Video: Journalist tries to spray paint over pro-Israel ad

posted at 9:57 pm on September 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via News Busters and Ace, the ad is Pam Geller’s “Support Israel, Defeat Jihad” poster and the reaction — from someone who appears occasionally on CNN and MSNBC — is completely predictable, replete with ironic cries of “free speech” as she tries to literally blot out someone else’s message. She seems honestly shocked when the cops show up and cart her away for graffiti. This is “free speech” in the same way it’s “free speech” for you to put a piece of duct tape over someone’s mouth. One’s a property crime, the other’s battery, but the point in both cases is to silence a speaker with whom you disagree. What’s the difference between spray-painting over it and tearing it down off the wall and burning it? Watching it reminded me of a story I heard in college about one of the local student newspapers having printed an edition that offended some group, whereupon the group went around to the paper’s drop-off points, collected the stacks of the new edition, and simply tossed them all in the trash. If you don’t approve of the message, then no one else has the right to consider it. “Free speech.”

I haven’t surveyed liberal reaction to this on Twitter, but I know which way I’m betting. Anecdotal reports don’t look good.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

defacing property is okay? Wow lady, go burn a bra or something.

Trinityangel on September 26, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Did you go to Cal, Allah? Because that happened there too, the stealing papers thing. And it wasn’t the college repubs that did the stealing.

Because they actually support the First, even when they don’t agree with what’s being said. That.

Bob's Kid on September 26, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Dude, I know you have some important and good things to say…and I’m not being a *ick here…but yer web site looks like a 10th grade Algebra story problem…

..again…I’m not trying to be an a$$hole…

just saying…

BigWyo on September 26, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Dude, you ARE being a *ick and your a$$hole has engulfed your manners.

RushBaby on September 26, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Had Moan-ah worn a pink vajajay outfit, her “protest” would have been a two-fer.

onlineanalyst on September 26, 2012 at 11:16 PM

It gladdened my heart to see the highly developed dog.

That lady’s development must have been arrested on the other hand:

“Look at me! I am a criminal! Someone tweet this ASAP!”

Sherman1864 on September 26, 2012 at 11:19 PM

What a freakin’ idiot!

Did she learn about the 1st Ammendment from BHO by chance?

St Gaudens on September 26, 2012 at 11:20 PM

She’s blasting spray paint all over a wall and she’s seriously confused over why she’s being arrested?

The audacity of stupid.

flipflop on September 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM

The essence of the political Left. In Berkeley, home of the “free speech” movement, they love to shout people down. Does the irony of it escape them?

Paul-Cincy on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Umm, no, you’re forgetting Alinksy’s RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Here’s what they really think of “free speech”:

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: ‘fire’. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the ‘end of ideology’, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness–from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.”

Herbert Marcuse, “Repressive Tolerance”

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

ebrown2 on September 26, 2012 at 11:27 PM

The only thing WORSE than this is the fact that this dumb bunny is tying up at least 2 officers from doing patrol and instead are going to have to write paperwork over this stunt.

At worse, I’m hoping she ticked them off enough that they WILL charge her with Battery with spraying the camerawoman (even though YES, she put herself in front of the spray-can, on top of the defacing the poster.

BTW, any word from the NY ACLU in SUPPORT of the company that put up the Poster? You know, real 1st Amendment stuff?

(crickets)

BlaxPac on September 26, 2012 at 11:31 PM

..again…I’m not trying to be an a$$hole…

just saying…

BigWyo on September 26, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Trying? Maybe not.

Succeeding? Most certainly. You’re a natural, pal.

Midas on September 26, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Did you go to Cal, Allah? Because that happened there too, the stealing papers thing. And it wasn’t the college repubs that did the stealing.

Bob’s Kid on September 26, 2012 at 11:11 PM

We’re not going to be able to figure out if Allah is a Cal grad from this example.

Pennsylvania State University… University of Pennsylvania…Yale…North Carolina State…Dartmouth College…Florida State…Georgia…Southeastern Louisiana… etc.

Examples of Liberals stealing stacks of campus newspapers is a relatively common tactic at colleges nationwide.

But to others, stealing stacks of papers is censorship, plain and simple.

