• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shocking Anti-Islam Ad Campaign Coming To New York City Buses And Subways

CanadaJohn said:
I don't think you or I would disagree that the purpose of these ads is to stir up resentment at a minimum and active resentment either political or, more troubling resentment leading to physical violence. These aren't ads designed in the public service announcement category, at least from my view. They're dangerous, in my view, because they are so blatant in their message, and that makes them unsuitable in a public institution.
Click to expand...

You may think these ads are distasteful, inflammatory, unsuitable, or even that they will cause "resentment leading to physical violence."

The issue, though, is not what this or that person thinks of the ads, but whether a state may prohibit a person from displaying them in public places based on their content. MTA's basis for denying Geller's group permission to display the ads seems to be that they are speech not protected by the First Amendment. In particular, it seems to be that they fall within a "clear and present danger" exception to the general rule that government may not regulate speech based on its content.

This is the sort of speech Justice Holmes was referring to in Schenck v. United States, the 1919 decision in which he noted that the Constitution does not protect a person who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater. The Court elaborated on this type of unprotected speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

The rule is that a state may not forbid advocacy or the use of force or violation of the law, unless the advocacy is both:

1) directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action;

and

2) likely to produce or incite such action.


So showing that the purpose of the speech is to produce or incite lawless action is just the first step. Even if you can do that, you also have to show the speech is likely to achieve its purpose. Hardest of all, in most cases, is to show that the lawless action likely to be produced or incited by the speech is imminent.

So maddened with hatred against Muslims is the mere sight of one of these bus ads likely to make people, we're supposed to believe, that they will drop whatever they are doing, pick up the nearest object that they can use as a weapon, and criminally attack the nearest person they think is a Muslim. Right.
 
Kobie said:
I overly disagree with the first one in the OP. Using an isolated incident to paint the portrait that every Muslim is a decapitator waiting to happen is inflammatory as hell, and not remotely close to being true.

I also don't think advocating killing those who disagree with you makes you any better than them.
Click to expand...

Hence my conflict.
 
If the truth is politically incorrect, then the truth be damned.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You make a fair point in your first paragraph and I can't disagree that public disgust is a contributing factor in getting any person or group of people to change their attitude/actions - you just have to look at what's going on in the NFL now to know the power of public disdain.

I just fear that there seems to be an abundance of unstable and easily impressionable people out there who don't need much to trigger violent behavior in a mistaken belief they're doing good. But I guess we'll see - hopefully, I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are great many unstable people out there and recently they tend to be Muslims. Yet the criticism against Islam, or Muslims, is not criticized the way Jews, Christians or atheists are.

We can see many threads here, as a small example, criticizing Christians and Jews (or Israel) but threads critical of Muslims are often called Islamophobic (though thankfully that term is dying out) or the ad hominems begin rather than straightforward debates. Why this is so (apart from fear) is a mystery. When criticism against Muslims is discouraged the playing field is no longer level. We can see the consequence of that when Jews and Americans are being blamed so frequently for any Islamic atrocity committed. It is giving credibility to Islamic violence.

I'd certainly like an honest explanation from a leftist as to why they are so keen on protecting Muslims while attacking Christians and Jews but doubt there would be an honest answer.
 
matchlight said:
You may think these ads are distasteful, inflammatory, unsuitable, or even that they will cause "resentment leading to physical violence."

The issue, though, is not what this or that person thinks of the ads, but whether a state may prohibit a person from displaying them in public places based on their content. MTA's basis for denying Geller's group permission to display the ads seems to be that they are speech not protected by the First Amendment. In particular, it seems to be that they fall within a "clear and present danger" exception to the general rule that government may not regulate speech based on its content.

This is the sort of speech Justice Holmes was referring to in Schenck v. United States, the 1919 decision in which he noted that the Constitution does not protect a person who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater. The Court elaborated on this type of unprotected speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

The rule is that a state may not forbid advocacy or the use of force or violation of the law, unless the advocacy is both:

1) directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action;

and

2) likely to produce or incite such action.


So showing that the purpose of the speech is to produce or incite lawless action is just the first step. Even if you can do that, you also have to show the speech is likely to achieve its purpose. Hardest of all, in most cases, is to show that the lawless action likely to be produced or incited by the speech is imminent.

So maddened with hatred against Muslims is the mere sight of one of these bus ads likely to make people, we're supposed to believe, that they will drop whatever they are doing, pick up the nearest object that they can use as a weapon, and criminally attack the nearest person they think is a Muslim. Right.
Click to expand...

If and when it happens, we'll have our answer.

And just to be clear, we're not talking strictly about free speech, but also about the use of government to facilitate that speech. As I've said, I don't oppose the ads in other venues, just not in a government facility. And also to be clear, not everyone gets to exercise their free speech rights everywhere - the subway isn't the public square - and you have to pay to place the ads and for a defined period of time - that's different from picketing out front.
 
