Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway

Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

stellauk -> Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/20/2012 2:19:45 PM)
quote: Anti-Jihad Adverts To Run In New York Subway The head of a group that has won its fight to run controversial adverts in New York subway stations referring to some Muslims as "savage" has told Sky News that she will fight "to the death" for the right to offend people. Pamela Geller runs the American Freedom Defence Initiative (AFDI), which has taken out ads that read: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad." The posters are due to appear in 10 New York City subway stations next week. They were initially rejected by the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) because of the use of demeaning language. But in July a Manhattan court judge ruled this was a violation of the first amendment rights of the AFDI and they should be allowed to run. Ms Geller told Sky News that she was unconcerned the adverts might make the subway network a target for violence. She said: "Were there similar ads on the London buses and trains on 7/7? You know there weren't. "I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages. "I won't take responsibility for other people being violent. "I live in America and in America we have the first amendment." Ms Geller, who is a prominent supporter of Israel, stressed that she was not referring to all Muslims as savages, only those who engaged in what she characterises as "Jihad". She believes that America is under threat from some Muslims who wish to impose Sharia law on the country, and her group has launched similar campaigns before. The release of the adverts coincides with widespread anger in parts of the Middle East over an anti-Muslim film made in the US and released on the internet. Next week heads of state from all over the world will be converging on the city amid heightened security for the UN General Assembly. The Washington DC MTA has deferred the placement of the controversial ads "out of concern for public safety, given current world events". But New York MTA Transportation spokesman Aaron Donovan said: "Our hands are tied." There had been some suggestions that the city's transit body was trying to find a way to stop the adverts appearing. However, another spokesperson for the MTA told Sky News it appeared the ads are definitely going ahead, although he was unable to say on which day, and at which subway stations. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, told Sky News: "Our basic position is that the first amendment means that everyone is free to be a bigot or even an idiot like Pamela Geller. "We wish she wasn't provoking and inciting hatred, but in America that's her right. "We encourage Muslims to exercise the same right to publicly denounce such adverts. "The real danger is the spread of hatred in our society, which can lead to attacks on innocent people." source: Sky News/Yahoo! http://uk.news.yahoo.com/anti-muslim-adverts-run-york-subway-002414884.html;_ylt=AlR5Yo85DABplyQ1kusqXUb5fcl_;_ylu=X3oDMTQxZThnNHRtBG1pdANNb3N0UG9wdWxhciBMaXN0aW5nBHBrZwMwZjNhZTcyMi1iZGU4LTM5NGYtODU4NS1iZjNiMTNjOThiNGMEcG9zAzIxBHNlYwNNb3N0IFBvcHVsYXIEdmVyAzViNDdjYWIwLTAzMWUtMTFlMi05YWZiLTM3MzY0YmFlZGJmNA--;_ylg=X3oDMTF1Z3VvOWdlBGludGwDZ2IEbGFuZwNlbi1nYgRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lfG1vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3 This is what happens when you get people who are just too stupid to understand the basic concept of rights. They think they have the right to everything. So okay, you might be against the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism and abhor acts of terrorism and violence, but surely this doesn't have to mean that you must support Israeli militia going in to pulverise Palestine to dust and rubble. I mean let's face it, there's just as many savage and barbaric religious wackjobs in Israel as there are anywhere else in the Middle East. Another thing is, this 'right to offend' comes at the expense of a person's or corporate body's right to control what is written and displayed on its walls. So while superficially it upholds this constitutional right to freedom of expression it does so at the expense of the equal right to enjoy one's possessions. If a court can dictate what must be carried on walls then it can also probably dictate what must be printed in newspapers. However it seems that neither Ms. Geller nor her backers have thought of that, have they?

kdsub -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/20/2012 3:24:34 PM)
I wonder if the subway is a public owned or privately owned? If private I would think they would have the right not to run the advertisements. But neither here nor there they have been approved...although maybe it is time to take this kind of hate and incitement of violence to a higher court. I see nothing wrong with advertisements supporting Israel in their fight, right or wrong, but to purposely insult and incite violence, to me, is wrong even if allowed under the Constitution. Butch

Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/20/2012 4:17:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I wonder if the subway is a public owned or privately owned? If private I would think they would have the right not to run the advertisements. But neither here nor there they have been approved...although maybe it is time to take this kind of hate and incitement of violence to a higher court. I see nothing wrong with advertisements supporting Israel in their fight, right or wrong, but to purposely insult and incite violence, to me, is wrong even if allowed under the Constitution. Butch Agreed.......... I suspect the Muslims travelling on the same trains wont be impressed by these insulting ads from that shit Geller. This is what I was on about regards free speech and hate speech. A simple ad asking for support for Israel would have been better received. Stella, as much as I cant stand Geller, Islamophobe that she is, I dont see the ad asking for anyone to be pulverised. It was Ironic to see her claiming the right to free speech, when she accussed anyone of calling her an Islamaphobe of committing slander.

kdsub -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/20/2012 7:29:36 PM)
The below was in the Yahoo article and should take care of the problem. Butch While the ad will start its run across the city subway system on Monday, the MTA is expected to discuss changing its standards at a board meeting later this month. The MTA could ban all non-commercial ads from the subway system so as to avoid having to run controversial issue-based ads in the future, he said. "The MTA board may consider revising those regulations at its meeting next week in executive session," Donovan said.

stellauk -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 7:33:44 AM)
quote: I see nothing wrong with advertisements supporting Israel in their fight, right or wrong, but to purposely insult and incite violence, to me, is wrong even if allowed under the Constitution. Agreed. quote: Stella, as much as I cant stand Geller, Islamophobe that she is, I dont see the ad asking for anyone to be pulverised. No, the 'pulverised' bit is my spin on this, nothing to do with Geller. I'm opposed to all acts of hatred, terrorism, and violence, irrespective of whatever cause or religion is involved. We're equipped with brains and tongues and there's such items of furniture known as tables.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 7:59:37 AM)
I wonder how often Pam Geller has to ride the NYC subway system? I find it interesting that she is completely unapologetic about any violence that may occur as a result of this. I guess innocent working people, of whatever background, who have no other way to get to their jobs but on the subway are legitimate victims in her mind. How very sad. I do support the First Amendment, but I agree with the sentiments expressed here that simply because we have certain rights, doesn't mean that there isn't a time and a place for certain speech. Surely, her group has numerous other ways to get their message out than to have to put these ads in subway cars? I am at a loss to even understand how such ads even promote their cause? Seems like money spent just to be hateful - but without consideration as to whether it actually furthers the legitimate political debate. Geller's group is labeled as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I put this in the same category as the WBC protests. No way to legally stop them, but incredibly upsetting and annoying. Manhattan is a primary target for Islamic terrorism. This has been true at least since 1993 if not earlier. I was recently at the WTC Memorial. Is this really the best way for Pam Geller and her group to promote their cause? Oddly, if anything, I think (hope?) it will make more Americans turn against her group. I was happy to see many Jewish groups come out to speak out against these ads. This type of hatefulness is not going to solve the problems of the Middle East or the problem of global terrorism.

Kana -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 8:07:26 AM)
quote: If a court can dictate what must be carried on walls then it can also probably dictate what must be printed in newspapers. Actually, its the MTA trying to decide what can/cannot be posted on walls. The court is saying that they don't have the right to make said decisions, that all political speech is sacrosanct and that once allowing any, the MTA has to be equal about it. And frankly, maybe this is just me and all, but isn't it a little insane letting a bunch of lost in the stone ages neanderthal jihadist murderers dictate what free speech (You know, our first and most precious liberty) we can and cannot use? Fuck them. Nobody goes apeshit and storms embassies when Jihadi's freaking decapitate people (With the approval of many imams, tacit or implied through lack of preventative action), but it's OK for them to kill if someone draws a cartoon of the Prophet or makes a movie that's done in bad taste? If they wanna go nuts, that's on them (With their paid protestors and planned violence) It's time they grow the fuck up and get out of the dark ages. And it's way past time we let a bunch of folk thousands of miles away determine what we can and cannot say/draw/make movies about. You are right about one thing-this is about free speech. It is about something important-standing up for what's right. And it's about not being held captive to the desires and cultural relativism of some primitives who need to get with the fucking program and join the rest of the world in growing the fuck up. Ya know how you really deal with this shit? Have every newspaper, every internet site, every writer/drawer/filmmaker in the free world do a cartoon of Mohammed every fucking day. Let these wingnuts know they can't dictate policy/speech through fear mongering and threats (Islam-it's a peaceful religion. Agree with us about this or we'll kill you). Swamp the fuckers in satire and comedy until they have too many targets ever to even begin making threats. Bury em in a wave of cultural imperialism. But grow some fucking cojones and act for crying out loud. Notes that France (France of all people) just grew a pair and banned any protests on their territory. Germany has followed suit