“If universities stand for anything, they have to stand for the right of people to express their ideas,” said Steven Shapiro, associate legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. “Freedom of the press includes freedom to distribute the press.”

http://articles.mcall.com/1993-08-05/news/2934637_1_three-or-four-newspaper-campus-daily-newspaper-regular-campus

Freedom of speech is such a confusing concept for Liberals.

wren on September 26, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Actually honey, Geller’s paid for ad is ‘free speech’. Standing in front of it and exclaiming that you think that it’s crap, is free speech.

Defacing private property is not free speech. Coughing up the bucks for your own ad, is free speech.

Wailing that you’re an Egyptian-American, completely irrelevant to the aforementioned. No one gives a crap. You’re no different than any kid with a spray can.

Btw, your right to free speech ends where someone’s body or property, starts. You spray painted not only someone’s property, but also the body of a human being. Ergo, you violated both.

You could have been far more effective to stand in front of the add with a group of people with signs of your own. That not only would have gotten the attention of those passing by, but probably also the media. And your sorry ass wouldn’t have been hauled off to jail.

But being too cheap to buy a posterboard, and too lazy to get a couple of your friends to protest with you, this is what happens.

Twit.

GeeWhiz on September 26, 2012 at 11:37 PM

She’s blasting spray paint all over a wall and she’s seriously confused over why she’s being arrested?

The audacity of stupid.

flipflop on September 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Ask any cop working in/near ‘disadvantaged’ neighborhoods how often they see this. Children grow up with less behavioral training then a pedigreed dog. The first person to force them to behave and/or drag them off for misbehaving in their entire lives may be wearing a badge.

And they are utterly bewildered because their cr@ptastic culture (and society in general) teaches that they can do WTF-ever they wish, when, how, and where they please.

Thanks a heap for destroying our nation’s moral base, libtards. NOT!!!

MelonCollie on September 26, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Typical lib, ‘free speech for me, but not for thee’.

GarandFan on September 26, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Freedom of speech is such a confusing concept for Liberals.

wren on September 26, 2012 at 11:36 PM

When you’re a Puritan, anyone who disagrees with you is a blasphemous heretic and *must* be silenced at all costs.

“Liberals” are so far removed these days from the meaning of that word anymore that they are beyond parody. They aren’t liberals; rather, they are secular Puritans, and none dare disagree with them.

Wanderlust on September 26, 2012 at 11:45 PM

The libs are entering full blown meltdown mode with less than 6 weeks to go till the election. The next few months are going to be very interesting.

A. Weasel on September 26, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Isn’t it funny how the left considers it an expression of free speech to deface someone else’s property and stifle their first amendment rights…

… and yet, they have no problem with the FBI showing up at your front door if you just make a Youtube video saying something bad about Islam’s exalted pedophile Moe-Hammed.

UltimateBob on September 27, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Wow, the whole thing looks highly rehearsed and staged to me. Not by the cops, but the two women.

LegendHasIt on September 27, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Moron knows nothing about free speech.

lexhamfox on September 27, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Muslims For Obama pull the trigger.

pat on September 27, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Wow, the whole thing looks highly rehearsed and staged to me. Not by the cops, but the two women.

LegendHasIt on September 27, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Now that is an interesting observation. Hmmmm. I am willing to consider that point.

pat on September 27, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Take a look(and listen) at that cretin(I almost called her a “lady”) doing the spray-painting, people. This is the face of Barack Obama’s America.

Where if your opinion doesn’t match that of the left-wing/libs/progressives, then you don’t have an opinion as far as they are concerned, because they will take it away from you. And they actually feel so strongly that they have a right to do so.

Sterling Holobyte on September 27, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Someone PAID for the add, therefore PRIVATE PROPERTY. Spray painting “Private property is NOT a crime???

FORMER REUTERS EMPLOYEE goes to jail!

LAW, black and white, enjoy your stay!

FloridaBill on September 27, 2012 at 12:37 AM

I’m curious, for the other readers here: the full ad invokes Ayn Rand’s admonition, when a civilized man and a savage are fighting, to support the civilized man.

I watched an email exchange on this topic today among some colleagues, and one of them opined that Rand’s quote would be little known, or at least known by very few.

I wonder if that’s true. My sense is that an awful lot of people know the quote. Wondering what other readers think.

J.E. Dyer on September 27, 2012 at 12:42 AM

You don’t have an absolute right to non-violent protest. You have the right to non-violent protest and to accept the consequences of your actions. She was destroying property. If the punishment is two days in jail or whatever, that’s the “cost” of the protest. And Gandhi would have been happy to pay it. In any case, its not a matter of free speech to shout down others speech.

What a strange way of thinking.

