Freedom of Speechin in Two Worlds.

[MHunterB]

The transit authority has indeed got the right to make rules as to what can go in the ads placed on its property. And the ads evidently violated their rules, as the article noted. So it's NOT a 'free speech' issue at all - and to pretend that it is is to misrepresent it.

Chapel Hill Transit advertising policy states that all “political, religious, or ‘issue related’ advertising” must contain a conspicuous paid advertising disclaimer, which the Church of Reconciliation ads did not have. Davidson said the church is willing to comply with the condition in order to have the ads return to the buses.

The transit policy also reserves the right to exclude advertising in order to “maintain an image of neutrality on political matters and other noncommercial issues that are the subject of public debate and concern.”

 

[patrickcaturday]

Seems to me that this is an attempt to keep the conversation going rather then anything else. Here, people is a perfect example of his lying nature as he has said over and over again that he would not bring the conversation up again. Thank you Say-it for proving to the board what an out and out blatant liar that you are. Hoss and Seal come to an agreement to stop the conversation and you almost immediately bring it up again. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR !!!

I did not bring it up, I responded to Seal's post making you, as usual, the liar.
So when will you be explaining about your claim that 6000 Chapel Hill area Jooos decide what all area residents will see and not see, eh Princess?

Whenever one group of people have the right to curtail the ability of another groups statements regarding political speech then it is definitely a Freedom of Speech/Bill of Rights Issue, In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see, sorry but that is just not right. It would not be right if it was 1 person trying to show all the rest what he thought as long as it was not hate speech that was being distributed. The very nature of Freedom of Speech is that it offends some people. I am offended that the KKK has the right to march but I will defend that right as there are things that I wish to march for also.

If you will notice the play of words you will see that I never say that 6,000 Jews have the right to decide what I say is that;

" In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide ..."

I Know nuances either elude Say-it's grasp or the other explanation is that Say-it is so dishonest that he will twist other peoples words in a vain attempt to score political points.

 

[sealadaigh]

Of course neither you nor Seal ever seem to manage to repost any lies of mine yet I have no trouble reposting yours. Why do you suppose that is, Patty? In fact, you lied in your post (in bold). Can it be that both you and Seal must lie because you are so lame that the truth just doesn't fully serve your hate?

get real. i and caturday, and Pbel, and others, point out your "errors in factual information" all the time. don't imagine that you have such a wonderul personality and brilliant intellect that we would keep files on you. also, having been severly victimised myself by alleged quotes i have made at one time, which i didn't i realise the futility of such files.

you are a liar, perhaps pathologically. take any basic psychology course and somewhere you can find thaat anyone who speaks in absolutes frequently has a pathology. you speal in absolutes frequently...."all"..."everyone"..."none"...."always"...etc.

you brought up "baby killers" again after ou said you would stop. don't be trying to shylock your words and try to slip out of it. ya know what some people might call you if you do that.

Really? After begging me to drop the subject and whining like a stuck pig you have the audacity to bring the "baby killer" subject up again?
You have no more room to complain, Princess.
It is you who continually brings it up and then whines when people respond to you.
Fuck you, you lying Nazi slug.

you brougt it up. you are always the one who brings it up and anyone who cares can go back. it was not mentioned before this post on this particular thread...

and at least three other times since you said you would drop it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6021105-post49.html

 

[sealadaigh]

The transit authority has indeed got the right to make rules as to what can go in the ads placed on its property. And the ads evidently violated their rules, as the article noted. So it's NOT a 'free speech' issue at all - and to pretend that it is is to misrepresent it.

Chapel Hill Transit advertising policy states that all “political, religious, or ‘issue related’ advertising” must contain a conspicuous paid advertising disclaimer, which the Church of Reconciliation ads did not have. Davidson said the church is willing to comply with the condition in order to have the ads return to the buses.

The transit policy also reserves the right to exclude advertising in order to “maintain an image of neutrality on political matters and other noncommercial issues that are the subject of public debate and concern.”

it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town and all of a sudden "we've re-examined our policies" and poof.

free speech is free speech. if you have the bucks, i guess you can stop it.

here is a blown up copy of the ad...

http://media.dth.s3.amazonaws.com/13005_0827_ad_goberdhanviglef.jpg

just who in the hell would you think would object to that...not just random passengers. spmeone organised a phone in campaign.

meanwhile...

Controversial 'Defeat Jihad' ad to appear in NYC subways - CNN

oy vey, the ungoy mit der goyishe kup. it is a free speech issue. it isn't a free speech issue. they should make up their mind already. nu.

