The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the D.C. Metro Transit Authority on its own behalf, along with PETA, abortion provider Carafem… and Milo Yiannopoulos?
To be more specific, Yiannopoulos’ company Milo Worldwide.
The lawsuit charges that the D.C. Metro Transit Authority’s refusal to display what it deems to be controversial ads violates the First Amendment rights of advertisers, the Independent Journal Review reported.
“In its zeal to not host offensive speech, the government has eliminated speech that makes us think, including the First Amendment itself,” ACLU National said on Twitter.
Among the ads rejected included an ACLU campaign displaying First Amendment quotes in English, Spanish, and Arabic, a PETA ad encouraging riders to “Go Vegan” and a promo for a Yiannopoulos book that featured his face, along with the caption, “the most hated man on the internet.”
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority amended its guidelines in 2015, a change prompted in large part by controversial ads from Pam Geller, the outspoken critic of Islamic extremism, IJR noted.
WMATA Manager of Media Relations Sherri Ly told IJR the agency will “vigorously defend its commercial advertising guidelines,
“In 2015, WMATA’s Board of Directors changed its advertising forum to a nonpublic forum and adopted commercial advertising guidelines that prohibit issue-oriented ads, including political, religious and advocacy ads,” Ly said.
Changes the ACLU is now challenging.
“After many years of accepting advertisements on a wide range of topics, WMATA now seeks to sanitize its advertising spaces from messages that might give offense,” the organization stated on its website.
Isn’t that the intended goal of the left, to not be offended?
The inclusion of Yiannopoulos in the legal action drew an interesting response from an ACLU lawyer, Chase Strangio, who tweeted a personal statement “on today’s ACLU lawsuit defending that horrible person.”
“Though his ability to speak is protected by the First Amendment, I don’t believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle,” Strangio said in his long dissertation.
Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist answered the social justice warrior with an epic reply: “We know, cupcake. We know.”
Here are a few responses to Strangio’s remarks from Twitter:
So basically: I believe in free speech. I don’t think Milo’s actions are criminal. But he should be forcibly silenced because waahh! Got it.
— Lady Liberty (@LadyLibrty) August 10, 2017
“I don’t believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases.” You are saying that you don’t have principles
— Curtis Williams (@ca11mebucknasty) August 9, 2017
— FreeSpeech (@LibertasLogos) August 10, 2017
Don’t worry, he said “Views are my own.” That’s like cootie-protection in the SJW realm.
— Sheepdog5931 (@sheepdog5931) August 10, 2017
If you don’t believe in protecting free speech on principle, even speech or speakers you hate, why do work for the @ACLU?
— Matthew Kendrick (@Sun_Xiao_Hu) August 10, 2017
The people who don’t have a favorite caliber are going to be sad at how placing principles second to power works out for them. @instapundit
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) August 10, 2017
This guy would rather defend someone who killed an entire family in cold blood than Milo. First rule of Law: Check your ethics at the door
— SummerShine (@SilverSummerSun) August 10, 2017
Seems rather — unprincipled.
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” —Chomsky
— rdunham98 (@rdunham98) August 10, 2017
Latest posts by Tom Tillison (see all)
- Tlaib tells Mnuchin he better seek out different legal advice in condescending exchange - May 22, 2019
- Don Jr. nabs book deal, quickly gets title suggestions trending online - May 22, 2019
- Julianna Margulies admits she’s ‘gone insane’ with Trump dreams and how she’s curbing the problem - May 22, 2019