Anti-Muslim ad to appear in NYC subways

[Quesi]

... Does this mean that you wish advertisements you personally find offensive to be made illegal?

Quesi was quite clear on this point.  That's why she made sure to distinguish "offensive" and "dangerous".

Her posts certainly do appear less reasonable when one doesn't do the courtesy of reading them.

Why thank you.  I do feel like I'm answering the same questions over and over. 

But it is such a huge issue, and one that I spend a great deal of time thinking about and acting on, both in my personal life, and in my professional life.  I'm certainly happy to continue elaborating. 

@12Monkeys - AZ is a great example.  Right now, as they are testing the waters on the implementation of their new "show me your papers" law, I would not feel safe traveling in the state with my daughter.  Although she has a US passport, the paper trail leading up to that passport is complicated.  At 5 1/2 years old, she has had three different names.  The name on her (Guatemalan) birth certificate is not the same as the name on US passport, and one needs to wade through a thick stack of adoption papers and court documents to get from one to the other.  It might be confusing enough to the officials to take her into temporary custody while it all got sorted out, and that kind of trauma to her is a risk I would not be willing to take. 

Ironically, unlike the issue raised in the op, the danger in this case is not from some isolated hate mongers who might be incited to commit acts of violence.  The danger[1] comes from law enforcement. 

1.

In this case, it is danger.  My daughter, like many adopted children, suffers from a "fear of abandonment" which causes her a disproportionate amount of stress, and contributes to her sleep disorders.  If she were forcibly taken away from me, even for a couple of hours, we might risk years of work towards building her sense of security and improving her ability to sleep more than a few consecutive hours.

[Anfauglir]

General question - at what point does "offensive" become "dangerous"?

[Star Stuff]

I was hoping Pat would on this.

[Anfauglir]

Case in point.  The cartoons of Mohammed have led to rioting and deaths.  So they were dangerous?  So they should have been legally prevented from being published?

I don't think so. 

[shnozzola]

I was hoping Pat would chime in on this.

Star stuff, your video shows exactly what is wrong with this debate, IMO.  As long as muslims persist in violence from these perceived offenses, and then the west ramps things up with NY subway signs, we can expect escalation to continue -  until when?  Do we “turn the desert to glass" to prove we are right?  Do muslims plan a better than 9/11 attack to prove they are right?  Maybe we should all just start WW III and be done with it – just to prove we are right.

Even though mentioned in many religions, it is a wisdom of life that works – though not used enough – and that is unlimited forgiveness.   Inviting a muslim family to your house for supper and asking how the kids are doing in school works a lot better than telling them we think they are savages.

[Quesi]

In my opinion, the media portrayal of the recent protests around the Muslim world have been a caricature of a more complex reality.   Same with the Mohammed drawings. 

If you genuinely believe that all of these wild angry protests are happening simply because someone made a youtube video, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that the Muslim world is at the very least comprised of some very irrational people.  And if these irrational protestors are representative of all Muslims, then perhaps they are “savages.” 

But this video did not come out in a vacuum.  It came out in the context of a lot of violence directed towards countries with a Muslim majority.  A lot of Muslims are somewhat unhappy about the number of drones being dropped on their homelands and disrupting their weddings and grocery shopping trips and killing their family members and destroying their homes and community infrastructure.  Others are not delighted with the occupation of their nations by foreign forces.  And still others are watching leaders all over the Muslim world being unseated and usually ending up dead, sometimes with the direct assistance of foreign troops, and sometimes just with foreign supplied weapons that were provided to minor opposition groups. 

And you know, most of the recently dead Muslim leaders were pretty bad guys.  But if Romney gets elected president, (and I think he is a pretty bad guy) and Iran comes over and has him assassinated, I’m going to be angrier with Iran than with Romney.  So imagine how the many millions of residents of governments that have been overthrown by the US feel?  And the residents of countries who think they might be next on the list.  And the residents of countries with drones dropping.  And the residents of countries being occupied by US troops.  And the residents of countries in which some not so covert actions are taking place. 

In the meantime, we can wax poetic about the Arab spring, but quite a few of the countries who ended up with a vacuum of leadership are watching rival factions struggle for control.  And those factions like to take to the streets and get some visibility.  And protests against some abstract video that is offensive to a huge percentage of the population is a pretty safe way to both get attention and public support. 