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 10:04:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kana Notes that France (France of all people) just grew a pair and banned any protests on their territory. Germany has followed suit Isn't this banning free speech??? I'm confused by your post. Are you in favor of free speech or against it? The last I checked, a political protest is exactly the kind of speech that the concept of free speech is supposed to protect. Or are you saying France and Germany have the right to restrict some forms of speech but not others. Why is it pro-free speech to ban a peaceful protest???

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 10:28:34 AM)
FR This is an interesting article on the ad that suggests other ways the ad could be used to create "us" vs "them" scenarios using race, sexual orientation, etc. I think it helps put into perspective how ludicrous these ads are. Again, still protected speech, but not all protected speech is helpful dialogue. Again, WBC comes to mind. They won the right to picket at funerals, but most decent people I know think that those protests are ludicrous. I say the same about the ads. Protected? Yes. Ludicrous? Yes. http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/09/anti-jihad-ads-in-new-york-subway/

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 10:57:42 AM)
FR I've been reading more about Pam Geller today. Seriously crazy person. It is so unfortunate that today's political dialogue seems to all run around extremists from both sides. She and her organization actually cooperate with neo-Nazi groups in Europe. I'm trying to figure that one out. So after these groups have eliminated Islam, are Geller and her co-horts going to subscribe to anti-Semitic neo-Nazi ideology? How does that work exactly? [&:] For anyone who is interested in more on Geller. The extremists on both sides are going to succeed in destroying those of us in the middle if we are not careful. One of the reasons to support free speech is so that this kind of ludicrousness sees the light of day, and is out in the open, rather than pushing it underground, hidden from view. It helps all of us keep track of the nut cases a little bit better. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 11:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub The below was in the Yahoo article and should take care of the problem. Butch While the ad will start its run across the city subway system on Monday, the MTA is expected to discuss changing its standards at a board meeting later this month. The MTA could ban all non-commercial ads from the subway system so as to avoid having to run controversial issue-based ads in the future, he said. "The MTA board may consider revising those regulations at its meeting next week in executive session," Donovan said. A New Yorker in my office who worked for the state made an inquiry with her uncle who works somewhere in the front office for the MTA. And she said How it works is that the MTA actually just sells the space to about a dozen Ad Agencies and they are the only ones actually overseeing content issues. She said they are going to change that in the wake of this incident and one where <ahem> a porn site advertising hook-ups as their main product put up some pretty saucy ads right in the cars.[:-]

GotSteel -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 1:45:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk This is what happens when you get people who are just too stupid to understand the basic concept of rights. They think they have the right to everything. Um, I think you're the one failing to comprehend the basic concept of rights. The First Amendment from a practical standpoint really just applies to offensive speech. When it comes to speech that doesn't bother anyone you don't need a law to get to say it. If it doesn't bother anyone then no one will bother stopping you. Being pro-first amendment is taking the position that people should have the right to say offensive things. quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk Another thing is, this 'right to offend' comes at the expense of a person's or corporate body's right to control what is written and displayed on its walls. So while superficially it upholds this constitutional right to freedom of expression it does so at the expense of the equal right to enjoy one's possessions. If a court can dictate what must be carried on walls then it can also probably dictate what must be printed in newspapers. However it seems that neither Ms. Geller nor her backers have thought of that, have they? Nope, you should perhaps stop commenting on the cognitive capability of others when you have failed to recognize the difference between public and private. For instance, if there's a nativity scene in front of my town hall I get to put up a Flying Spaghetti Monster next to it. If you put up a nativity scene in your yard I do not get to put up a Flying Spaghetti Monster next to it. The two things simply are not equivalent. quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk I mean let's face it, there's just as many savage and barbaric religious wackjobs in Israel as there are anywhere else in the Middle East. Let's see the statistics? I don't know where you're getting your numbers, I don't even know how you would be able to make the calculations necessary to support a claim like that... quote: "I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages. "I won't take responsibility for other people being violent. "I live in America and in America we have the first amendment." While I disagree with her reasoning as to the safety of others, I do agree with these three statements.

