The Free Speech and Its Repercussions Thread

Hobgoblin

Veritas veritatum
Joined
Feb 18, 2001
Messages
20,414
Reaction score
869
Points
88
This has been a major topic lately, after the Innocence of Muslims trailer was broadcast on YouTube, causing riots in the Middle East.

Now we have this advertisement in New York City, calling Jihadists "savages."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/20/anti-jihad-avage-ads-going-up-in-new-york-city-subway/

NEW YORK – A provocative ad that equates some Muslim radicals with savages is set to go up next week in the New York City subway system, just as violent protests in the Middle East are subsiding over an anti-Islamic film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad.

A conservative blogger who once headed a campaign against an Islamic center near the Sept. 11 terror attack site won a court order to post the ad in 10 subway stations on Monday. It reads, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."

The ad was plastered on San Francisco city buses in recent weeks -- prompting some artists to deface the ads and remove some of the words, including "Jihad." The blogger, Pamela Geller, said she filed suit Thursday in the nation's capital to post the ad in Washington's transit system, after officials declined to put up the ad in light of the uproar in the Middle East over the anti-Islam film.

Abdul Yasar, a New York subway rider who considers himself an observant Muslim, said Geller's ad was insensitive in an unsettling climate for Muslims.

"If you don't want to see what happened in Libya and Egypt after the video -- maybe not so strong here in America -- you shouldn't put this up," Yasar said.

But "if this is a free country, they have the right to do this," he said. "And then Muslims have the right to put up their own ad."

Geller, executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and publisher of a blog called Atlas Shrugs, called a New York judge's order allowing the ads "a victory for the First Amendment" and said she wasn't concerned that her ad could spark protests like the ones protesting the depiction of Muslims in the video "Innocence of Muslims." Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya.

"If it's not a film it's a cartoon, if it's not a cartoon it's a teddy bear," she said. "What are you going to do? Are you going to reward Islamic extremism? I will not sacrifice my freedom so as not to offend savages."

New York City police aren't anticipating adding any security to subways when the ads go up and have received no threats or reports of violence relating to them, chief spokesman Paul Browne said.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York initially refused to run Geller's ad, saying it was "demeaning." But U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled last month that it is protected speech under the First Amendment.

"Our hands are tied," MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said. "Under our existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is required to run the ad."

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, backed publication of the "patently offensive" ads. "More offensive would be their censorship because that would violate the guarantee of free expression of all ideas regardless of how distasteful they are," she said.

Geller said the subway ads cost about $6,000. Donovan said they will be up for a month.

Opponents say the ads imply that Muslims are savages.

"We recognize the freedom of speech issues and her right to be a bigot and a racist," said Muneer Awad, the executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. But he said he hopes the MTA and elected officials "take on a leadership role in denouncing hate speech."

Geller, as head of a group called Stop Islamization of America, helped spur a monthslong campaign two years ago to remove a planned Islamic community center blocks from the World Trade Center site, which she called the "ground zero mosque." Plans to build a larger center are still pending, although Muslims still have regular prayer services at a mosque in the building.

When the ad ran in San Francisco from Aug. 13 to Sept. 4, transit officials took the unusual step of running disclaimers on the sides of the buses, while some artists painted over "Jihad" or photoshopped pictures that said instead, "Defeat Racism."

Geller's group has also placed ads in Metro-North Railroad stations north of New York City that read: "It's not Islamophobia, it's Islamorealism."

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority told Geller the ad would be "deferred" because of the ongoing violence in the Middle East, spokesman Dan Stessel said.

"To be clear, we have not rejected the ad," he said, but "merely asked the advertiser to be sensitive to the timing of the placement out of a concern for public safety, given current world events."

She has every right to say that Jihadists are savages and that they cant tell her not to speak her mind. On the other hand, the second highlighted quote I feel is definitely bigoted. She may not be calling all Muslims savages in the new ads but she sure seems to be with the "Islamorealism" statement.

I feel that her group needed to make it clear that they are talking about violent extremists, not all Muslims.
 