And then there are the Palestinians. 

Here is a really good article on the topic.  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/hidden-causes-of-the-muslim-protests/262440/ 

On an unrelated topic, I’ve heard some rather credible reports that cite the numbers of protesters marking the one year anniversary of the Occupy Movement as exceeding the  number of youtube video protesters.  Which set of protests got more press?  And why? 

[3sigma]

However in this case, I believe that it is a policy issue, rather than a legislative issue, and as such, would fall under the realm of the executive branch (as represented by the gubernatorial appointees on the MTA Board).  Timo, who clearly knows much more about law than I do, can correct me if I am wrong here. 

I am assuming that you understand the difference between policies and legislation. 

So may I restate your question to read:  Do you think that the MTA should write a policy that would prohibit inflammatory advertisements (like this one) from being posted on Mass Transit?  And if so, how would you word that policy?

If you are ok with that rewording, I would certainly be happy to attempt to address it.

The problem with this is that it is moot. From the news article in your OP, it appears that the MTA already has a policy against running such advertisements, which is why they initially rejected it. However, they were challenged in court under the First Amendment and now they are legally bound to run the advertisement so having a policy against it hasn’t worked in this case and probably won’t work in future cases.

From your reluctance to answer my questions, it would appear that you don’t want to see laws passed prohibiting such advertisements so what would you do about them and how would you decide when to take that action? Personally, I ignore them.

[3sigma]

Quesi was quite clear on this point.  That's why she made sure to distinguish "offensive" and "dangerous".

Quesi has also stated more than once that the distinction is subjective, which renders it somewhat less than clear. Quesi has said that she thinks this particular advertisement is offensive and potentially dangerous. I’m not faulting her for thinking that, but it did raise questions in my mind about what should be done with such examples of speech and the criteria for making that decision. So far, it seems the only proposed solution is to ban them one way or another and the only criterion we have for banning something is that a number of people find it personally offensive and think others may react to it with violence. My own solution is to ignore such bigotry.

[3sigma]

If it were a white supremacists ad calling for the end of immigration and the shipping out of all non-white "immigrants" by any means necessary I am sure you would not only be offended but would demand its removal,no?

I would think the people creating such an advertisement were bigoted and extreme, but I wouldn’t demand its removal—I would simply ignore its calls. I also doubt any demand to remove it would succeed in court as we have seen in the case in the OP.

States like Arizona were already ramping up to rid their state of "immigrants" with their ridiculous laws.....would white supremacists ads be ok there?

It wouldn’t matter where such an advertisement appears, my position would be the same. I would ignore it. What would you do?

[12 Monkeys]

If it were a white supremacists ad calling for the end of immigration and the shipping out of all non-white "immigrants" by any means necessary I am sure you would not only be offended but would demand its removal,no?

I would think the people creating such an advertisement were bigoted and extreme, but I wouldn’t demand its removal—I would simply ignore its calls. I also doubt any demand to remove it would succeed in court as we have seen in the case in the OP.

States like Arizona were already ramping up to rid their state of "immigrants" with their ridiculous laws.....would white supremacists ads be ok there?

 



It wouldn’t matter where such an advertisement appears, my position would be the same. I would ignore it. What would you do?

I take it you are Caucasian,and such ads would not bother you because you are not in a group affected by such racist garbage?

[Quesi]

Sigma, it is not a reluctance to answer your questions.  I’m actually having a problem with the lack of precision in your questions.

However, I am grateful to you for giving me the push to actually look up the ruling and get a better understanding of the situation.  And it is a fascinating study of bureaucratic screw ups. 

I am delighted to report that the first amendment issue being questioned by the judge had NOTHING to do with the “right” of a client to post offensive ads on the subway.  In fact the problem had to do with the fact that the existing MTA policy against demeaning language was too specific.  It lists the specific groups that can’t be discriminated against in MTA ads.  The judge ruled that this was the first amendment violation. 

http://transportationnation.org/2012/09/19/court-rules-that-ny-mta-must-run-anti-jihad-ad/
The ruling reads:

In the July 20 Decision, the Court held that the MTA’s no-demeaning standard violates the First Amendment, because, as presently written, it is explicitly content-based:  The standard proscribes some, but not all, demeaning ads, depending whether the individual or group demeaned by a particular ad falls into one of the “specific disfavored” categories  (eg race, nationality, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation) identified in the standard.