Kana -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:26:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Kana Notes that France (France of all people) just grew a pair and banned any protests on their territory. Germany has followed suit Isn't this banning free speech??? I'm confused by your post. Are you in favor of free speech or against it? The last I checked, a political protest is exactly the kind of speech that the concept of free speech is supposed to protect. Or are you saying France and Germany have the right to restrict some forms of speech but not others. Why is it pro-free speech to ban a peaceful protest??? Since when is stringing up an ambassador a sign of a "peaceful protest." Or invading embassies (Which, BTW is a straight up act of war and has been one since Pre Roman times. Shit, this stuff is among the oldest laws in humanity, even older than maritime law). And it ain't like that's a unique situation. Jihidists are storming embassies worldwide. There ain't nothing peaceful here. It's a bunch of children upset they ain't getting their way and throwing tantrums. That's for one. For two, these freaking protestors ain't protestors-they are paid to be there. And they ain't peaceful. Yeah, I'm pro free speech, but ya also can't incite folk to riot or shout fire in a crowded theater...which is exactly what these so called protestors are doing. These are trained, paid professional demonstrators and rioters And three, France and especially Germany have very different rules re free speech than the US. For instance in Germany they have strict laws re pro Nazi stuff as a result of their WW 2 experiences. France also has much less free speech than we do. So no, in these countries, free speech isn't considered an inalienable right like it is in the US Fourth, why ain't they at work like the rest of us? Oh yeah, that's right. They don't have jobs. Why? Despite living on the greatest depository of wealth in the history of the world, despite being the recipients of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history post 72 oil crisis, take out Israel and oil and the entire mid east has less exports than freaking Ikea. They could have built an economy. They could have built an infrastructure for the future...you know, for when the oil runs out. Or they could spend their cash on palaces and Roll Royces, race horses and hookers, and Madrassas that teach hate and idiocy and funnel money to terrorists and fund murderous hate groups. Cause Islam, you know, it's about peace. It's about being nice to your neighbor. And killing anyone who disagrees. [image]local://upfiles/346456/4E1FBA475E734B008CA2FEED9D0A15B3.jpg[/image]

Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:32:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Kana Notes that France (France of all people) just grew a pair and banned any protests on their territory. Germany has followed suit Isn't this banning free speech??? I'm confused by your post. Are you in favor of free speech or against it? The last I checked, a political protest is exactly the kind of speech that the concept of free speech is supposed to protect. Or are you saying France and Germany have the right to restrict some forms of speech but not others. Why is it pro-free speech to ban a peaceful protest??? FTP.....or can I just call you Princess.....lol Good post, this is one of those you can only have free speech we approve of momments.

Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:35:50 PM)
Kana......"Invading embassies has been an act of war since pre Roman times" Do you really wish to pursue this bullshit ?

Kana -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:37:29 PM)
One more because it fits so well [image]local://upfiles/346456/0937F53FF5D44E4392EBE64F433F8806.gif[/image]

Kana -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:38:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Kana......"Invading embassies has been an act of war since pre Roman times" Do you really wish to pursue this bullshit ? Okok-I should have said killing ambassadors...

Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kana quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Kana......"Invading embassies has been an act of war since pre Roman times" Do you really wish to pursue this bullshit ? Okok-I should have said killing ambassadors... Whoosh.....That went way over your head..........

Kana -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:51:12 PM)
Then illuminate instead of spouting profanity my man... Expound on your argument. Show me when and where it hasn't been considered an act of aggression to kill an appointed ambassador. And while your at it, if you think my comments lack substance, go at them. Don't quibble bout minor points...

Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Jihad adverts to run in New York subway (9/21/2012 5:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kana Then illuminate instead of spouting profanity my man... Expound on your argument. Show me when and where it hasn't been considered an act of aggression to kill an appointed ambassador. And while your at it, if you think my comments lack substance, go at them. Don't quibble bout minor points... firstly I havent spouted any profanity at you.......at least not yet. I save that for the real idiots. But since you ask for substance....you suggested this had happened since pre Roman times, ambassadors is only really an idea from the 1500s in Italy. Post Roman times irony dont ya think ?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875