tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post1310434213083416767..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Freedom of Speech on Public Transit AdvertisementsBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-47946144778175051382015-07-10T08:06:20.477-04:002015-07-10T08:06:20.477-04:00Transit advertisement is basically advertisement ...<a href="http://www.myhoardings.com/taxi-ads/" rel="nofollow">Transit advertisement </a> is basically advertisement that is placed on anything which moves, like <a href="http://blog.themediabazaar.com/taxi-advertising-transit-ads-themediabazaar/" rel="nofollow">Taxi Advertising</a> , subway advertise, Auto Ads, and buses, but also includes fixed static and Digital advertising at <a href="http://www.themediabazaar.in/" rel="nofollow">train and bus stop and platforms</a> .<br /><a href="http://www.myhoardings.com/auto-rickshaw-advertising/" rel="nofollow">Auto advertising </a> is great at reaching targeted customers, business people and tourists.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15621007804293354471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-41490831975340609112015-03-18T14:20:17.801-04:002015-03-18T14:20:17.801-04:00In this case I agree with Ana and against the auth...In this case I agree with Ana and against the author. As the case is that this advertising is all over public transportation, I think that the government has a secular interest in prohibiting such messages from being conveyed. It is not that that I do not believe these people are entitled to their opinion or that they can not openly speak it, but I do not think that such opinions have a place on public transportation which thousands of people will be seeing every day. The government has a right to be able to block such ads from being promoted, much like they would likely block a KKK ad from being campaigned. Everyone has a right to free speech but public property should not be the conveyor of such controversial topics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14535845048302145245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-47612975536570579632015-03-18T09:16:07.112-04:002015-03-18T09:16:07.112-04:00I agree with Liz in thinking that the court made t...I agree with Liz in thinking that the court made the correct decision. America prides itself on the fact that its citizens have the freedom to believe in whatever they want as well as the freedom of speech. Since the state government announced that it did not support these advertisements, there is no reason why the government should get involved in regulating the legitimacy and the effect of the advertisements. People have different opinions and beliefs throughout the country and everyone deserves the right to say what they believe as long as the government is not supporting their statements. Kristen B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01050909421957777411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-81009978923683767172015-03-18T06:49:26.614-04:002015-03-18T06:49:26.614-04:00I agree with Ana on this one. There is a compellin...I agree with Ana on this one. There is a compelling state interest to not post these advertisements. It could stir anti-Muslim sentiments, which is already a problem in this country. Additionally, if the portion about hating Jews in the Quran is not true that could be considered slander--which is not protected by Freedom of Speech, as it would damage the reputation of a whole religion.Tommy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14268443852314596568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-3921398444240374952015-03-18T02:51:49.359-04:002015-03-18T02:51:49.359-04:00I disagree with the author’s argument. Though we a...I disagree with the author’s argument. Though we are guaranteed freedom of speech by our constitution, every right has a limit. In this case, there is a limit to the type of speech allowed. How different would this be if a group like the Ku Klux Klan decided to write racist statements on public transportation? There is no constitutional guarantee that every individual will be satisfied however, I believe that there is a compelling state interest to prevent this type of hateful speech. I would be less opposed to this if this group decided to put their message in private property. First and foremost, the job of this country is to protect its citizens from this kind of hateful and discriminatory actions. This usage of speech could be harmful to those who identify with the characteristics listed in the advertisements. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12984148246452489864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-85685398253234210262015-03-17T21:06:37.681-04:002015-03-17T21:06:37.681-04:00I agree with Liz and the Court that AFDI's adv...I agree with Liz and the Court that AFDI's advertisements are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. In response to Brian's comment, I would argue that it is the responsibility of the state to make it clear that they do not support these advertisements. If the state fears being associated with this speech outlet, they can distance themselves, but I do not think it is the responsibility of AFDI to make it clear that their belief is not supported by the state.Emily C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02943906827786205526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-76890141785275059772015-03-17T20:14:52.856-04:002015-03-17T20:14:52.856-04:00Like everyone before me, I agree that the AFDI has...Like everyone before me, I agree that the AFDI has the right to advertise their views. Even though I may not agree with them as SEPTA also does, that doesn't mean that they can just be denied the privileges and benefits that all other people receive from the transportation systems advertising. In my opinion the speech itself would have to be more harmful and malicious in order for SEPTA to have a legitimate reason for denial of service. If the AFDI were to be denied, it would be a violation of the first amendments Freedom of Speech Clause. Nate Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248975829834021544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-35816447917362814942015-03-17T19:48:44.830-04:002015-03-17T19:48:44.830-04:00I agree with Liz, the court, and the other comment...I agree with Liz, the court, and the other commentors on this post. I think Brian brought up a really good point in saying that there should be some sort of information stating that the advertisements were created and sponsored by AFDI and not by SEPTA. I believe that I would feel differently if SEPTA were a private entity, because then this situation would be more like the baker and the hate speech instance, where the baker and SEPTA could refuse to involve themselves.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11065065543773248730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-1446994251769520002015-03-17T19:14:17.433-04:002015-03-17T19:14:17.433-04:00The court decision in this case is a correct one. ...The court decision in this case is a correct one. Speech which seeks to aid a certain public interest, no matter how unpopular that interest is, should be protected under the 1st Amendment. These ads can be considered board-line hate speech. However, they do no harm to any one person or group of people. Instead they seek to provide a knowledge that an issue is out there. If these ads began to infringe on other’s rights, such as prompting violence in our society, than the line of protection of free speech under the 1st Amendment has been crossed. People do not need to support an issue but they must allow others to speak. Ben K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12662953386976324916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-11486047438396114052015-03-17T14:37:45.904-04:002015-03-17T14:37:45.904-04:00I agree that AFDI has the right to say these thing...I agree that AFDI has the right to say these things. However, it should have to be on their own forum and not on public transportation vehicles, especially because I see nothing that says AFDI on the poster. If I were to see that poster on a train I would assume it was posted by SEPTA or someone else representing the state because the government funds public transportation. I think the state would be indirectly inhibiting a religion but allowing these messages to be posted on public buses and trains.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-40710932334261627592015-03-17T13:21:26.757-04:002015-03-17T13:21:26.757-04:00I agree that this group has the right to post thes...I agree that this group has the right to post these messages because of the fact that SEPTA is a public facility. The message is definitely hurtful to some, but freedom of speech protects the right of the group to express their opinions using this method. Especially when considering that other controversial ideas have been posted before, I think AFDI has the right to say what they want, despite SEPTA not agreeing.Libby Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710061480560241013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-5208463523415111732015-03-17T11:35:45.636-04:002015-03-17T11:35:45.636-04:00I agree with both the court and Liz in this case. ...I agree with both the court and Liz in this case. I do not think that the group should be saying these things but I do think that they have the right to say them. The advertisements themselves, although they are discriminatory, should be allowed to be posted on the basis of freedom of speech. Because other politically motivated groups are allowed to post advertisements, this group should be allowed to as well, despite their message.Courtney W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16315571330181883561noreply@blogger.com