Think of it this way.  The current wording of the MTA policy prohibits ads that are demeaning to homosexuals, but does not prohibit ads that are demeaning to red heads.  So the judge told the MTA they either had to change the policy, so that it prohibits ads that are demeaning to EVERYONE, or they had to put up the anti-Palestinian ad. 

The judge actually encouraged the MTA to come up with a policy that would prohibit ads that were demeaning to anyone.

In court, the judge also asked why the agency had not put in place a stopgap measure for its advertising guidelines, like one that would “simply ban demeaning speech across the board.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/nyregion/mta-urged-to-act-faster-in-advertising-case.html

The judge gave the MTA 30 days to either reword their existing policy, or hang up the ads.  But the 30 day period fell during the August break, during which the MTA does not hold a meeting, so they were unable to change the wording of their policy.  And, apparently, they didn’t take the issue seriously enough to call an emergency meeting.   

The MTA screwed up.  But it is clearly within their rights to prohibit demeaning ads.

So Sigma, do you still want me to write a draft of some imaginary legislation on this topic?  Or are you satisfied? 

[Quesi]

Now that the "freedom of speech" question has been put to rest, does anyone care to chat about the Israeli/ Palestinian issues? 

[screwtape]

Now that the "freedom of speech" question has been put to rest, does anyone care to chat about the Israeli/ Palestinian issues?

pretty simple:
Cut all aid to israel. 
If they try to bomb iran, shoot them out of the sky.

Other than that I have no inclination to argue with pro-zionist dickweeds.  Because they tend to have rocks for brains. "But, but the palestinians started it..."  Fuck you, they didn't.  Did you know the Irgun was jewish verision of al qaeda?  Yep.  In the beginning of the 20th century, they were blowing up hotels and killing cops in... British Palestine. 

Feh.  I don't want to talk about it.

[3sigma]

I take it you are Caucasian,and such ads would not bother you because you are not in a group affected by such racist garbage?

Yes, I am Caucasian. The white supremacist advertisements you described are not attacking me so I can ignore them based on those grounds. The advertisements are also a dog whistle to certain portions of my demographic group and I ignore them because of that as well. I don’t wish to be associated with racists or bigots. I try to respect every individual until their behaviour indicates otherwise.

However, if Christians ran advertisements like these I would ignore them as well and I wouldn’t demand they take them down even though they are attacking or demeaning my minority group (atheists).

[3sigma]

So Sigma, do you still want me to write a draft of some imaginary legislation on this topic?  Or are you satisfied?

No, I don’t want you to draft some imaginary legislation. However, am I correct in thinking you would still like to see such advertisements banned—if not through legislation then through policy? If so, then isn’t that still a general freedom of speech issue? All you’ve done is shift the restriction on speech from legislation to policy. Second, how would you word a policy that bans the advertisement in your OP? What criteria would you use to determine when to ban something? Would you ban anything that a certain number of people personally find offensive and think others may react violently to it?

Now that the "freedom of speech" question has been put to rest, does anyone care to chat about the Israeli/ Palestinian issues?

I think these issues are rooted in religious differences and, as such, will never be solved.

[Azdgari]

3Sigma, do you consider this forum's policy against trolling to be a freedom of speech issue?

[3sigma]

3Sigma, do you consider this forum's policy against trolling to be a freedom of speech issue?

In the strictest sense, yes, though one so trivial it isn’t worth fighting over. Freedom of speech issues cover a range of topics and levels of importance.

As people have already noted, inciting people to violence is illegal and not excused by freedom of speech claims. Some speech is considered libellous in some countries yet free speech in others. Are you arguing that banning advertisements because some people don’t like them couldn’t restrict freedom of speech?

[Bereft_of_Faith]

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”
It concludes with the words, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” wedged between two Stars of David

The first statement itself is perfectly fine.   Now for the second:  Defeat Jihad is not defeat Islam, defeat Muslims or any such thing.  It is defeat the holy war.  Therefore, it's not hate speech.  It is not advocating the taking of life, or the destruction of either a people or a nation.  It is instead, asking us to consider our civilization, and stand against the violence that the concept of jihad, as embraced by terrorists, is perpetrating against civilization.