 

[sealadaigh]

I did not bring it up, I responded to Seal's post making you, as usual, the liar.
So when will you be explaining about your claim that 6000 Chapel Hill area Jooos decide what all area residents will see and not see, eh Princess?

Whenever one group of people have the right to curtail the ability of another groups statements regarding political speech then it is definitely a Freedom of Speech/Bill of Rights Issue, In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see, sorry but that is just not right. It would not be right if it was 1 person trying to show all the rest what he thought as long as it was not hate speech that was being distributed. The very nature of Freedom of Speech is that it offends some people. I am offended that the KKK has the right to march but I will defend that right as there are things that I wish to march for also.

If you will notice the play of words you will see that I never say that 6,000 Jews have the right to decide what I say is that;

" In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide ..."

I Know nuances either elude Say-it's grasp or the other explanation is that Say-it is so dishonest that he will twist other peoples words in a vain attempt to score political points.

this guy has lied again and again and he keeps blaming others for it. it is pretty clear what the article meant and what you meant. it is also pretty clear that many, many jews and racists, particularly those who are bigoted against the arab world, have a double standard beyond the beyond.

lolol...for about a year, and in some cases more, we gave seen any expression supporting palestinian human rights, stifled by jews and jewish organisations and this poses a real threat to free speech in our country by trying to equate objection to the acts of a political state as being racist againsy the citizens of that state.

lolol...imagine the pennsylvania amish trying to defend apartheid south africa and have the campaign (which included bus ads, billboards, TV commercials etc.) for the end of that apartheid portrayed as anti-dutch...and imagine those same amish calling the largely black american community who led the fight against apartheid as doing so as anti-dutch racists.

 

[MHunterB]

"lolol...imagine the pennsylvania amish trying to defend apartheid south africa and have the campaign (which included bus ads, billboards, TV commercials etc.) for the end of that apartheid portrayed as anti-dutch...and imagine those same amish calling the largely black american community who led the fight against apartheid as doing so as anti-dutch racists."

LOLOL indeed! What a completely ignorant and idiotic 'analogy' on so many grounds!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! The Amish have NO connection to the Netherlands, NONE.

 

[MHunterB]

Since Israel does not have anything approaching 'apartheid', the whole idea was ludicrous to begin with.

And the 'Dutch'??? I thought the Brits claimed to have won the Boer War????

 

[sealadaigh]

"lolol...imagine the pennsylvania amish trying to defend apartheid south africa and have the campaign (which included bus ads, billboards, TV commercials etc.) for the end of that apartheid portrayed as anti-dutch...and imagine those same amish calling the largely black american community who led the fight against apartheid as doing so as anti-dutch racists."

LOLOL indeed! What a completely ignorant and idiotic 'analogy' on so many grounds!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! The Amish have NO connection to the Netherlands, NONE.

and where did i mention "netherlands". the designation "dutch/deutsch were intermingled a lot when i was growing up, and still is considerably. why the hell do you think the amish are called the pennsylvania dutch, as were the afrikaners called the dutch africans. they all pretty much come from german, flemish, dutch, swiss, belgium, french stock.

out here where i am now, there is a small "dutch", as they call themselves, community just south of me. they are austrian.

you just like to nitpick. you are still pissed about that "ugly american" thing, aren't you?

i do see we are getting away rom the free speech issue...good job.

 

[sealadaigh]

Since Israel does not have anything approaching 'apartheid', the whole idea was ludicrous to begin with.

And the 'Dutch'??? I thought the Brits claimed to have won the Boer War????

seems like a helluva lot of power players say israel is an apartheid state, including one former president at least who used that exact word and two nobel peace prize winnerss from, of all places, apartheid south africa.

and again...white south africa is referred to as dutch south africa, treaty of vereeniging(sp) notwithstanding, whiich pretty much made the 2nd boer war a draw. actually, i you understood the british attitude for native languages and languages other than english, you could almost say the dutch won.

i don't want to talk about the boer war...but congratulations again on your attempt to divert from the jewish attempts to squelch free speech in america.

 

[SAYIT]

I did not bring it up, I responded to Seal's post making you, as usual, the liar.
So when will you be explaining about your claim that 6000 Chapel Hill area Jooos decide what all area residents will see and not see, eh Princess?

Whenever one group of people have the right to curtail the ability of another groups statements regarding political speech then it is definitely a Freedom of Speech/Bill of Rights Issue, In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see, sorry but that is just not right. It would not be right if it was 1 person trying to show all the rest what he thought as long as it was not hate speech that was being distributed. The very nature of Freedom of Speech is that it offends some people. I am offended that the KKK has the right to march but I will defend that right as there are things that I wish to march for also.

