Recently the New York City authority that governs its subways and buses voted 9-2 to ban political and issue advertising from its subways, buses platforms and walls. Calvin Klein ads are still OK, but the "What's YOUR Jihad?" advertisements that prompted the decision are no longer acceptable.
The mind typically boggles when this sort of thing is the topic, because there are two rather interesting elements to the discussion.
First, there is the function of the advertising on the transit system in the first place. Sure, it is to raise more revenue for the government, and I actually applaud the idea, although I'd rather the government simply sold the transit ad rights to the highest bidder (an ad agency) and got out of the business of non-governmental activities.
One could argue -- as the ACLU, of all groups, did -- that the transit advertising medium is, in its own way, a forum for public discourse, a sort of printed graffiti that should remain open to all range of thoughts. Now, when the ACLU and I actually agree on something, thunder should roll and lightning rend mountains asunder, but in this case it's a reasonable argument, since the transit authority chose not to outsource its advertising and relinquish control of its content.
Plus, how could you say goodbye to political posters like the ones I fondly recall from the mid-70s when I lived in Boston after med school. There, in every subway station was an election poster for a (then) young fellow named Lawrence Blacke, advertising, in large letters, "Bold New Blood." I didn't vote for him (or anyone else), I can't recall what he was running for (city council, perhaps), and he must not have won because today he is an attorney in much-warmer Fort Lauderdale. Still, 40 years later I remember the signs.
But I digress. That was one element of the discussion.
Second, of course, is what is the greater discussion, i.e., the perception in the minds of the left of some sort of right not to be offended. Clearly, that does not show in the old first ten amendments to the Constitution, because I actually checked.
Now, in fairness to constitutional scholars like the exalted one in the White House, we must give proper due to the Ninth Amendment, the one that states that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive, and that we might come up with some other nifty rights. However, outside of amending the Constitution to define them, which has not been done in, well, ever, the only way to add a right is through the proper disposition of a case through to the Supreme Court and their definition of it as a judicial outcome -- which, outside of the "right to privacy", hasn't really happened either.
So how, then, do we rationalize the obvious reasons for the transit authority's actions, which are clearly not about "Bold New Blood" signs, and absolutely are about "What's YOUR Jihad" signs?
We don't want Muslims to be offended. They apparently have a "right" not to be offended (a right not typically granted to offending Christians in Syria and Iraq, it should be pointed out). We don't have any legal rationale for such a "right", but it does feel good to the left, which still, led by that constitutional scholar in the White House, thinks it can make nice-nice with Islam and they won't fly jumbo jets into our buildings any more.
I don't know what the nine voters on the New York City transit authority had in mind.
After all, Pamela Geller, the pro-Israel activist who puts up the anti-Islam "What's YOUR Jihad" signs and holds "Draw a Cartoon of Mohammed" contests, has a right to put up signs on public forums like the New York City subways. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has the right to put up signs on the same subways explaining that ISIS is a bunch of misunderstood, happy warriors just out to have fun (and in fairness to the Shiite side, CAIR can also put some signs up defending Iran and featuring some jolly mullahs playing soccer in their robes and singing together).
If some are offended, look the other way and turn the other cheek, as my Savior instructed us. When indeed you look the other way, try to make sure that it is in the direction of the Bill of Rights, so that you can indeed see that there's nothing there providing you a right not to be offended.
Back in the '90s, many years after leaving Boston, I was up there on business and listening to sports talk radio while in my car. The Red Sox first baseman, Mo Vaughn, was being interviewed. In the course of the chat, the reporter mentioned the prevailing sentiment, the one where Boston was a racist town (the Red Sox were the last MLB team to integrate, though that had been 40 years earlier) and difficult for black sports figures there.
Vaughn, who grew up in Connecticut, the child of a principal and a school teacher, replied very candidly and I wish I recall the exact words. But if I may paraphrase, it was this: "You know, I've found that if you don't go out looking for racism, you find a lot less of it."
Mo Vaughn's words actually apply really well here. We do not have a right not to be offended, and we would be a whole lot happier if we stopped looking for reasons to be offended. I'm 64, and I've long since decided that it's fair game to kid me about my height (or lack of it), my grey hair, and my rather high voice (I get asked sometime on the phone if "my husband is home").
If you needle me about my faith, I will react mildly in defense, but I won't be offended -- what is "faith", after all, but the relationship we each develop with God in our own way. It is personal, and not subject to arguments of logic, or assaults from differing faiths. I will not be offended, nor will I claim the right not to be.
And neither should you, neither should Muslims, and neither should the American left.
Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."
No comments:
Post a Comment