However, more can be (and is, here) inferred because the ad's jewish leanings are clearly displayed, so, it is reasonable for the many readers to interpret the statement as inflammatory.

The good news is that the ad's jewish leanings have been clearly displayed.  Speech has been uttered, and everyone knows who has done the talking.  Therefore, we can consider the source and process the content as we see fit.

The reason we have free speech is not to make sure every crank and crackpot gets equal time... it is to bring about discussion, debate and critique.  Let those who dislike the advert exercise their own rights of free speech.  The public will (hopefully) come to a conclusion regarding the merits of the statement while considering its source.

[Quesi]

However, am I correct in thinking you would still like to see such advertisements banned—if not through legislation then through policy?

Sigma-
I really am at a loss here.  I don’t feel that you’ve shown me the courtesy of having read anything I’ve written. 

I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I do not support the display of these ads in the subway.  I’m actually delighted that the MTA has an advertising standard that is even higher than the standards that I previously stated.  It is the MTA’s intention to block not only dangerous ads, but also demeaning ads.  They may have screwed up on the specific language in their policy, but their intentions are clear.  And the judge supports the MTA’s intentions to prohibit the display of “demeaning’ ads.  The court just wants to ensure they are not protecting some groups, while leaving other groups vulnerable. 

There are also many other circumstances in which I agree with judicial interpretations of the First Amendment.  I don’t want the principal of my daughter’s school to get on the PA and lead a prayer to Jesus Christ or Allah or Ishtar.  I don’t want al qaeda members standing on my street corner encouraging my neighbors to hop on the E train and go burn down the Empire State Building. 

I am vehemently opposed to a display of the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse, because they are not the law of the land and we do not live in a theocracy.  However, unlike (I imagine) many members here, I’m not particularly concerned about a statue of Jesus hidden along a ski slope in a national park.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/in-montana-jesus-statue-is-focus-of-legal-battle.html 

And I certainly support the right of public facilities to create policies restricting certain types of paid advertising from appearing in public space.  I would hope that they create effective and appropriate policies.  I don’t think it would be good idea to have Anheuser Busch putting up beer ads in a junior high school gym, and I don’t think it would be a good idea to have a company that sells healing crystals put up ads in a public hospital emergency room. 

Is this answer sufficient?

If so, then isn’t that still a general freedom of speech issue? 

Umm.  The courts don’t think so.  And neither do I. 

All you’ve done is shift the restriction on speech from legislation to policy. 

No.  I am not “shifting” any “restrictions.”  I am describing how government works. 

Second, how would you word a policy that bans the advertisement in your OP?

***Deep breath.***  Ok.  I’m really flattered that you want me to try my hand at drafting legal language.  Again, it would be so much easier to answer your questions if you showed me the courtesy of reading my previous responses to your questions.  But let’s start again. 

The court has found that the language that the MTA lawyers wrote (I think in 1993, but I could be wrong) was not adequate to provide equal protection to everyone.  If you read the section of the judge’s statement, which I quoted, you will see that the judge said that by listing “specific disfavored” categories, the policy failed to protect other categories of people who could be harmed.  The judge suggested that the MTA change its policy to put in place a stopgap measure for its advertising guidelines, like one that would “simply ban demeaning speech across the board.”

In this case, I really agree with the judge’s ruling that the MTA policy, as currently written, does not provide enough protection.  The MTA screwed up by not holding an unscheduled August meeting to amend the wording of this policy. 

What criteria would you use to determine when to ban something? Would you ban anything that a certain number of people personally find offensive and think others may react violently to it?

I really am going to ask you to show me the courtesy of reading my previous posts on this topic.  As I have previously stated, different criteria would apply in different circumstances.  I would not object to being asked to bow my head in prayer if I were attending my cousin’s church wedding, because I knew when I walked into the church that churches engage in prayer.  I would strongly object to my daughter being asked to bow her head in prayer in her public school classroom because different standards apply in public spaces. 

I find myself agreeing with the vast majority of judicial interpretations of the First Amendment that currently stand.  If you are unfamiliar with existing restrictions on free speech, in the US, Wikipedia may help.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

I'm not going to list every lower court decision in the history of the US and explain why I agree (or in some cases, disagree) with their decisions.  If you have a specific case you would like to ask me about, I would be happy to offer my opinion. 