Fred 2 on September 27, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Would she believe that when totalitarian governments block protests they are simply engaging in their own free speech? What a maroon.

And she was on CNN repeatedly? What for? Aren’t there plenty of other maroons in Atlanta? Give them a chance too.

Fred 2 on September 27, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Typical Leftist.

WisCon on September 27, 2012 at 1:04 AM

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhvJDGF21QKfxXUGI3

County worker caught only trying to register Romney voters.

.

Politricks on September 27, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Hope a judge makes the Egyptian activist Mona Eltahawy
wear a striped outfit and is ordered to spend weeks cleaning
grafitti from subways.

Texyank on September 27, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Wow. Just Wow.

Theophile on September 27, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Politricks on September 27, 2012 at 1:18 AM

.
Actual Republican breaking the law, or Democrat “plant”?

listens2glenn on September 27, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Watching it reminded me of a story I heard in college about one of the local student newspapers having printed an edition that offended some group, whereupon the group went around to the paper’s drop-off points, collected the stacks of the new edition, and simply tossed them all in the trash. If you don’t approve of the message, then no one else has the right to consider it. “Free speech.”

The Koala, UC San Diego’s infamous gutter joke newspaper, did a “Jizzlam” issue while I matriculated there. This particular edition was entirely devoted to slamming the Religion of Peace. (Wish I’d saved a copy, it was the ballsiest thing I’ve ever seen.) This was circa 2004, I believe. I personally witnessed a (very brave) Koala staffer passing out copies, and getting harassed by students of Middle Eastern descent.

A short time later, some other PC group on campus set up “Shred Injustice” stations, where they encouraged students to shred copies of The Koala. They couldn’t even own their prima facie attack on Koala’s free speech rights, saying that they were actually encouraging students to shred any examples of injustice (notwithstanding the question of what should constitute such a thing in print form).

….

These people frighten me. Truly. When they’re done getting rid of us, they’ll turn on each other. Orwell had this all pegged.

Hawkins1701 on September 27, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Watching it reminded me of a story I heard in college about one of the local student newspapers having printed an edition that offended some group, whereupon the group went around to the paper’s drop-off points, collected the stacks of the new edition, and simply tossed them all in the trash. If you don’t approve of the message, then no one else has the right to consider it. “Free speech.”

I’m pretty sure this happens at some university in the country at least once a week. College leftists really are beyond parody. Especially when it comes to free speech.

RINO in Name Only on September 27, 2012 at 3:08 AM

I think vandalism and graffiti laws should just be the appetizer.

RalphyBoy on September 27, 2012 at 3:15 AM

If she goes to Europe and puts up a billboard that questions the Holocaust, she will be in jail for years. In that case, “free speech” is not an issue.

dave742 on September 27, 2012 at 3:38 AM

Dude, I know you have some important and good things to say…and I’m not being a *ick here…but yer web site looks like a 10th grade Algebra story problem…

..again…I’m not trying to be an a$$hole…

just saying…

BigWyo on September 26, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Dude, you ARE being a *ick and your a$$hole has engulfed your manners.

RushBaby on September 26, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Dude, I thought your page was great. I cross posted it to our conservative forum here.

Don’t let the bastards get you down.

trapeze on September 27, 2012 at 3:45 AM

I’m thinking the female jihadist might have violated a hate crime with her can of spray paint.

How’s that for irony?

trapeze on September 27, 2012 at 3:51 AM

This conservative woman wonders why liberal women are such loud-mouthed, screechy nags. Sheesh…

Grace_is_sufficient on September 27, 2012 at 5:21 AM

The audacity of stupid.

flipflop on September 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Beautiful. Thanks.

Ugly on September 27, 2012 at 6:16 AM

Hmmm…. why so many cameras on hand?

I’m not a cop, but why on earth did they let her reach into her bag?

darkpixel on September 27, 2012 at 6:32 AM

That’s no”journalist” That’s a dhimmi.

kingsjester on September 27, 2012 at 6:34 AM

…yep!…a ‘journalist’

KOOLAID2 on September 27, 2012 at 6:41 AM

The audacity of kabuki.

onomo on September 27, 2012 at 6:46 AM

There is a difference between covering the news and covering up the news.

This so-called journalist now tells me which they are more interested in.

ajacksonian on September 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM

That’s the Sh!ttiest can of spray paint I’ve ever seen.

