Or an American flag. Or uses NEA funds as payment for creating a so called "art piece" named "Piss Christ."

But I support those people's RIGHT to express themselves because that is among our common American values and laws as originally set out in the BOR and constitution. In fact, I'd gladly die fighting to protect those rights as would everyone who has served our great country; I've taken an oath to uphold and protect those rights.

See here is what you don't get Muslima - we value religios tolerance in America and our tolerance is more important than your stupid religion and false prophet.

We've practiced religious tolerance in America since before there was a U.S. So if your mosque decides to hold a bible burning, then it's appropriate for me and every loyal American, to protect your right to do so, even if it means that I or the police need to stand outside with guns; ready to defend you from law breakers.

Go back to Texas, you cretin. Muslima is exactly right. If there were an armed protest of Muslims outside of a Christian church, can you imagine the FOX news reaction? The First Amendment is not absolute - provoking a riot, stalking, and threatening violence are not protected by the Constitution, no matter what reason you're doing it for. They can protest all they want, but it's the addition of WEAPONS that takes this out of the realm of free speech.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

I think that Metro probably has a legal ground to pick and chose among issue ads and reject those that are hate speech or risk provoking attacks. But there would surely be a legal battle over this, so rejecting all issue ads is probably the right move. Hopefully other advertisers will step up to fill the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You don't get it , do you? The bikers are planning an ARMED protest. Armed men/women want to show up to terrorize worshippers at a mosque, and that is okay with you? If a group of Muslims stood outside a church with guns at Sunday service, the whole world would go nuts!

If they don't pull their weapons, it's fine with me. I can see, given what happened in Paris, and what happened in TX recently, why they would want to be sure they are armed. If they are in their legal rights to carry, they are within their legal rights. If they start shooting without physical provocation, then I will take issue.

Really? So you'll only take issue with this once they start shooting. I'm sure worshipers of any persuasion find that very reassuring. There is really something wrong with you people.

Yes. Reason-being is because the Muslim community has put death threats out there towards people who draw Mohammed. And tried to carry out that threat in TX, and DID carry out that threat in Paris. The bikers are well-within their legal rights to stage the protest, as well as to carry weapons, and feel it prudent to do the latter. If that intimidates some in the Muslim community who have radical tendencies, that's a good thing. I would think that decent Muslim individuals who don't support terror from their communities would want the radicals suppressed as well.

Brandenburg v Ohio, you idiot.

And threatening or intimidating is a felony in Arizona. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01202.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that it took Pam Gellar to finally get Metro to drop all of those anti-Israeli ads it was happily posting all around.

I'm not a fan of an outsider who tried to make millions of commuters into a symbolic target in order to prove a point.

THIS x 1000!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if Gellar is that invested in free speech, she should put billboards, placards, etc. with her hate messages on her home, car, kids' backpacks, etc.

She has put her life on the line many times, and she is certainly a target now. She is a brave and courageous woman and we need more people like her.

"Brave and courageous" aren't the adjectives that leap to mind for me.

[Anonymous]

Metro made a reasonable decision and I agree with them.

If I were their lawyer, I would have advised the same thing. This issue has a history of provoking violence among extemist segments of Islam. We can talk "free speech" all we want, but if some extremist zealot blows up a train in response to the ads, people will be lining up to sue Metro.

It is not Metro's responsibility to be in the middle of this debate. So I agree that they decided to take the safe road in this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

In an opinion piece by the editorial board, Mr. Steele. Not straight news, so the NYT association doesn't add much in the way of additional credibility here. That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. And as a practical matter, I would take the NYT's speculation as to the internal motivations of someone they have obvious contempt for with a grain of salt. Really, the NYT is just name-calling here. I'm sure that they would prefer this whole issue went away as it is problematic for their business.

That said, I'm of two minds on this. It is really a tough break for Metro, which of course has nothing to do with any of this and needs the money. On the other hand, it is very well settled that the government is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination, so if it is going to take issue advocacy ads it pretty much has to take them all. On yet a third hand, violent retaliation for "offensive" speech is an issue of legitimate public concern, especially after Charlie Hebdo. The question of who is to blame here really just descends into a cycle of "who started it" that would be kind of childish except for the body count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

I think that Metro probably has a legal ground to pick and chose among issue ads and reject those that are hate speech or risk provoking attacks. But there would surely be a legal battle over this, so rejecting all issue ads is probably the right move. Hopefully other advertisers will step up to fill the gap.