So let me ask you a question.  Do you believe in absolutely no restrictions on freedom of speech?  Do you believe that the courts are violating your rights by any of the existing restrictions? 

edited for formatting

[3sigma]

I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I do not support the display of these ads in the subway.

Okay, you think the advertisement in your OP should be banned. I then asked how you would word a policy that bans that particular advertisement.

Ok.  I’m really flattered that you want me to try my hand at drafting legal language.  Again, it would be so much easier to answer your questions if you showed me the courtesy of reading my previous responses to your questions.  But let’s start again. 

…The judge suggested that the MTA change its policy to put in place a stopgap measure for its advertising guidelines, like one that would “simply ban demeaning speech across the board.”

In this case, I really agree with the judge’s ruling that the MTA policy, as currently written, does not provide enough protection.  The MTA screwed up by not holding an unscheduled August meeting to amend the wording of this policy.

Okay, you appear to be saying that you would include wording to the effect that “demeaning speech is banned”. I consider that to be rather broad and open to interpretation, which is why I asked the next question about what criteria you would use to determine when to ban something.

I really am going to ask you to show me the courtesy of reading my previous posts on this topic.  As I have previously stated, different criteria would apply in different circumstances…

[examples of different situations, but not the one in the OP]

I have been following your conversation in this thread and you’ve made several comments that could be interpreted as criteria for banning the advertisement in the OP. First, here is the advertisement again.

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad

You described the advertisement as hate speech here and again here and here. Mr. Blackwell asked you what was hateful about the advertisement and you said here the Palestinians were being portrayed as savages, but that isn’t quite what the advertisement says unless you consider all Palestinians to be Mujahideen. Personally, I think describing this particular advertisement as hate speech is a little strong. You also said in that last comment that it was offensive. I presumed you meant offensive to Palestinians.

In a later post, your response to HAL implies that you think this advertisement promotes violence against a disenfranchised minority. I thought you meant the Palestinians, but then you said that the government has an obligation to protect the welfare and safety of its citizens, which suggests you mean U.S. citizens rather than Palestinians (unless you mean Palestinians who are U.S. citizens). You repeat that here again implying that Palestinians ride the NYC subway and that this advertisement would inspire violence against them.

Then you start saying the advertisement is offensive to you and dangerous or potentially dangerous. I wasn’t sure whether you meant dangerous to you or to the Palestinians riding the subway.

Please read the advertisement again. You have described it as hate speech, portraying Palestinians as savages, offensive, dangerous and promoting violence against Palestinians riding the subway. I think you are overreacting and your criteria are highly subjective, but I guess we’ll see in a few weeks how many Palestinians riding the subway are assaulted or killed.

So let me ask you a question.  Do you believe in absolutely no restrictions on freedom of speech?  Do you believe that the courts are violating your rights by any of the existing restrictions?

No, I don’t think there should be absolutely no restrictions on the freedom of speech, but I think you are overreacting in this particular case. No, I don’t think the courts are violating my rights—in any way at all, actually. At least, none come to mind at the moment.

[12 Monkeys]

I take it you are Caucasian,and such ads would not bother you because you are not in a group affected by such racist garbage?

Yes, I am Caucasian. The white supremacist advertisements you described are not attacking me so I can ignore them based on those grounds. The advertisements are also a dog whistle to certain portions of my demographic group and I ignore them because of that as well. I don't wish to be associated with racists or bigots. I try to respect every individual until their behaviour indicates otherwise.

However, if Christians ran advertisements like these I would ignore them as well and I wouldn't demand they take them down even though they are attacking or demeaning my minority group (atheists).

Don't spew this crap.....An ethnicity is not something you can just scrub off to become Caucasian and unlike a religious choice it is out there for everybody to see and stereotypes can make judgments easy.

 Attacking a persons religious choice is NOT the same as stereotyping a group of people of a different ethnic background and singling them out for attack.   If and when the Caucasians become a minority (soon enough) and are singled out for extermination.... then we will see.

 Yes these two factions are of different religions and are of similar ethnicity.....but the Jews are targeting a people and taking over their LAND.....but of course you may be OK with it since your forfathers did it to us in North America (I am Aboriginal)

[12 Monkeys]

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”
It concludes with the words, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” wedged between two Stars of David

The first statement itself is perfectly fine.   Now for the second:  Defeat Jihad is not defeat Islam, defeat Muslims or any such thing.  It is defeat the holy war.  Therefore, it's not hate speech.  It is not advocating the taking of life, or the destruction of either a people or a nation.  It is instead, asking us to consider our civilization, and stand against the violence that the concept of jihad, as embraced by terrorists, is perpetrating against civilization.