If you will notice the play of words you will see that I never say that 6,000 Jews have the right to decide what I say is that;

" In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide ..."

I Know nuances either elude Say-it's grasp or the other explanation is that Say-it is so dishonest that he will twist other peoples words in a vain attempt to score political points.

Your statement, "In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see" clearly says that 6000 Jews (from the article) found those ads to be offensive and they "have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see." You offer no evidence that those 6000 (or even 1000) Jews found the ads offensive or complained or that the 51,000 non-Jewish area residents did not. Perhaps it was the area's Christians or more likely some combo of Jews and Gentiles, who complained.
You tried to make it a free speech issue and blamed the Jews.
The bottom line is the transit authority pulled them, as was their perrogative, because they did not include the required disclaimer.

 

[SAYIT]

The transit authority has indeed got the right to make rules as to what can go in the ads placed on its property. And the ads evidently violated their rules, as the article noted. So it's NOT a 'free speech' issue at all - and to pretend that it is is to misrepresent it.

Chapel Hill Transit advertising policy states that all “political, religious, or ‘issue related’ advertising” must contain a conspicuous paid advertising disclaimer, which the Church of Reconciliation ads did not have. Davidson said the church is willing to comply with the condition in order to have the ads return to the buses.

The transit policy also reserves the right to exclude advertising in order to “maintain an image of neutrality on political matters and other noncommercial issues that are the subject of public debate and concern.”

it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town and all of a sudden "we've re-examined our policies" and poof.

free speech is free speech. if you have the bucks, i guess you can stop it.

here is a blown up copy of the ad...

http://media.dth.s3.amazonaws.com/13005_0827_ad_goberdhanviglef.jpg

just who in the hell would you think would object to that...not just random passengers. spmeone organised a phone in campaign.

meanwhile...

Controversial 'Defeat Jihad' ad to appear in NYC subways - CNN

oy vey, the ungoy mit der goyishe kup. it is a free speech issue. it isn't a free speech issue. they should make up their mind already. nu.

Your links do not support your claim that "it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town" and while I know there is always hope, I suspect hell will freeze over before you post some.

 

[SAYIT]

Since Israel does not have anything approaching 'apartheid', the whole idea was ludicrous to begin with.

And the 'Dutch'??? I thought the Brits claimed to have won the Boer War????

seems like a helluva lot of power players say israel is an apartheid state, including one former president at least who used that exact word and two nobel peace prize winnerss from, of all places, apartheid south africa.

and again...white south africa is referred to as dutch south africa, treaty of vereeniging(sp) notwithstanding, whiich pretty much made the 2nd boer war a draw. actually, i you understood the british attitude for native languages and languages other than english, you could almost say the dutch won.

i don't want to talk about the boer war...but congratulations again on your attempt to divert from the jewish attempts to squelch free speech in america.

How many "power players" is a helluva lot?

 

[sealadaigh]

The transit authority has indeed got the right to make rules as to what can go in the ads placed on its property. And the ads evidently violated their rules, as the article noted. So it's NOT a 'free speech' issue at all - and to pretend that it is is to misrepresent it.

Chapel Hill Transit advertising policy states that all “political, religious, or ‘issue related’ advertising” must contain a conspicuous paid advertising disclaimer, which the Church of Reconciliation ads did not have. Davidson said the church is willing to comply with the condition in order to have the ads return to the buses.

The transit policy also reserves the right to exclude advertising in order to “maintain an image of neutrality on political matters and other noncommercial issues that are the subject of public debate and concern.”

it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town and all of a sudden "we've re-examined our policies" and poof.

free speech is free speech. if you have the bucks, i guess you can stop it.

here is a blown up copy of the ad...

http://media.dth.s3.amazonaws.com/13005_0827_ad_goberdhanviglef.jpg

just who in the hell would you think would object to that...not just random passengers. spmeone organised a phone in campaign.

meanwhile...

Controversial 'Defeat Jihad' ad to appear in NYC subways - CNN

oy vey, the ungoy mit der goyishe kup. it is a free speech issue. it isn't a free speech issue. they should make up their mind already. nu.

Your links do not support your claim that "it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town" and while I know there is always hope, I suspect hell will freeze over before you post some.

yeah. these ads were only up for seconds when a big bolt from above struck city council members and they realised the signs didn't comply with their policies. you can lie to people all you want, but don't assume all of them are stupid.