People keep pretending there is a "hate speech" exemption from the First Amendment. No matter how many times people say that, it is simply not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

I think that Metro probably has a legal ground to pick and chose among issue ads and reject those that are hate speech or risk provoking attacks. But there would surely be a legal battle over this, so rejecting all issue ads is probably the right move. Hopefully other advertisers will step up to fill the gap.

People keep pretending there is a "hate speech" exemption from the First Amendment. No matter how many times people say that, it is simply not true.

Yea, people say that about as many times as they say the First Amendment applies to private companies and organizations. Also simply not true.

Sincere question - is WMATA the "Congress" or "Government" for First Amendment purposes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

I think that Metro probably has a legal ground to pick and chose among issue ads and reject those that are hate speech or risk provoking attacks. But there would surely be a legal battle over this, so rejecting all issue ads is probably the right move. Hopefully other advertisers will step up to fill the gap.

People keep pretending there is a "hate speech" exemption from the First Amendment. No matter how many times people say that, it is simply not true.

Yea, people say that about as many times as they say the First Amendment applies to private companies and organizations. Also simply not true.

Sincere question - is WMATA the "Congress" or "Government" for First Amendment purposes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

I think that Metro probably has a legal ground to pick and chose among issue ads and reject those that are hate speech or risk provoking attacks. But there would surely be a legal battle over this, so rejecting all issue ads is probably the right move. Hopefully other advertisers will step up to fill the gap.

People keep pretending there is a "hate speech" exemption from the First Amendment. No matter how many times people say that, it is simply not true.

Yea, people say that about as many times as they say the First Amendment applies to private companies and organizations. Also simply not true.

Sincere question - is WMATA the "Congress" or "Government" for First Amendment purposes?

I haven't read the cases recently, but my recollection from my First Amendment class in law school is that WMATA is pretty clearly a government actor here. WMATA itself certainly seems to think so, or it would not have needed to take the step of banning all issue ads, it could have just said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, so buzz off." However, I am not an expert in WMATA's regulatory environment, so perhaps there are other issues in play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

I think that Metro probably has a legal ground to pick and chose among issue ads and reject those that are hate speech or risk provoking attacks. But there would surely be a legal battle over this, so rejecting all issue ads is probably the right move. Hopefully other advertisers will step up to fill the gap.

People keep pretending there is a "hate speech" exemption from the First Amendment. No matter how many times people say that, it is simply not true.

If hate speech amounts to harassment or discrimination in a place or service of public accommodation, then the First Amendment permits restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Pam Geller's determination to spread hate has just cost METRO millions of dollars. In response to Geller's desire to run ads displaying a cartoon of Muhammad, METRO has decided to stop accepting issue ads for the rest of the year. METRO is not allowed to pick and choose among issue ads, so it had to accept Geller's ad it reject all issue ads.

Pam Gelled did not make the decision to forego potential ad revenue.

The metro board made that decision. Funny, they had apparent qualms about the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic ads they have accepted and displayed for years.

The Metro Board has previously accepted anti-Islamic and anti-Arab ads as well. But, as was recognized by the New York Times:

"Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

Also, I challenge you to demonstrate that an anti-Semitic poster has been accepted even a single time by Metro, let alone "for years".

I think that Metro probably has a legal ground to pick and chose among issue ads and reject those that are hate speech or risk provoking attacks. But there would surely be a legal battle over this, so rejecting all issue ads is probably the right move. Hopefully other advertisers will step up to fill the gap.

People keep pretending there is a "hate speech" exemption from the First Amendment. No matter how many times people say that, it is simply not true.

If hate speech amounts to harassment or discrimination in a place or service of public accommodation, then the First Amendment permits restrictions.

I'm not sure what, specifically, you mean by the terms "harrassment or discrimination" as they apply to this context, and I can't imagine a court reaching the conclusion that even offensive advocacy ads could constitute either. It remains legal to offend people, at least for now.