Reply to METRO Drops all Issue Ads in Response to Pam Geller

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "METRO Drops all Issue Ads in Response to Pam Geller"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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".

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics