Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is this truly a safety concern?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&
Isn't that an anti-blasphemy law in everything but name?

Here's the ad in question:


Is it really that provocative?

This has nothing to do with blasphemy.

This sign calls the people of the nations that oppose Israel "savages." It seems pretty clear to me that this is just hateful language.

Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.

 Manchu wrote:
This has nothing to do with blasphemy.

This sign calls the people of the nations that oppose Israel "savages." It seems pretty clear to me that this is just hateful language.

Right... the MTA initially turned that down because it was "demeaning"...

But, then the group (funding the ads) took them to federal court and the court told MTA they could NOT refuse it... which to me is kinda weird in that if MTA was a private company, then they could reasonably deny this ad.

So once the ads went up, various pro-Islam (or, more likely, anti-Semitic) actors began defacing the ads and calling for their removal. So the MTA decided they could limit speech that it "reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace."

Hence my "anti-blasphemy" angle here...

*note: I really don't believe MTA are doing that... they're just doing this to "keep the peace" more than anything. But, isn't it a slippery slope?

 Manchu wrote:
This has nothing to do with blasphemy.

This sign calls the people of the nations that oppose Israel "savages." It seems pretty clear to me that this is just hateful language.

Respectfully.....NO.

The connection to be made is that JIHAD is uncivilized and therefore should be defeated. It does not however say that opponents of Israel are uncivilized.


GG

p.s. I am not a supporter of the sign....or it's message. Because not all JIHAD is violent.

You're still not really getting to blasphemy.

Also, I would call for these signs to be removed myself. Whether or not one can characterize entire nations as "savage" in some sense that is not merely hateful aside, this seems like a stupid idea not just because it might possibly lead to some actual violence but mostly because it is tantamount to moral pollution. For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position. If everyone is free to yell offensive hate speech at the top of their longs, for example, then many will not be free to have serious, calm, and constructive discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
The connection to be made is that JIHAD is uncivilized and therefore should be defeated. It does not however say that opponents of Israel are uncivilized.

It explicitly juxtaposes "civilized men" against "savages" not "violent ideas."

 Manchu wrote:
You're still not really getting to blasphemy.

True... but in light of recent events (The Innocence of Muslims trailer)... I think folks are getting hyper-aware of this issue.

Also, I would call for these signs to be removed myself.

You're free to ask...

Whether or not one can characterize entire nations as "savage" in some sense that is not merely hateful aside, this seems like a stupid idea not just because it might possibly lead to some actual violence but mostly because it is tantamount to moral pollution.

??? It's not equating savages to other nations, but to those who practice jihad. Heck, there are moderate muslims who consider that practice barbaric/savage.

For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position.

In a way... it has to.

If everyone is free to yell offensive hate speech at the top of their longs, for example, then many will not be free to have serious, calm, and constructive discussion.

True, as a society (you and me, not Uncle Sam) can counter it, ostracize the group or just ignore it.

I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".

I don't see a blasphemy angle though.

 whembly wrote:
You're free to ask...

Yeah, that's kind of my point but I'm afraid I don't understand yours.

whembly wrote:

For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position.

In a way... it has to.

I disagree. As I mentioned, I think this absolutist view of "hypothetical" free speech is actually harmful to the ability to exercise actual free speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".

"Jihad" is not a person. "Jihad" cannot in English be called "the Savage." You're bending over backwards to fail at reading the message on this sign.

“Have the courage of your convictions,” she said, “even if the judge imposed it.”

Love this quote.

Is it blasphemey? No. Could it be construed as offensive? Yes. Should it be taken down? Is it a private company or public one? If it's public than no, if it's private it should be up to them.

Anyone claiming this is a free speech issue is an idiot. You have a right to say whatever you want*, but you do NOT have the right to be granted a platform to publish your speech. Nobody is restricting freedom of speech here, they're simply declining to assist in publishing something they disagree with. The people with those posters are entirely free to print as many of them as they like (if they can find someone willing to do business with them) and post them anywhere that the property owner chooses to allow.


*Subject to certain very narrow restrictions, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".

I don't see a blasphemy angle though.

The blasphemy angle has nothing to do with the ad really... it's the idea that MTA now can refuse an ad based on potential outrage.

Why is it that I think that this will only apply to something that criticizes Islam? Oh, that's right, because it's only Muslims who burst into flames when their religion is "mocked." This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (who sponsored the ads) will probably take the MTA back to court. They are attempting to impart to a graphical ad the same power to cause imminent harm as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".

"Jihad" is not a person. "Jihad" cannot in English be called "the Savage." You're bending over backwards to fail at reading the message on this sign.

It's a concept. Surely we're familiar with the "war on terrorism", yes? How is this different?

The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.

So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.

Now, if the MTA were at all smart, they would document the vandalism rates, and argue that they are choosing to remove the ads to prevent destruction of public property, not because of the content of the ad.

 Ouze wrote:
Surely we're familiar with the "war on terrorism", yes? How is this different?

The phrase "war on terrorism" is extremely problematic for similar reasons especially when that collection of conflicts is mistaken for supporting Israel or vice versa.

 Polonius wrote:
The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.

So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.

Now, if the MTA were at all smart, they would document the vandalism rates, and argue that they are choosing to remove the ads to prevent destruction of public property, not because of the content of the ad.

That's the way to do it!

 Ouze wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".

"Jihad" is not a person. "Jihad" cannot in English be called "the Savage." You're bending over backwards to fail at reading the message on this sign.

It's a concept. Surely we're familiar with the "war on terrorism", yes? How is this different?

I don't doubt that this is good old fashioned Islamophobia, but there is a narrower issue here. Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, has the destruction of Israel as part of it's charter. There is an attempt at Jihad (the retaking of all of Palestine), which I'm guessing is the root of the issue.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You're free to ask...

Yeah, that's kind of my point but I'm afraid I don't understand yours.

whembly wrote:

For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position.

In a way... it has to.

I disagree. As I mentioned, I think this absolutist view of "hypothetical" free speech is actually harmful to the ability to exercise actual free speech.

Would you consider someone burning the American Flag an "absoute expression of free speech"? (I do...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".

"Jihad" is not a person. "Jihad" cannot in English be called "the Savage." You're bending over backwards to fail at reading the message on this sign.

It's a concept. Surely we're familiar with the "war on terrorism", yes? How is this different?

I don't doubt that this is good old fashioned Islamophobia, but there is a narrower issue here. Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, has the destruction of Israel as part of it's charter. There is an attempt at Jihad (the retaking of all of Palestine), which I'm guessing is the root of the issue.

It's the "Right of Return" thing... which would destroy Israel... hence it's a non-starter issue with Isreal in any peace negotiations.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.

The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the fundamentalist parties?

 Polonius wrote:
The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.

So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.

Except that's not what they're doing. They're not preventing anyone from standing there holding a sign with that message, or speaking about it, or whatever. They're simply declining to conduct business with a group that they feel is more trouble than it's worth.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.

The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the ultrazionist parties?

Wait... wut?

o.O

They have parties?

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.

The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the ultrazionist parties?

Wait... wut?

o.O

They have parties?

As a functioning democracy, yes. Israel has a lot of political parties. I didn't mean ultrazionist though, I'm failing to recall the broader name of the fundamentalist jewish movement in Israel (and abroad). They're also the party continually pushing for the removal of women from the Israeli military.

:edit:

It was ultra-orthodox or Haredi Judaism.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.

The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the ultrazionist parties?

Wait... wut?

o.O

They have parties?

As a functioning democracy, yes. Israel has a lot of political parties. I didn't mean ultrazionist though, I'm failing to recall the broader name of the fundamentalist jewish movement in Israel (and abroad). They're also the party continually pushing for the removal of women from the Israeli military.

misunderstood you...

The Knesset? (wild arse guess...)

Well, I hope I didn't come off as agreeing with the sign, in my posts.

For one, it presumes Israel is the civilized party. There has been an awful lot of disproportion in their use of force that makes that kinda hard to swallow. And, of course, ir presumes all Jihad is violent, and/or undesirable, when there are ample examples of both peaceful Jihad, and desirable Jihad.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.

So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.

Except that's not what they're doing. They're not preventing anyone from standing there holding a sign with that message, or speaking about it, or whatever. They're simply declining to conduct business with a group that they feel is more trouble than it's worth.

Doesn't matter. The Heckler's Veto and all that. There are times a public enterprise is like a business, and there are times it's like the State. This is one of them.

Is the MTA even allowed to express foreign nationalist political views that are attempting to sway presidential and state elections in America? It seems like that would be treason in some form or another.

For one, it presumes Israel is the civilized party. There has been an awful lot of disproportion in their use of force that makes that kinda hard to swallow. And, of course, ir presumes all Jihad is violent, and/or undesirable, when there are ample examples of both peaceful Jihad, and desirable Jihad.

Neither of which are really used by Jihadis against Israel.

The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the fundamentalist parties?

Both I would presume, and woah dude woah. Even the Palestinian I know doesn't about Israel in that kind of way.

And by the way which groups would those be, the ones who are murdering their citizens or the ones who call for their erasure from the earth?

Or the smelly bearded ones?

 Polonius wrote:
Doesn't matter. The Heckler's Veto and all that. There are times a public enterprise is like a business, and there are times it's like the State. This is one of them.

Except the heckler's veto involves the government restricting free speech. No such restriction is happening here. You have a right to free speech, not a right to have the government assist you in speaking, and that right is not being limited at all.

Neither of which are really used by Jihadis against Israel.

Y'know, except the regular mass protests they have every week or so. But lets not let reality get in the way a defense of Israel, that always spoils it.

Both I would presume, and woah dude woah. Even the Palestinian I know doesn't about Israel in that kind of way.

Does the Palestinian you know live in Palestine?

And by the way which groups would those be, the ones who are murdering their citizens or the ones who call for their erasure from the earth?

Or the smelly bearded ones?

Huh?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Doesn't matter. The Heckler's Veto and all that. There are times a public enterprise is like a business, and there are times it's like the State. This is one of them.

Except the heckler's veto involves the government restricting free speech. No such restriction is happening here. You have a right to free speech, not a right to have the government assist you in speaking, and that right is not being limited at all.

Unless the government is offering a forum. In this case, advertising space to the highest bidder. Which it is.

Also, keep in mind that political speech of any sort is the most protected speech possible.