This “heckler’s veto” seems to be nothing more than an unconstitutional, government-endorsed restriction on the freedom of speech. The rights of the acting party (in this case, the person/people who chose to display the controversial subway ads) should in no way be limited or curtailed as a result of the behavior of the reacting party (in this case, an Islamist vandal). In such cases, it should be the reacting party who is made to accept the consequences of their own actions. For example, let’s say that during a political speech, demonstrators and protestors who oppose the speaking candidate begin to get out of hand. It makes much more sense that the demonstrators and protestors be kept under control rather than requiring the speaker to terminate his/her speech due to the reactions of spectators.
However, this solution brings about another issue: How far can we go in limiting the reacting party’s actions without violating their freedom of speech?
I would consider this unconstitutional. Who gets to decide what is controversial and further, what is "too controversial" for the ads? Jehovah's witnesses do not celebrate birthdays and many people do not celebrate Christmas, so does that make birthday or christmas themed ads too controversial for the subway? This reminds me of being in elementary school and everyone getting their recess privileges revoked because one child couldn't behave. I am sure that NYC has it's own best interests at heart - harmony and peace among it's people, especially in such a high-traffic and very frequently used public space, but this seems to be an open ended law that will do more harm than good. This seems to be treating the symptom instead of the problem and providing the positive reinforcement for our citizens to behave childishly to get what the want. Someone is always going to be offended, no matter how un-offensive something may seem - this is human nature. I don't know what the answer is - perhaps a better solution would be to beef-up security efforts on the subway to prevent vandalism.
Someone will always be offended, no matter what the circumstances, there will always be that one. I was focused more on the whole arrest scene that occurred. The officer did not inform her of why she was being arrested, just that she must have been doing something wrong. Eltahawy clearly asked why she was being arrested, and the officer just thinks of it as a joke to himself, by saying "For, for what?" In a questioning and condescending manner to Eltahawy, who was merely questioning to why she was being arrested. From a practicable stand point though, sometimes officers do not inform the citizen of the reason to why they are being arrested. That reporter (or whatever she is), Pamela, was just an annoyance to me, she could have just stood next to the sign instead of moving voluntarily in front of the spray paint. There were other options for her to have taken, but instead she wanted to stand there and be spray painted while Eltahawy asked for her to move in the first place. The whole idea of freedom of speech seems to be a bit unlimited on where it can begin and where it can end, it seems to be doing more harm than good at the moment.
This “heckler’s veto” seems to be nothing more than an unconstitutional, government-endorsed restriction on the freedom of speech. The rights of the acting party (in this case, the person/people who chose to display the controversial subway ads) should in no way be limited or curtailed as a result of the behavior of the reacting party (in this case, an Islamist vandal). In such cases, it should be the reacting party who is made to accept the consequences of their own actions. For example, let’s say that during a political speech, demonstrators and protestors who oppose the speaking candidate begin to get out of hand. It makes much more sense that the demonstrators and protestors be kept under control rather than requiring the speaker to terminate his/her speech due to the reactions of spectators.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this solution brings about another issue: How far can we go in limiting the reacting party’s actions without violating their freedom of speech?
I would consider this unconstitutional. Who gets to decide what is controversial and further, what is "too controversial" for the ads? Jehovah's witnesses do not celebrate birthdays and many people do not celebrate Christmas, so does that make birthday or christmas themed ads too controversial for the subway? This reminds me of being in elementary school and everyone getting their recess privileges revoked because one child couldn't behave. I am sure that NYC has it's own best interests at heart - harmony and peace among it's people, especially in such a high-traffic and very frequently used public space, but this seems to be an open ended law that will do more harm than good. This seems to be treating the symptom instead of the problem and providing the positive reinforcement for our citizens to behave childishly to get what the want. Someone is always going to be offended, no matter how un-offensive something may seem - this is human nature. I don't know what the answer is - perhaps a better solution would be to beef-up security efforts on the subway to prevent vandalism.
ReplyDeleteSomeone will always be offended, no matter what the circumstances, there will always be that one. I was focused more on the whole arrest scene that occurred. The officer did not inform her of why she was being arrested, just that she must have been doing something wrong. Eltahawy clearly asked why she was being arrested, and the officer just thinks of it as a joke to himself, by saying "For, for what?" In a questioning and condescending manner to Eltahawy, who was merely questioning to why she was being arrested. From a practicable stand point though, sometimes officers do not inform the citizen of the reason to why they are being arrested. That reporter (or whatever she is), Pamela, was just an annoyance to me, she could have just stood next to the sign instead of moving voluntarily in front of the spray paint. There were other options for her to have taken, but instead she wanted to stand there and be spray painted while Eltahawy asked for her to move in the first place. The whole idea of freedom of speech seems to be a bit unlimited on where it can begin and where it can end, it seems to be doing more harm than good at the moment.
ReplyDelete