Israel Has Destroyed

Analysis / Interpretation / Press


The Supreme Court has almost never permitted the suppression of controversial political speech by the government (or a quasi-governmental agency like the MTA.) Recognizing that its ban of the Hamas ad would never survive the courts’ “strict scrutiny”—which requires a compelling governmental interest and the narrowest possible restriction to free expression—the MTA caved to the demands of political correctness. They thought it better to suppress all political speech than to be accused of being insensitive to Muslim extremists.

Nadine Strossen, a highly regarded professor of Constitutional law at New York Law School (and the former head of the ACLU) said, “The MTA said that ads expressing provocative political ideas create a ‘danger.’ Under the First Amendment, though, the real danger is the government treating ‘We the People’ like children who need to be ‘protected’ from ideas it views as dangerous.”

The MTA’s actions are just another perilous step down the slope to banning any speech that tends toward controversy.

The AFDI should force the issue, the judge should uphold the principles of the First Amendment, and the MTA should stop trying to be the speech police.