However, more can be (and is, here) inferred because the ad's jewish leanings are clearly displayed, so, it is reasonable for the many readers to interpret the statement as inflammatory.

The good news is that the ad's jewish leanings have been clearly displayed.  Speech has been uttered, and everyone knows who has done the talking.  Therefore, we can consider the source and process the content as we see fit.

The reason we have free speech is not to make sure every crank and crackpot gets equal time... it is to bring about discussion, debate and critique.  Let those who dislike the advert exercise their own rights of free speech.  The public will (hopefully) come to a conclusion regarding the merits of the statement while considering its source.

Just how do you figure the Jewish nation is being civilized?.....going house to house to rid neighborhoods of people so you can bulldoz down their houses  and build your own houses is hardly civilized.

 If you know Vancouver BC you know Stanley park....there were Indian villages in the park and surrounding areas.....in the early 1900's(maybe late 1800's) they drove bulldozers into what is now Stanley park and destroyed the houses there to make said park.....hardly the act of the civilized,more a savage act would you agree?

[Mr. Blackwell]

@12 Monkeys

How predictable 

Of course YOU would take the side of the Palestinians...you come from a long line of filthy savages. 

Jeeze

Why did we ever teach you guys how to read and write? Just shut up and remember your place.

I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

Just leave the heavy thinking to the master race.

[3sigma]

Attacking a persons religious choice is NOT the same as stereotyping a group of people of a different ethnic background and singling them out for attack.   If and when the Caucasians become a minority (soon enough) and are singled out for extermination.... then we will see.

Yes these two factions are of different religions and are of similar ethnicity.....but the Jews are targeting a people and taking over their LAND.....but of course you may be OK with it since your forfathers did it to us in North America (I am Aboriginal)

As I said, I try not to stereotype people. I am not singling out a group of people for attack. I am not calling for Palestinians, Native Americans or anyone else to be singled out for extermination. However, here you seem to be stereotyping Caucasians as behaving that way and calling for their extermination. Is this a Poe?

[Quesi]

You know Sigma, there are few things I enjoy talking about more than issues of race and ethnicity and class and social and economic marginalization and oppression, and policies that impact on social and economic justice. 

But I’m finding responding to your questions to be really tedious.  Your most recent post seems to indicate that you were not even aware of the fact that there were Palestinian Americans until this morning?  You seem to be completely unaware of the exponential increase in (reported) hate crimes against Muslims (and people perceived to be Muslims) in the US in the period following 9/11, which continues 11 years later,   And I’m guessing you don’t know a whole lot about the plight of Palestinians, both in Israel and abroad, or about the way the larger Muslim world views the displacement of the Palestinian people. 

So I thought I would share some resources with you. 

A Palestinian-American (Israeli) provides a glimpse of his reality.   
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html

A New York based Palestinian organization’s website.  I don’t know them, and haven’t worked with them, but the points on their homepage might be of interest to you. 
http://al-awdany.org/about-al-awda/

An article about the relationship between hate speech and hate crimes. 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/the-rise-of-hate-crimes-can-be-tied-directly-to-hateful-speech.html

I haven’t seen this documentary yet, but I’ve heard about it.  As Palestinians are being evicted from a Jerusalem neighborhood to make way for Jewish settlers, members of the local Jewish community organize protests against the evictions.   Here is the trailer.



I think a lot of folks don’t realize how divided Israelis are on the topic of the settlements.  Israel is a home to many refugees.  But as folks arrive in Israel to escape oppression, they find themselves displacing the people whose ancestors lived there for thousands of years. 

Here is a little piece from Wikipedia. 