Grant said:
Yes, there are great many unstable people out there and recently they tend to be Muslims. Yet the criticism against Islam, or Muslims, is not criticized the way Jews, Christians or atheists are.

We can see many threads here, as a small example, criticizing Christians and Jews (or Israel) but threads critical of Muslims are often called Islamophobic (though thankfully that term is dying out) or the ad hominems begin rather than straightforward debates. Why this is so (apart from fear) is a mystery. When criticism against Muslims is discouraged the playing field is no longer level. We can see the consequence of that when Jews and Americans are being blamed so frequently for any Islamic atrocity committed. It is giving credibility to Islamic violence.

I'd certainly like an honest explanation from a leftist as to why they are so keen on protecting Muslims while attacking Christians and Jews but doubt there would be an honest answer.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't disagree with your sentiments here - you're right. I think my signature line should sufficiently make it clear where I fall in the discussion. But just because I have a point of view doesn't mean I don't want to be consistent and fair regardless of whether or not I support the content of the speech.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Jays? You mean the cute birds who frequently visit my yard? That team is still on the death watch for me and until both Gibbons and AA are gone, preferably Beeston too, they don't exist in my world. I'd love to see them finish under .500 and Tampa catch them.
Click to expand...

Well, AA isn't going anywhere.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And just to be clear, we're not talking strictly about free speech, but also about the use of government to facilitate that speech.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means. It makes no sense to talk about the freedom of speech without reference to government, because it is the government that the First Amendment prohibits from abridging the freedom of speech. What part of the Constitution do you imagine prohibits government from facilitating speech? Surely a city can sponsor a speaking or essay-writing competition. The Navy seems to be able to run recruiting ads on TV. And I'm always hearing some radio ad that's been paid for by the state of California, warning of the dangers of tobacco, or dog waste in the ocean.

As I've said, I don't oppose the ads in other venues, just not in a government facility.
Click to expand...

What government facility? Is someone proposing to place these ads in the county courthouse? As I said, streets are a traditional public forum. So are sidewalks and public parks. The fact the government owns the buses changes nothing--it chose to rent out the sides of those buses for public speech, including speech by private persons. Unless that speech is defamation, or obscenity, or creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action, or falls in some other category of speech not protected by the First Amendment, the government may not discriminate against it based on its content.

One other category of speech that states are free to ban--at least in theory--is "fighting words"--i.e. personally abusive epithets which, if addressed to an ordinary citizen, are likely to incite immediate physical retaliation. But the Court, on various grounds, has usually struck down laws against fighting words. For example, a defendant could not be punished under California law for wearing to court a jacket inscribed with the words "F--- the draft."

Also, fighting words statutes can not discriminate against speech based on its content, punishing only certain viewpoints. So, a city ordinance under which a teenager had been punished for burning a cross on the lawn of a black family was unconstitutional, because it applied only to fighting words that incited violence only on the basis of race, religion, or gender.

This decision also suggests that the Court no longer considers fighting words completely outside First Amendment protection. So good luck to the city in trying to argue that a picture of the Mufti of Jerusalem having a nice chat with Hitler (maybe they were talking about the Arab SS regiment the filthy bastard raised) should be prohibited as fighting words.

And also to be clear, not everyone gets to exercise their free speech rights everywhere
Click to expand...

It's clear that very few constitutional rights are absolute, including the right to free speech.

the subway isn't the public square - and you have to pay to place the ads and for a defined period of time - that's different from picketing out front.
Click to expand...

I don't know where subways come into this. The account cited in the original post stated that these ads would be placed on city buses. Buses run on streets, which are a public forum for free speech purposes. I don't know, either, why the length of time the speech takes place is relevant.
 
I have to defend the right of the sponsors to place those adverts even though I think they are potentially harmful. The best response is to encourage another group to place adverts with a contrary viewpoint. I defend free speech rights and religious freedom for all people, both for Muslims and those who hate them.
 
Grant said:
Just as a point of interest, what would be wrong with denigrating the whole of Islam?
Click to expand...

All two billion Muslims (roughly 1/3 of the world's population) are not the same, there are several different sects and other differences between groups and individuals and most have never harmed anyone.
 
Deuce said:
I would ask what anyone thinks this "advertisement" is supposed to accomplish...

"THIS TYPE OF MURDER IS BAD!"

Yes. And?
Click to expand...

My guess is that they are hoping to cause a violent or destructive reaction from Muslims so that they can use the incident to further support their positions.
 
matchlight said:
A lot of those Muslims also loathe the United States. That makes them a natural fit with so-called liberals, many of whom share that loathing, even while they take up space here.
Click to expand...

Liberals don't hate the USA, we just disagree with aspects of our government's behavior and don't think much of all the hypocritical, ignorant bigots who make false accusations and think they have a right to decide that peaceful dissent is unpatriotic.
 
Hard Truth said:
Liberals don't hate the USA, we just disagree with aspects of our government's behavior and don't think much of all the hypocritical, ignorant bigots who make false accusations and think they have a right to decide that peaceful dissent is unpatriotic.
Click to expand...