 

[sealadaigh]

If you will notice the play of words you will see that I never say that 6,000 Jews have the right to decide what I say is that;

" In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide ..."

I Know nuances either elude Say-it's grasp or the other explanation is that Say-it is so dishonest that he will twist other peoples words in a vain attempt to score political points.

Your statement, "In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see" clearly says that 6000 Jews (from the article) found those ads to be offensive and they "have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see." You offer no evidence that those 6000 (or even 1000) Jews found the ads offensive or complained or that the 51,000 non-Jewish area residents did not. Perhaps it was the area's Christians or more likely some combo of Jews and Gentiles, who complained.
You tried to make it a free speech issue and blamed the Jews.
The bottom line is the transit authority pulled them, as was their perrogative, because they did not include the required disclaimer.

blame it on the jewish councilwoman. she implied the link in her statement.

and give me a break. the sign wasn't that complicated...and all of a sudden they don't notice a disclaimer. the sign says who and what groups it was sponsored by.

why the hell are you arguing anyway. you were shiteing huge bricks just because obama asked you tube to check their policies, screaming he was against free speech...but now it is OK?

 

[SAYIT]

it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town and all of a sudden "we've re-examined our policies" and poof.

free speech is free speech. if you have the bucks, i guess you can stop it.

here is a blown up copy of the ad...

http://media.dth.s3.amazonaws.com/13005_0827_ad_goberdhanviglef.jpg

just who in the hell would you think would object to that...not just random passengers. spmeone organised a phone in campaign.

meanwhile...

Controversial 'Defeat Jihad' ad to appear in NYC subways - CNN

oy vey, the ungoy mit der goyishe kup. it is a free speech issue. it isn't a free speech issue. they should make up their mind already. nu.

Your links do not support your claim that "it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town" and while I know there is always hope, I suspect hell will freeze over before you post some.

yeah. these ads were only up for seconds when a big bolt from above struck city council members and they realised the signs didn't comply with their policies. you can lie to people all you want, but don't assume all of them are stupid.

I will respectfully request just this time that you post proof for your claim that "it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town" and then this will get very ugly.

 

[SAYIT]

If you will notice the play of words you will see that I never say that 6,000 Jews have the right to decide what I say is that;





I Know nuances either elude Say-it's grasp or the other explanation is that Say-it is so dishonest that he will twist other peoples words in a vain attempt to score political points.

Your statement, "In this case we have individuals saying that 6,000 people have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see" clearly says that 6000 Jews (from the article) found those ads to be offensive and they "have the right to decide what 57,000 people can see." You offer no evidence that those 6000 (or even 1000) Jews found the ads offensive or complained or that the 51,000 non-Jewish area residents did not. Perhaps it was the area's Christians or more likely some combo of Jews and Gentiles, who complained.
You tried to make it a free speech issue and blamed the Jews.
The bottom line is the transit authority pulled them, as was their perrogative, because they did not include the required disclaimer.

blame it on the jewish councilwoman. she implied the link in her statement.

and give me a break. the sign wasn't that complicated...and all of a sudden they don't notice a disclaimer. the sign says who and what groups it was sponsored by.

why the hell are you arguing anyway. you were shiteing huge bricks just because obama asked you tube to check their policies, screaming he was against free speech...but now it is OK?

You now have 30 seconds to repost anything of mine in which I shite huge bricks about Obama's request. However I did post the following:
"Speaking strictly for myself, I have no problem with Nativity scenes on city hall lawns as long as they are privately funded and no problem with that transit company selling ad space to the Presbyterians to express their POV."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...-of-speechin-in-two-worlds-3.html#post6020955

 

[sealadaigh]

The Church of Reconciliation, a Presbyterian USA church in Chapel Hill, paid for 98 ads, which were taken down 10 days after being posted because they did not include the church’s contact information. The ads were revised and returned to the buses a few days later.

But residents Adam Goldstein and Michael Ross said the ads are offensive to Jews

Ross, with the Triangle group, Voice 4 Israel,

Resident Fred Shectman said the policy puts the council in the position of deciding what religious and political ads are appropriate and dealing with potential lawsuits. But civil rights attorney Mark Dorosin said the town runs the risk of violating First Amendment free speech rights if it only accepts commercial ads.


