MTA wrong on political ads

To the editor:

Let’s talk about the first amendment’s right to “Freedom of Speech.” A right that is almost absolute except for instances that fall under the category of “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” Words that might result in injury or death.

Other than that one exception, words, articles, cartoons and so-called “works of art” that may offend individuals or groups of people (as “hateful” as they may be to those offended) do not fall into that category and are thus permitted under our Constitution. Free speech, whether you like it or not, means the right to be “hateful.”

In 1988, “The Satanic Verses” written by Salman Rushdie was published in the United Kingdom, causing him to be accused of blasphemy against Islam and for Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to issue a fatwa, or contract,  ordering Muslims to kill him. Numerous killings, attempted killings and bombings resulted from Muslim anger over the novel. This paper, The Riverdale Press, was all but destroyed by firebombs following the publication of an editorial defending the right to read the novel and criticizing the bookstores that pulled it from their shelves.

In the years since 1988, there have been many other instances where Muslims have accused cartoonists and artists of “blasphemy” and murdered them. The last such instances that I recall being the assassinations of cartoonists in Denmark a few years ago, the massacre of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo publication earlier this year in Paris, France, and most recently the shootings in Garland, Texas, where fortunately only the perpetrators were killed.

Currently, here in New York, there is an ongoing legal battle over the banning by the MTA of a proposed anti-Muslim ad campaign by a pro-Israel group. Prominent Riverdale attorney Charles Moerdler, who is a board member of the MTA, made the following statement supporting the ban: “Hateful speech with its odious appeal to intolerance is the incendiary that ignites violence.”