You can be sure I'll give your assertion all the weight it's worth. Faux liberals are always ready to leap to the defense of Islamists, because they both loathe most things about the United States. Anyone who has spent much time on forums like these knows that self-styled liberals seldom miss a chance to run down this country, despite the fact many of them choose to take up space here. Their cover story is invariably that they are just engaging in democratic dissent, constructive criticism, or some similar malarkey.
 
Some hate group from Texas thinks it is going to convince people in New York City to become teabaggers? Seriously lol? Better to focus your efforts on a more susceptible audience than New Yorkers lol. Your target market is high school dropouts in trailer parks that have never been out of the state they were born in, not lawyers and hedge fund managers with ivy league degrees who were just in Prague yesterday morning for a business meeting lol.
 
Hard Truth said:
All two billion Muslims (roughly 1/3 of the world's population) are not the same, there are several different sects and other differences between groups and individuals and most have never harmed anyone.
Click to expand...
But they all believe in Mohammed and the Koran or they are not Muslims so that most have not harmed anyone is beside the point. Why can we not denigrate beliefs?

With all the harm Islam has done to women and children, and how it's leaders have impeded human progress, shouldn't we be critical of these religious beliefs from a moral standpoint?
 
Hard Truth said:
My guess is that they are hoping to cause a violent or destructive reaction from Muslims so that they can use the incident to further support their positions.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't trust the hair trigger tempers of Muslims if you believe a transit ad will cause a "violent or destructive reaction". Did you have the same concern when the anti-Israeli ads were posted? It seems you understand the difference between 'the civilized man and the savage'.
 
Hard Truth said:
Liberals don't hate the USA, we just disagree with aspects of our government's behavior and don't think much of all the hypocritical, ignorant bigots who make false accusations and think they have a right to decide that peaceful dissent is unpatriotic.
Click to expand...
That 'peaceful dissent' is usually incoherent and always takes the same form. And, as usual, anyone who disagrees with their adolescent opinions are 'bigots'. Leftists/Liberals are, in short, stupid.
 
Grant said:
You obviously don't trust the hair trigger tempers of Muslims if you believe a transit ad will cause a "violent or destructive reaction". Did you have the same concern when the anti-Israeli ads were posted? It seems you understand the difference between 'the civilized man and the savage'.
Click to expand...

Do you have links about anti-Israeli posters in buses just like this one about Muslims?
 
The American public is so uninformed about militant Islam, I don't know whether it's sickening or funny.

All these groups - the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS.... where do you think they got their military training from? Where do you think they got their money and their weapons?

Hint: from US.

We found the craziest, most militant people in these countries and we armed them to the teeth and trained them to fight. And the American public wants to blame Islam for it?

I'm not saying we didn't have our reasons for doing it, we did. Very good reasons. However, let's try not to blame an entire religion when, in fact, all this terror boils down to a few crazy individuals who we were responsible for training and arming.
 
Grant said:
I couldn't find them all but here is one up earlier this year if you scroll down. American Muslims for Palestine | The Counter Jihad Report

Here's a collage. https://www.google.ca/search?q=anti...&ei=s44hVO_6Jo3ioASNooCIBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQsAQ
Click to expand...

No, not protests.

Anti-Israeli posters put on buses like these about Muslims? I do not ask for Anti-Muslim Hebrews putting up posters in main sites, thus no need to put Anti-Israeli posters made from Muslims also.

So, just Anti-Israeli posters.
 
Grant said:
I couldn't find them all but here is one up earlier this year if you scroll down. American Muslims for Palestine | The Counter Jihad Report

Here's a collage. https://www.google.ca/search?q=anti...&ei=s44hVO_6Jo3ioASNooCIBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQsAQ
Click to expand...

No, not protests.

Anti-Israeli posters put on buses like these about Muslims? I do not ask for Anti-Muslim Hebrews putting up posters in main sites, thus no need to put Anti-Israeli posters made from Muslims also.

So, just Anti-Israeli posters.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The American public is so uninformed about militant Islam, I don't know whether it's sickening or funny.

All these groups - the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS.... where do you think they got their military training from? Where do you think they got their money and their weapons?

Hint: from US.

We found the craziest, most militant people in these countries and we armed them to the teeth and trained them to fight. And the American public wants to blame Islam for it?

I'm not saying we didn't have our reasons for doing it, we did. Very good reasons. However, let's try not to blame an entire religion when, in fact, all this terror boils down to a few crazy individuals who we were responsible for training and arming.
Click to expand...
Because Muslims have guns and are murdering people with them that is the fault of the Americans? How about the person who is actually using the weapon? And who do you think these Islamists are training and arming?

It's not the American's fault Muslims are beheading innocent people, and that practice goes back in recent times to Danny Pearl. It is not the fault of the Americans, or any county in the west, that Muslims are kidnapping, raping, or selling and murdering women and children.

We can blame Americans and the western democracies for a number of things, but we should occasionally attributive the blame to where it belongs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom