advertising for ISIS...WTF?

Why not just run the whole video on a loop on the side of the bus?

Bet the parents are none too delighted with this, may even be illegal using images of a deceased...

http://mta-nyc.custhelp.com/app/ask

Let NYC transit know what you think via their easy email link.

Like this:

Dear NYC Transit

Re: Ads accepted by Pam Gellar hate group

Your acceptance of the ads by this known front for other hate groups is unacceptable.

I trust you may gain some insight into how wrong your decision is by noting the reputation of Pam Gellar, the well known hater of Islam and advocate of mass genocide for Muslims....is that enough, along with the Mayor's comments?

This is not about freedom of speech, it is about not condoning hate, that is also a freedom.

Yours truly,

Muslims....Geller is capitalizing on that reality.

These crazy judges have this idea that government can't pick and choose permissible speech.

the gamble...defamation cases are not uncommon, just not easily won.

Wtf are you talking about? The Chicago transit system spent a fuck load of money, lost, and was ordered to take the ads.

It's no gamble at all what the outcome is.

And you clearly are not acquainted with the definition of defamation as a legal cause of action.

The city would end up putting money in her pocket to ban her speech.

action should be considered at all, ever. What you're presuming is that every time she ups the
the rhetoric against Islam, and that is what she does consistently, she'll always be immune
to a successful defamation case against her.

CAIR is not NYC, so why presume anyone here is stating the mayor should take on Geller?

CAIR has utilized their own counteroffensive with their own ads and they also have stated
they may legally challenge Geller despite what they recognize as I said earlier, defamation cases
are difficult but not impossible. It seems lost to you, that their earnest attempts bring attention
to a racist, and they feel they cannot afford to allow her such a pass due to the legal challenges.
The attention such cases bring present an opportunity for Americans to see that even when she
wins, her words are lies and her reputation becomes further damaged.

Which is the classic American answer - the solution to bad speech is more speech.

But there are plenty of folks here on DU and across the political spectrum who have an admirable enthusiasm for the First Amendment. Others see that as something of a blind fanaticism beyond reason. There's merit on both sides of that view and, as I said above, I don't see Canada or Europe falling into oppression by the limits they set on "hate speech" and their political dialog is not dominated by loud extremists shouting past each other.

But we put a whole lot of emphasis on speaking, and not much on listening.

The mayor is, rightly, condemning it to ensure it is clear her mind poison is not endorsed by the city.

If we funded mass transit properly, we wouldn't have any of this nonsense.

this mayor too and his family.

I am leery of hate crimes laws and hate speech laws..too long to get into, but they
are a poor means to educate a society..which is what you ultimately need to do.

And are you going to pay the lawyers to defend, and lose, it?

Or do you think that NY is going to get a different result than Chicago or Seattle did?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/04/lawsuit-forces-chicago-to-accept-anti-jihad-bus-ads/

against hate speech.

None.

In the US, the government cannot censor "hate speech"

"Hate speech" is lawful speech.

I'm convinced that so many people have been in contractual environments involving conduct rules that there is this generalized notion that "hate speech" is illegal or subject to government control. It is not.

On point of fact, it strikes me that Europeans and Canadians have a rich political discourse which does not seem to be affected by, and in fact is enhanced by, their decision to deem certain unproductive things beyond the pale. Americans have an obsessive paranoia about it which makes it impossible to do here.

If the subway is selling ad space to all comers, they have an open forum. It's easy to armchair quarterback and say they should devote a chunk of their underfunded budget to legal actions, but you have no clue either how expensive those are, nor of the hopelessness of the case under US Law.

She WANTS them to say no, because under the law she and her group get a payday. That is the only result here, and to say "they should ban it" is to say "I want this woman to get a pile of taxpayer money".

The case hasn't proceeded to the damages phase at a PI, and this is the same pattern she follows. Note the "additional lawsuit" mention. "MassDOT spokesperson Kelly Smith, in an email with BostInno, confirmed that Geller's new ad had been accepted."

this is the US, where speech is a right, as in the 1A, which applies to all citizens.

There is no 1A category definition of hate speech, any lawsuit, as has been shown, is doomed to fail.
The definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, which defines lawsuits against Geller's ads.

and she wins every time, so why to these transit authorities keep on rejecting these ads when they know they'll lose? Why spend precious money on a lost cause?
Money that can be well spent elsewhere?

she wins more than she loses.

First let me ask you if you understand the procedural and substantive differences between a motion for a preliminary injunction and a full trial.

Suffice it to say that there are a lot of different kinds of "things that can come out of a court" and rulings denying motions for preliminary injunctions are at the skinny end of authoritative.

And, sure, you might not give a shit about the procedural posture of a given decision, which is why you are not advising the MTA on how to deal with this crazy lady's hateful horseshit.

This article shows that NY had to allow these ads http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-20/news/sns-rt-us-lawsuit-freespeechbre86j1e7-20120720_1_pamela-geller-american-freedom-defense-initiative-pro-israel-group

It's part of the schtick. Same deal as Westboro Baptist just itching for reasons to sue.

The citation was simply exemplary and has nothing to do with the "credibility of the source" as to the fact of the litigation history of these things.