I believe the jihadists and anyone who'd kill another person without due cause (self defense etc. etc.) are savages; however, it is bigoted to blanket all Muslims under the label of "savages."

I don't believe that the freedom to speak your mind should be removed, or that we should walk on eggshells to not offend some off-kilter extremists. Good taste and common sense should dictate how you conduct yourself.

There's also the fact that its the clerics forcing their groups to watch the movie and get incensed. If they don't like it, then they can chose to not watch it. If they have any political clout over there, then their government can block out whatever sites held the video or contain material that incenses them.
 
Last edited:
Any time you say something you have a responsibility for how those words effect those who hear them. Is it solely your responsibility, no. The person who hears what you say has their own responsibilities, too. To not over react, to forgive and offense that was not intended. However, your responsibility is the only one you control, and therefore, is the more important of the two.
 
When you are talking about Islamists....those that really have little to do with the religion, and more to do with gaining political power and putting forth Sharia Law, again not necessarily because they are Muslims, but more because that is their Political Ideology, you are talking about a group of people that want power, and use the ignorance, anger, and low income of many practicing Muslims that see them (Islamists) as a means of putting forth a religious and societal ideology that is still back in the 1800s AT BEST.... So, combine the political power that the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamists as far as I'm concerned) have gained in Libya and Egypt, along with the still majority poor society, and pulling from the poor, uneducated from ALL OVER the Middle East to fight their battles.....we are going to continue to see these things happen in the Middle East.....and it could be a trailer from a movie, a sentence from our President, an article in a newspaper in rural Iowa, a political cartoon in Reykjavik, Iceland....or simply a stupid teenager here in the US saying something stupid and it ends up on You Tube....could set these people off....WHY? because they live their daily lives LOOKING FOR THINGS TO GIVE THEM A REASON TO REBEL.

For people to EVEN have a thought that our "Free Speech" rights should be stifled even in a small way because of this type of thing SCARES ME far more than an Islamist Terrorist knocking on my door.
 
I feel that her group needed to make it clear that they are talking about violent extremists, not all Muslims.

I don't believe her group would recognize a difference.

Anyway, this reminds me of a few years ago when an Athiest group put up advertisements on buses in DC saying, basically, deep down everybody knows God isn't real. And that caused an uproar. I remember O'Reilly saying the ads should not be run because they were offensive.

The best way to deal with this is to ignore it and let them waste their $6,000.
 
I don't believe her group would recognize a difference.

Anyway, this reminds me of a few years ago when an Athiest group put up advertisements on buses in DC saying, basically, deep down everybody knows God isn't real. And that caused an uproar. I remember O'Reilly saying the ads should not be run because they were offensive.

The best way to deal with this is to ignore it and let them waste their $6,000.

The same group put the same ads in the New York Times, O'Reilly got involved in it because a Jewish group that was wanting to put the same exact type of ad in the New York Times was rejected....that is when he got involved.
 
New York Times is a private publication. Regardless, he didn't think the Athiest ads should run the buses. I'm sure he wouldn't mind this or the Jewish ads, though.
 
Sooo, its ok for him to have an opinion about a private company's decision, but not ok for a public service that uses our tax money, he can't have an opinion on that.....that's just stupid.
 
So, it's ok for him to want the athiest ad taken off public space, but the Jewish ad in a private paper is a free speech issue?
 
There is no free speech. There are only different ways to punish it. In one country you get your head chopped off, in another you go to jail, in third you get fired from your job, thus losing your income and being subjected to public humiliation.

As far as the situation in the Middle East and North Africa is concerned... I said it once, I'll say it every time. Average Muslim Joe is not the one who is supposed to condemn violence of extremists but religious leaders of Islam. So far they haven't done it and they won't because this extremism is fueled by the same religious leaders (don't confuse religious leaders with a puppet politician acting as a president. Religious leaders in Muslim countries carry far more weight than these puppets.)

At the end Islam will be pacified and Muslims secularized (with an act of aggression or not) like all other religions have been. What way it will be we'll see.
 
There is no free speech. There are only different ways to punish it. In one country you get your head chopped off, in another you go to jail, in third you get fired from your job, thus losing your income and being subjected to public humiliation.