Bus ads against Israeli aid draw crowd in Chapel Hill - Local - NewsObserver.com

fred shectman...adam goldstein...a dude named michael ross from voice for israel...

mos def paddys...posin' as the chosen.

the deal is, things like this are going on all over tthe country. people are putting up ads and billboards and protesting and ews and jewish orgs are shutting it down briefly but civil rights attorneys are having them put back up on the basis that the removal of the material constitutes a violation of the first amendment right of freedom of speech, and we have seen that same attitude displayed by jewish posters on this thread, defending the removal of the posters and pretending that the action against the posters was instigated bt a broad based community at large and not mainly by jewish residents.

it is just the truth, and if ya go whining about me being "anti-semitic", all you are saying is that the truth is anti-semitic. it's ust the facts, jack.

 

[sealadaigh]

Your links do not support your claim that "it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town" and while I know there is always hope, I suspect hell will freeze over before you post some.

yeah. these ads were only up for seconds when a big bolt from above struck city council members and they realised the signs didn't comply with their policies. you can lie to people all you want, but don't assume all of them are stupid.

I will respectfully request just this time that you post proof for your claim that "it really is funny how these ads and billboards are perfectly acceptable and are up for days until jewish money and influence come to town" and then this will get very ugly.

it's already ugly, but i just did post it and you are sucking hind tit again.

ya know, it really isn't that hard to figure out. do you really think us goyim are mounting campaigns to protect criticism of your "shitty little state."

it's like when all the peeps on the advisory board of the carter cemter resigned over "peace, not apartheid". it was made to sound like it was a big deal in the jewish papers, not much mainstream papers even carried it. it turns out that it was a total of maybe 14 people, and all were jewish, and those peoploe who resigned only comprised a very small percentage of the advisory board, (figurees may be of slightly...say it doesn't warant my wasting my time with his histrionics and lies anymore.)

 

[pbel]

The Church of Reconciliation, a Presbyterian USA church in Chapel Hill, paid for 98 ads, which were taken down 10 days after being posted because they did not include the church’s contact information. The ads were revised and returned to the buses a few days later.

But residents Adam Goldstein and Michael Ross said the ads are offensive to Jews

Ross, with the Triangle group, Voice 4 Israel,

Resident Fred Shectman said the policy puts the council in the position of deciding what religious and political ads are appropriate and dealing with potential lawsuits. But civil rights attorney Mark Dorosin said the town runs the risk of violating First Amendment free speech rights if it only accepts commercial ads.


Bus ads against Israeli aid draw crowd in Chapel Hill - Local - NewsObserver.com

fred shectman...adam goldstein...a dude named michael ross from voice for israel...

mos def paddys...posin' as the chosen.

the deal is, things like this are going on all over tthe country. people are putting up ads and billboards and protesting and ews and jewish orgs are shutting it down briefly but civil rights attorneys are having them put back up on the basis that the removal of the material constitutes a violation of the first amendment right of freedom of speech, and we have seen that same attitude displayed by jewish posters on this thread, defending the removal of the posters and pretending that the action against the posters was instigated bt a broad based community at large and not mainly by jewish residents.

it is just the truth, and if ya go whining about me being "anti-semitic", all you are saying is that the truth is anti-semitic. it's ust the facts, jack.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jews world-wide don't tolerate discussion very well, when it comes to any remote criticism of them as a group. The past holocausts on them created a mind-set that makes them very wary of any criticism. But here in America our forefathers put the most important Value thus far in Human-Kind: the right of free speech which will be adopted world-wide.

In America most people laugh off this kind of Legal Whining. Anti-Semitism in polls is Less than anti-Christian....

Its time to relax, America is your safe-haven.

 

[SAYIT]

The Church of Reconciliation, a Presbyterian USA church in Chapel Hill, paid for 98 ads, which were taken down 10 days after being posted because they did not include the church’s contact information. The ads were revised and returned to the buses a few days later.

But residents Adam Goldstein and Michael Ross said the ads are offensive to Jews

Ross, with the Triangle group, Voice 4 Israel,

Resident Fred Shectman said the policy puts the council in the position of deciding what religious and political ads are appropriate and dealing with potential lawsuits. But civil rights attorney Mark Dorosin said the town runs the risk of violating First Amendment free speech rights if it only accepts commercial ads.


Bus ads against Israeli aid draw crowd in Chapel Hill - Local - NewsObserver.com

fred shectman...adam goldstein...a dude named michael ross from voice for israel...

mos def paddys...posin' as the chosen.

the deal is, things like this are going on all over tthe country. people are putting up ads and billboards and protesting and ews and jewish orgs are shutting it down...

From your article:
"While the ads are part of a nationwide campaign, Chapel Hill is the only place where they have been challenged, he said."
Just another in your ever-growing library of lies.