A July 2009 survey of Israeli public opinion found that people were about evenly divided on the issue of new settlement construction, with 46 percent of those polled in support of further construction and 44 percent opposed.[223]

On 19 June 2011, Haaretz reported that the Israeli cabinet voted to revoke Defense Minister Ehud Barak's authority to veto new settlement construction in the West Bank, by transferring this authority from the Agriculture Ministry, headed by Barak ally Orit Noked, to the Prime Minister's office.[224]

In 2009, Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "I have no intention of building new settlements in the West Bank... But like all the governments there have been until now, I will have to meet the needs of natural growth in the population. I will not be able to choke the settlements."[225] On 15 October 2009, he said the settlement row with the United States had been resolved.[226]

In March 2012, it was revealed that the Civil Administration, a unit of the IDF, has over the years covertly earmarked 10% of the West Bank for further settlement.[227]

0n 7 June 2012, Netanyahu has ordered the construction of 300 new homes in Beit El in the West Bank. He has also authorised the move of five apartment buildings to Beit El from the nearby outpost Ulpana, where they are to be removed by 1 July 2012, after the supreme court ruled that they were built on private Palestinian land.[228] According to Al Jazeera, an additional 550 new homes are to be built elsewhere in the West Bank.[229]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#New_settlement_construction

[Azdgari]

In the strictest sense, yes, though one so trivial it isn’t worth fighting over. Freedom of speech issues cover a range of topics and levels of importance.

So it is more important, to you, to be able to post public ads calling all Palestinians savages than to be able to troll this forum.  Interesting set of priorities, in terms of which is better or worse to be able to do.

As people have already noted, inciting people to violence is illegal and not excused by freedom of speech claims.

You mean like telling people to go to war with the savages?

Some speech is considered libellous in some countries yet free speech in others. Are you arguing that banning advertisements because some people don’t like them couldn’t restrict freedom of speech?

No.  I'm saying that freedom of speech is restricted in all sorts of cases, and that it's something best decided on a case-by-case basis.

[3sigma]

Your most recent post seems to indicate that you were not even aware of the fact that there were Palestinian Americans until this morning?  You seem to be completely unaware of the exponential increase in (reported) hate crimes against Muslims (and people perceived to be Muslims) in the US in the period following 9/11, which continues 11 years later,   And I’m guessing you don’t know a whole lot about the plight of Palestinians, both in Israel and abroad, or about the way the larger Muslim world views the displacement of the Palestinian people.

Yes I am aware that there are Palestinians living in the U.S. and presumably many other countries around the world. Yes I am aware that attacks against Muslims in the U.S. increased after 9/11. And yes I am aware of the plight of Palestinians and the aggression of the Israelis.

My question is where do we draw the line on what is or isn’t hate speech. You apparently see the advertisement in your OP as hate speech promoting violence against Palestinians (and presumably anyone who may look Palestinian). I think that position is a little extreme in this particular case. You call for the advertisement to be banned. I’m wondering where the banning ends. Right now, we have the Prime Minister of Pakistan calling for the UN to make blasphemy a crime globally. Is that the sort of thing you want to see?

[3sigma]

So it is more important, to you, to be able to post public ads calling all Palestinians savages than to be able to troll this forum.  Interesting set of priorities, in terms of which is better or worse to be able to do.

The advertisement in question states: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad”. Do you consider all Palestinians to be Mujahideen?

I'm saying that freedom of speech is restricted in all sorts of cases, and that it's something best decided on a case-by-case basis.

I’m wondering where the restriction ends.

[Brakeman]

I'm saying that freedom of speech is restricted in all sorts of cases, and that it's something best decided on a case-by-case basis.

I’m wondering where the restriction ends.

Just like the christians that can't fathom why someone might have a problem with a prayer at a ballgame, some can't grasp the idea that the freedom of speach that can't say anything shocking, virulent, or arousing, isn't freedom at all. In the "scream fire in a theater" example, the issue is immediate danger and truth. First, if the theater is on fire, then of course you can scream fire, it's not fraudulent then. Secondly, if you separate the immediate danger, you can again scream away, such as announcing to the audience beforehand that you are to scream fire sufficiently so that all are aware of the event beforehand.

If the anti-islam poster were instead about a fictional people or a sports team, the words would not offend.

Personally, as a True Atheist, TM, I look forward to the day that the jews are wiped off the map. Not by force or hate, but by reasoning that their identity is based on silly superstition and myth and that they themselves drop the designation and join the rest of mankind in reasoned sanity and brotherhood.

The Palestinians have been greatly wronged, but it is their religion's PR that keeps them from gaining the support that they need to be compensated. Again, atheism could cure this too.