As far as the situation in the Middle East and North Africa is concerned... I said it once, I'll say it every time. Average Muslim Joe is not the one who is supposed to condemn violence of extremists but religious leaders of Islam. So far they haven't done it and they won't because this extremism is fueled by the same religious leaders (don't confuse religious leaders with a puppet politician acting as a president. Religious leaders in Muslim countries carry far more weight than these puppets.)

At the end Islam will be pacified and Muslims secularized (with an act of aggression or not) like all other religions have been. What way it will be we'll see.

And if they are the majority, then until they stand up against the violence, it will continue. The Imam's who want Sharia Law, who want a Theocracy in these countries are more than happy for the Islamists to carry out the dirty work, which is what I stated in my post.
 
Concerning the original post, anyone that would take a life over a youtube video falls under the definition of savage.
 
Regarding the idea of censoring the video in question, would anyone in the West seriously suggest that we should have censored Salmon Rushdie back in 1989? You really can't pick and choose with free speech.
 
Exactly....nor can we please everyone in the world....and make everyone feel ok about themselves.
 
I do think people are overestimating the influence of this youtube video.

The crowds are being worked up by demagogues. I doubt most of the protestors have even seen the video.

If not this, they would have found something else.

Censoring it would have little if any effect.
 
I think they "the media" are grossly overestimating the influence....and its a travesty...but hey for the media, par.
 
The video has been up on youtube for months. Yet it didn't become a thing until September 11th. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to see that there is a connection.
 
And if they are the majority, then until they stand up against the violence, it will continue. The Imam's who want Sharia Law, who want a Theocracy in these countries are more than happy for the Islamists to carry out the dirty work, which is what I stated in my post.

Just made a general statement, actually my personal opinion, about two different subjects (free speech and Islam) that this upheaval put together.

Why I don't consider this Libya protest significant? You must know that not one, not a single one, mass protest is spontaneous. This protest in Libya against extremists was organized by the oligarchy the US and EU put in power when they took Ghadafi off. It was the oligarchy saying "we're sorry" as part of the deal to appease the White House for death of the ambassador. Nothing more, nothing less. I thought this was obvious when you look how the events unfolded. My following paragraph will tell you exactly why I believe average muslim Joe has nothing to say in this game.

The situation in the Middle East will further radicalize in following years. We will have a very violent regime change in Syria that must be done before summer of 2013. Then, we will have an attempt of government change in Iran. If the Iran strategy fails, the US will probably bypass the Libya and Syria scenario and unfold the military option. The crucial next step is Syria and it must be done soon. I believe it will.
 
Oops I wonder why I accidentally bumped this for.
 
Last edited:
Free speech is important, and I'm all for expressing it, but there's that unspoken caveat that allows us to have free speech and still have yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (or something similar) be illegal. It's the unspoken "Don't be a dick" clause.
 
The problem with free speech in America is that it's used as a sheild now. Almost 99% of the time when someone prefaces something by saying they are exercising their right of free speech it's because they know they are about to purposefully say something offensive.

America as a whole just simply doesn't have any sort of decorum when it comes to speaking, honestly.
 
I think the problem more lies with their own morality. It has nothing to do with our right to free speech. They know what they are doing and it's usually for attention or to purposefully incite a response.

It doesn't help that the people in the Middle East that react with violence are bigots and idiots with a 1600s age of education.

I did lol at that one guy in Libya that died from smoke inhalation when they were burning the US flag. That's the best kinda free speech.
 
The problem with free speech in America is that it's used as a sheild now. Almost 99% of the time when someone prefaces something by saying they are exercising their right of free speech it's because they know they are about to purposefully say something offensive.

America as a whole just simply doesn't have any sort of decorum when it comes to speaking, honestly.


Really....?
 
The problem with free speech in America is that it's used as a sheild now. Almost 99% of the time when someone prefaces something by saying they are exercising their right of free speech it's because they know they are about to purposefully say something offensive.

I agree and it pisses me off. They're so preoccupied with whether or not they can, they don't stop to think if they should. To paraphrase Dr. Malcolm.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"