This week, an ad submitted by a group opposed to the construction of a mosque and Islamic center put the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (M.T.A.) into hot water. The ad includes a photo of the World Trade Center on 9/11, with one tower aflame. The headline asks, “Why There?” as an arrow points to the potential mosque.
According to The New York Times, the M.T.A.’s advertising firm initially rejected the ad, requesting a change in the Twin Towers image. On Monday, however, authorities caved, and allowed the ad to run in its original form. Next week, the ad is expected to appear on over 20 city buses.
The M.T.A. authorities allow transit officials to reject ads considered “obscene, deceptive, or directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the M.T.A,” according to rules adopted in 1997.
In recent years, many racy ads have been a source of conflict for the transit system, most notably a Georgi vodka ad featuring a swimsuit model.
“We do the best we can within our guidelines, with the understanding that in a lot of cases, we’ll have to put up ads that we may or may not agree with,” said Jeremy Soffin, the authority’s chief spokesman.
This particular ad, however, is different from a debate over the decentness of a model’s outerwear. Does the anti-Islam message cross the line?
When M.T.A. officials originally requested the alterations to the ad, the ad’s sponsor, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and its leader, right-wing blogger Pamela Geller, asserted that her right to free speech had been infringed.
Yet, was the company’s right to free speech really in play?
Would an anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, or anti-handicapped ad be allowed to run?
When is it right for our moral compass trump our political rights?
Is this ad different than any of the many “anti-ads” just listed because it’s anti-Islam? Does that detail exempt it from tugging at our conscience?
No comments:
Post a Comment