Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian born left leaning activist (she was on Melissa Harris-Perry's show some weeks back), spray-painted an subway ad that she found offense. She noted (see video on link) this was some act of "free speech," but local and state laws don't agree that graffiti on other person's property is protected speech. What if someone defaced a Planned Parenthood poster or something? Get a clue. “This is non-violent protest, see this America. I’m an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate.” Still is a problem. Vandalism on subways is not okay.
Orin Kerr used the incident to note that note there is no (officially recognized -- people repeatedly have demanded rights that eventually were officially recognized) right to be told at the time of arrest what you are being arrested for. He had to amend his post when it was noted that NY statutory law does provide some right to be so notified. So, even if she is wrong that as a "U.S. citizen" (really -- it was in a NYC subway station against an Egyptian born lefty -- why the idea they alone should get special rights here?!) she has a right to be notified, the person arrested in NY would. Citizen or not. She could have been shortly later, off camera, so this is all a matter of discussion really.
As comments noted, no, it is not really obvious what she is being arrested for. As news reports noted, "another woman tries to block her," who now is saying she will sue. Oh please. The woman has a tripod, references her by name and looks to be doing as much agitprop in the video as Mona Eltahawy did. Some articles make it sound like she was just some bystander -- people in NYC subways don't do things like that. So, ME could have been arrested for that or for breach of peace or specifically use of spray paint or something slightly different. Still, if it is obvious, it makes sense for the police, given the provision, to simply tell her. It's pretty easy to do so and saves time. Many a lawsuit is because of officials needlessly just making it difficult.
Why should this incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of peace over and above any other things considered protected speech? After all, even this was a non-violent protest. You are really just giving the people behind the poster attention, allowing them to claim to be victims or something, by doing this. ME made her point. Let her get fined or perhaps have to do some sort of community service. Move along.
Orin Kerr used the incident to note that note there is no (officially recognized -- people repeatedly have demanded rights that eventually were officially recognized) right to be told at the time of arrest what you are being arrested for. He had to amend his post when it was noted that NY statutory law does provide some right to be so notified. So, even if she is wrong that as a "U.S. citizen" (really -- it was in a NYC subway station against an Egyptian born lefty -- why the idea they alone should get special rights here?!) she has a right to be notified, the person arrested in NY would. Citizen or not. She could have been shortly later, off camera, so this is all a matter of discussion really.
As comments noted, no, it is not really obvious what she is being arrested for. As news reports noted, "another woman tries to block her," who now is saying she will sue. Oh please. The woman has a tripod, references her by name and looks to be doing as much agitprop in the video as Mona Eltahawy did. Some articles make it sound like she was just some bystander -- people in NYC subways don't do things like that. So, ME could have been arrested for that or for breach of peace or specifically use of spray paint or something slightly different. Still, if it is obvious, it makes sense for the police, given the provision, to simply tell her. It's pretty easy to do so and saves time. Many a lawsuit is because of officials needlessly just making it difficult.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for advertisements on Thursday, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”The article notes past problems in court with not accepting such ads. The vote here was 8-0, but that doesn't sound very convincing. Sounds pretty vague to me -- what sort of poster violates those terms? Why should there be some sort of hecklers veto to block some ad among various ads in the midst of the many hallways of subways or elsewhere? The ad is offensive but some ads are offensive. 1A and all that. Other than such things like obscenity or blocking whole categories of ads, content neutral, perhaps (a 1970s case allowed such a law regarding buses) might be okay. Anyhow, what does this rule really mean? The specific ad says: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
Why should this incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of peace over and above any other things considered protected speech? After all, even this was a non-violent protest. You are really just giving the people behind the poster attention, allowing them to claim to be victims or something, by doing this. ME made her point. Let her get fined or perhaps have to do some sort of community service. Move along.