WordsMatter on September 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Eh ?
If you do not like something, DESTROY it.
What ideology does that these days ?
She is not excersizing her free speech rights, she is commiting a crime.

Jabberwock on September 27, 2012 at 7:04 AM

That’s the Sh!ttiest can of spray paint I’ve ever seen.

WordsMatter on September 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM

My thought as well. Then I considered the user.
Incompetent in all things.

Jabberwock on September 27, 2012 at 7:07 AM

I love her cries of , “non-violent protest.” I loved the writings of Thoreau and the application of his civil disobedience by MLK. I am also disgusted by the way his message has been corrupted and abused.

The point of civil disobedience is to violate unjust laws and demand the full legal consequences of them. The tactic is to draw attention to the unjustness of the law and so provoke enough public sympathy to change them. It is, in essence, a form of martyrdom. Today’s cranks who pretend to the lofty ideals of Thoreau are merely petty criminals who refuse to take responsibility for their law breaking. They truly believe that they are entitled to break any laws they find unjust without penalty.

I won’t even bother to address the obvious irony of loons like this lady who declare that they are defending free speech by censoring it.

MJBrutus on September 27, 2012 at 7:09 AM

Even the dog knows that she’s a moron.

justltl on September 27, 2012 at 7:16 AM

And taser worthy- as soon as she reached in her handbag.
Now that would have made for an excellent You Tube vid.

justltl on September 27, 2012 at 7:27 AM

Do you think she’d be able to dress like that in Egypt now?

LoganSix on September 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM

The point of civil disobedience is to violate unjust laws and demand the full legal consequences of them.

MJBrutus on September 27, 2012 at 7:09 AM

Yep…Ghandi was a great example of that.

Something I’ve learned about the lefty liberals like this chick, is that their beliefs and opinions aren’t simply a “school of thought” or even “opinion”…to them, their beliefs are real-world fact, and righty conservatives are blatant racists and bigots, and when the liberal blocks out the conservative, they’re only protecting the “truth” as they see it.

It’s more than a little scary that so many people share that delusion…this is how communism got it’s big start.

JetBoy on September 27, 2012 at 7:30 AM

JetBoy on September 27, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Too true. When possessed with absolute certainty of their ideas, they believe that any means are justified to impose them. It is the problem with an unthinking ideology.

MJBrutus on September 27, 2012 at 7:40 AM

How dare she release fluorocarbons into the atmosphere .

newportmike on September 27, 2012 at 8:03 AM

“What am I being arrested for?”

Says the screechy whore with a can of spraypaint in her hand in front of defaced public property. LOL!

Honey, that stuff may be considered “non-violent protest” over in Cairo where there is a mob mentality but here in America you’ve committed a crime. Not a huge crime like sodomizing and killing an ambassador but a crime nonetheless. And BTW, next time you want to stand up for jihad, you might consider getting your spray paint from somewhere other than the dollar store.

Happy Nomad on September 27, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Do you think she’d be able to dress like that in Egypt now?

LoganSix on September 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM

She’s 45. She shouldn’t be dressing like that in NYC.

Happy Nomad on September 27, 2012 at 8:20 AM

The problem is letting these douchebags into our country in the first place.iIf this cow was in Tahir square dressed like that she would have been assaulted and raped like that reporter

Thicklugdonkey on September 27, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Wow, the whole thing looks highly rehearsed and staged to me. Not by the cops, but the two women.

LegendHasIt on September 27, 2012 at 12:02 AM

As I understand it, the spray painter lady announced on Twitter that she was going to deface these signs. That is supposedly how the other lady knew what was going to happen. At least that is what I have read on other sites.

Dawnsblood on September 27, 2012 at 8:37 AM

It’s a right to free speech lady, not a right to vandalize.

Axion on September 27, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Question for the law enforcement people here. What kind of legitimate cop allows a perp they are cuffing to repeatedly enter a giant green handbag while being detained?

PJ Emeritus on September 27, 2012 at 8:56 AM

It seems to me that Pam Geller just got some bonus publicity for her cause. In addition, Ms. Geller should be able to sue the pants off of this lady and that will lead to more pro-israel signs.

I believe that the vandal did not think this through.

Deafdog on September 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM

I wonder if she will become a pariah or a heroine back at MSNBC or CNN. My bet is she will become some kind of leftist cult hero and not the racist Muslim she is. Make no mistake . . . the hatred of the Jews is indeed racism and not mere ‘bigotry’.

kens on September 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I believe that the vandal did not think this through.

Deafdog on September 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Oh! I think she did. She wanted to get arrested for standing up for terrorists.

Happy Nomad on September 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

That cry for Twitter help was one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.

“Twit me, bro!”

JeremiahJohnson on September 27, 2012 at 9:15 AM

It’s vandalism…but pretty minor.
I know the MTA is constantly in need of revenue and can’t manage a budget, but it seems pretty ridiculous that they accepted Geller’s posters. What’s next, a Storefront poster campaign?
She has every right to be a frenzied bigot and spew her unhinged b.s. As loud and brash as she it, her audience is tiny.
So I agree that all the spray painter did was bring more attention to this crap.
Allah’s tag of ‘hate’ to this speech is the real irony – as he intended to direct that at the protester….but the Geller and her savages swim in it.

verbaluce on September 27, 2012 at 9:25 AM

as he intended to direct that at the protester….but the Geller and her savages swim in it.

“Don’t look at what we do.. it isn’t wrong. What you guys do is wrong.” Not impressed..and I don’t care verbulace.. go take care of your dirty laundry and then get back to us once you are again righteous, mkay?

Noelie on September 27, 2012 at 9:31 AM

This looks staged. Either that or really, really bad policework. I’ve never seen an officer handcuff someone with out frisking them or letting a suspect dig into a bag. Also, k-9 officers usually don’t have human partners. Lastly, there was already people there with expensive camera and recording equipment.

Politricks on September 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM

And THAT is what’s wrong with so-called “liberals”. They don’t really understand Free Speech, and they sure as heck don’t understand PROPERTY RIGHTS. Not only did she deface someone else’s property, she assaulted the woman who tried to prevent it by spraying paint on her.

There’s no such thing as a “right to protest” which would involve other people’s property or even public property. The reason one needs to get a permit for a public protest is because they want to use a public venue for personal reasons other than its original appropriation. So, no. You can’t just do whatever you feel like doing and call it a “protest”.

Murf76 on September 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM

“I disagree with what you say and will do all that is within my power to ensure you never say it again.” — Voltaire, 2012

RobertE on September 27, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I wouldn’t have stepped in between the woman and the ad, I would have simply snatched the spray can out of her hand. Then I would have told her off in front of her camera buddies. I won’t say much else, as that kind of language could get me banned.

GWB on September 27, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Your right to free speech doesn’t trump my right to free speech. Vandalism in an effort to to take away someone elses right to free speech only highlights the lack of an intellectual argument of the intolerant vandalizer. I suppose when your views are as radical and irrational as this lady’s are it would be pretty difficult to win in an intellectual debate, probably why she is relegated to cnn and msnbc.

Ellis on September 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM

kingsjester on September 27, 2012 at 6:34 AM

KJ: LOL!

Sadly, that caricature of Mrs. Huma looks strikingly like the scary photo on Ed’s HC/AQ post.

pain train on September 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM

It’s vandalism…but pretty minor.
I know the MTA is constantly in need of revenue and can’t manage a budget, but it seems pretty ridiculous that they accepted Geller’s posters. What’s next, a Storefront poster campaign?
She has every right to be a frenzied bigot and spew her unhinged b.s. As loud and brash as she it, her audience is tiny.
So I agree that all the spray painter did was bring more attention to this crap.
Allah’s tag of ‘hate’ to this speech is the real irony – as he intended to direct that at the protester….but the Geller and her savages swim in it.

verbaluce on September 27, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The MTA did reject it. It took a court to straighten them out. Looks like you need a court to straighten you out.

You’re of a piece with the vandal. You accuse people of hatred and censorship while hating them and trying to censor them. The pejoratives aimed at the person who produced this poster shows your hatred.

Fae it: you believe that certain ideas don’t deserve to be freely expressed. Strangely, they all seem to be ideas that you don’t agree with.

tom on September 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Free speech issues continue to be discussed here. As I mentioned previously, questioning the Holocaust in Europe will get you put in jail. Is that different because Jewish people are the “chosen ones” and deserve special laws? What about the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act? The US needs to monitor anti-semiticism world wide, but anti-Islam views are ignored because that is simply “free speech”?
California has now defined “anti-Semitism” using terms such as “falsely describing Israel”:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/hr_35_bill_20120823_amended_asm_v98.html

Soon, “falsely describing Israel” (according to the standards set by Israel, I assume) will land you in jail. But you can say whatever you want about Islam, because that is free speech.
I guess “free speech” does not apply to the chosen ones.

