The Blaze

September 28, 2012 by Billy Hallowell

In the wake of Middle Eastern furor and intense anti-American sentiment, “blasphemy” has been a hot topic in both media and political circles. With some leaders calling for bans on insults against Islam, fascinating and intense free-speech debates are continuously unfolding. In New York City, where controversy has swirled around blogger Pamela Gellar’s ad aimed at Islamic extremism, some are wondering if The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the company governing the public transit system, is jumping on the anti-blasphemy bandwagon.

Before we cover NYC’s new-found regulations, let’s look at a brief history of the debate. The battle over Gellar’s ad has been a fascinating one. Initially, the MTA refused to allow it to be posted on NYC subways, claiming that it was “demeaning.” But this quickly changed in August, when U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the ad is protected under the First Amendment (read the history behind the ad here). As a result, the ads were finally posted at 10 subway stops, which subsequently sparked outrage.

After claiming that the MTA’s “hands are tied” earlier this month, transit authority spokesperson Aaron Donovan noted, “Under our existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is required to run the ad.”


Photo Credit: American Freedom Defense Initiative/ABC News
However, the MTA purportedly approved new guidelines on Thursday and is purportedly planning to continue restricting ads that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace,” The New York Times reports. NY1 mirrors this claim, writing, “Sources say the MTA will still ban ads it finds to be incendiary or too dangerous to put up but didn’t say how these decisions will be made.”

In an 8-to-0 vote, the MTA’s board made the startling decision to implement restrictions. New York Magazine has more about the scene before and after the vote:

For the time being, the MTA is still dealing with the fallout from the current campaign. Though the ten ads were instantly defaced, several people showed up to protest when the meeting was opened up to comments from the public. Demonstrators who oppose the ads held signs with messages like “The subway belongs to the 99 percent,” and repeatedly shouted down Pamela Geller, who leads the group behind the ads. She insisted that while many believe that the ad implies Muslims are “savages,” it’s actually about “systemic institutionalized anti-Israel bias.“ ”This is not against Muslims. I love Muslims,” Geller said.
“We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today,” MTA chairman Joseph J. Lhota proclaimed at a press conference on Thursday. “You deal with a free-speech issue with more free speech.”


Pamela Geller

Despite the fact that Lhota made his free-speech proclamations, some will likely wonder how the commission will determine which ads will purportedly spark violence and angst. After all, restricting ads at all is, regardless of which side one falls on, a restriction on free speech — at least in a general sense. Despite that fact that the regulations allegedly banning some ads are still unclear, one change has been confirmed.

While many ads with a viewpoint (religious, political and moral) will still be permitted, each will be required to have a disclaimer that tells those viewing the messages that the MTA is not necessarily embracing the views presented within them. Interestingly, despite the Times and NY1 reports about some ads still being banned, the MTA appears to be claiming that it doesn’t have the constitutional right to restrict free speech. In a press release, the government transit authority wrote:

To be clear, the MTA does not believe the First Amendment compels the MTA to open up its ad spaces in this way to a wide range of expressive communications. MTA could, for example, adopt a narrower commercially oriented ad policy, one that limited the range of ads it will display to those selling a product or service, and by doing so, avoid having to run demeaning or divisive ads such as the AFDI ad that resulted in litigation. But the MTA for decades has permitted its ad spaces to serve a broader communicative function than mere commercial advertising, and the Board, today reaffirms that tradition of tolerating a wide spectrum of types of ads, including ads that express views on a wide range of public matters.

With that choice also come First Amendment limitations that constrain the MTA’s ability to disallow particular ads because their messages are uncivil or divisive. We had thought this did not mean having to run divisive ads that demeaned others, but the recent litigation tells us otherwise. A cost of opening our ad space to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public concern is that we cannot readily close that space to certain advertisements on account of their expression of divisive or even venomous messages.

The company also took to Twitter on Thursday as well to announce the changes, writing: “We’ve revised our ad guidelines. Ads expressing political, religious or moral views will carry disclaimer: MTA doesn’t endorse this message.”



“This is a paid advertisement sponsored by [Sponsor]. The display of this advertisement does not imply MTA’s endorsement of any views expressed,” the disclaimer that must be placed on political, religious or morality-themed ads will read.

While NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg supported the MTA’s decision, he also spoke out about free speech, claiming that all sides deserve to have their ads viewed on the subway and other related platforms.

“Sometimes, people put up ads you don’t agree with,” he said. “But if you want to be able to put up yours, you’ve got to let them put up theirs. And on balance, this country seems to have gotten that right.”

In NYC, a place that is overwhelmingly left-of-center, one wonders what the litmus test for offensive messaging will be — and whether the regulations, specifically the ban (if it is happening as some have reported), will be applied across the board. Considering all of the furor surrounding “Innocence of Muslims,” an anti-Islam film and blasphemy in general, these amendments come at a curious time.