dave742 on September 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Fae it: you believe that certain ideas don’t deserve to be freely expressed. Strangely, they all seem to be ideas that you don’t agree with.

tom on September 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM

No, I believe any idea should be freely expressed.
The rule in their favor was based on the writing of the MTA’s policy.
I would like to express that I think Pam Geller is a turd.

verbaluce on September 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Right back at you, verbluce. You clown.

rayra on September 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Free speech issues continue to be discussed here. As I mentioned previously, questioning the Holocaust in Europe will get you put in jail. Is that different because Jewish people are the “chosen ones” and deserve special laws? What about the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act? The US needs to monitor anti-semiticism world wide, but anti-Islam views are ignored because that is simply “free speech”?
California has now defined “anti-Semitism” using terms such as “falsely describing Israel”:

Not defending Europe or California here, but perhaps – just perhaps – the two main differences are: 1). We have documented evidence of mass atrocities against people of the Jewish faith, to the tune of 6 million dead, while a majority of Holocaust deniers are Muslim, and 2). Unlike Jews, who can allow dissenting viewpoints to be expressed, many Islamists resort to shout-downs, rampages, burnings, stonings, beheadings, and all sorts of uncivilized behavior that necessitates extra scrutiny?

Or could it possibly be that people of good faith are disinclined to show Muslims a civility that Muslims themselves are disinclined to show others?

Maddie on September 27, 2012 at 12:17 PM

dave742 on September 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM

No, Dave, the misguided Holocaust Denial laws in Europe are an over-reaction to some pretty horrible actions that happened there about 70 years ago. Those laws began with a people who were desperately trying to make sure they could never again do what they had just done. Our disgust with anti-Semitism is directly related to the end result of such racial hatred, as well as the fact that just about the only country in the ME that looks like us (freedom, democracry, women in shorts, all that jazz) is Israel.

And, no, I don’t think you’ll find too many conservatives around here who advocate Holocaust Denial laws in the US. That law in CA won’t last beyond the first time it’s challenged in court. And, all the conservatives I know will be happy with that. (Even though they may despise the very loathsome person who will most likely be the one to bring the challenge.)

GWB on September 27, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Maddie:
// Unlike Jews, who can allow dissenting viewpoints to be expressed//

This is obviously not the case, since all the draconian laws regarding “anti-Semiticism” are instituted as a result of pressure from Israel/Jewish groups. The Jewish people do everything in their power to squash any speech that they do not like.

GWB:
I will disagree that most conservatives do not support the various attempts of Jewish groups to eliminate criticism of Israel. Too bad the US can’t treat all religions equally – instead of passing one “anti-Semitism” law after another, what if they decided on a blanket law regarding what is “free speech” and what is “hate speech” and then apply it equally to all religions? Or do we have to allow “hate speech” towards Muslims until 6 million Muslims die, and only then we can pass laws protecting their religion like we do with regard to Judaism?

dave742 on September 27, 2012 at 12:52 PM

dave742 on September 27, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Besides this CA law you mention, can you please point to a single “anti-Semitism”/”hate speech” law in this country, that doesn’t also include homosexuals, blacks, etc.?

We have a “law” that protects Islam – just the same as it protects Budhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Christianity, etc – that is called the First Amendment. And, it is pretty much a “blanket law”. The unfortunate fact that some jurisdictions think they can curb that with “hate speech” laws is not a conservative position.

Oh, and you need to plus up your reading comprehension skills. I said:

And, no, I don’t think you’ll find too many conservatives around here who advocate Holocaust Denial laws in the US.

That means HotAir.

GWB on September 27, 2012 at 2:12 PM

GWB:
Boyin, who says that “Islam should not be protected under the first ammendment” ( http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/boykin-islam-should-not-be-protected-under-first-amendment ), spoke at the Republican convention, but you claim that Republicans are for free speech? That was an pretty bad misstep by Romney to invite Boykin when Republicans are so “free speech” conscious.

dave742 on September 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM

dave742 on September 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Since your reading comprehension skills aren’t up to snuff, and you appear to simply be on an anti-Israel kick, we’re done here.

GWB on September 27, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Boy, throughout this entire video, I was hoping someone would step up and deck this loud-mouthed itchbay–pardon the Pig Latin–a good right to the yap would have been nice…maybe follow up with with a left cross.

uncle_fweddy on September 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2