Two people that do not understand free speech

[Quantum Windbag]

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

The sign says Stop jihad, not stop Muslims.

That's what it "says", but context is king.

Muslims say "Destroy Israel," Jews respond by saying "Stop Jihad."

You are right, context is king.

 

[Polk]

The sign says Stop jihad, not stop Muslims.

That's what it "says", but context is king.

Muslims say "Destroy Israel," Jews respond by saying "Stop Jihad."

You are right, context is king.

Yes, every Muslim everywhere in the world is saying "destroy Israel". Come on, you're smarter than that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If she could stop it without the use of force, that's true. However, to conduct a citizen's arrest, the other party would have needed to be committing a felony.

Other posters in this thread have claimed the camerawoman was assaulted.

In some jurisdictions the action of spraying her with paint would be assault. I am not sure exactly what the law says about this in New York though, so it might not be assault.

You're right, and I'm not sure on the New York provision either. Honestly, neither of them committed assault, because the injury requirement wasn't met. I was mostly arguing for the sake of arguing. The whole thing is just absurd though. Is there any indication of how was holding the camera?

The woman with the paint calls herself a journalist, and actually announced her plan to deface the posters. I am assuming the video we saw was made by someone who was with her, and that they released it to get sympathy. It didn't work for me, but it probably did with some people.

 

[Amelia]

No, she was complaining what she felt was abuse of police power. She was wrong, but that doesn't make her words an attack on the nation. She's been "defended" against irrational criticisms.

Why do you say "no"? You aren't contradicting me. You agree that she thought it was an abuse of police power when she was arrested for destroying property.

"This is what happens in America ..." This travesty. This injustice. I should be allowed to destroy anything I want. Oh waaaaaah.

What kind of entitlement allows someone to think that? And what kind of mind defends that kind of entitlement?


I don't expect you to answer, but I ask one more time -- what crime would be serious enough that you wouldn't defend her outrage for not being allowed to get away with it?


ttfn

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, she was complaining what she felt was abuse of police power. She was wrong, but that doesn't make her words an attack on the nation. She's been "defended" against irrational criticisms.

He is right Amelia.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what it "says", but context is king.

Muslims say "Destroy Israel," Jews respond by saying "Stop Jihad."

You are right, context is king.

Yes, every Muslim everywhere in the world is saying "destroy Israel". Come on, you're smarter than that.

I didn't quite say that. The thing is, the people that poster is directed at are the ones that are saying that. That puts me on the side of Pamella Geller this time, even if she is a whacko. I guess even whackos can be right occasionally.

 

[hazlnut]

What the fuck does "free speech" have to do with this?

If I have to explain why they were both wrong I am pretty sure it won't help.

Your thread has been proven a FAIL.

Get out now while you can...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What the fuck does "free speech" have to do with this?

If I have to explain why they were both wrong I am pretty sure it won't help.

Of course they're "both wrong".

I'll admit, the first time I watched the video, I didn't have sound, so I didn't hear them yelling about "free speech", and had no idea what you were talking about in the OP.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the fuck does "free speech" have to do with this?

If I have to explain why they were both wrong I am pretty sure it won't help.

Of course they're "both wrong".

I'll admit, the first time I watched the video, I didn't have sound, so I didn't hear them yelling about "free speech", and had no idea what you were talking about in the OP.

I was surprised you posted what you did. We disagree about almost everything, but this is pretty obvious, I figured it was one of those times you just dropped the ball. Nice to see I was wrong.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If I have to explain why they were both wrong I am pretty sure it won't help.

Of course they're "both wrong".

I'll admit, the first time I watched the video, I didn't have sound, so I didn't hear them yelling about "free speech", and had no idea what you were talking about in the OP.

I was surprised you posted what you did. We disagree about almost everything, but this is pretty obvious, I figured it was one of those times you just dropped the ball. Nice to see i was wrong.

Yeah, it happens. Someone is usually watching TV in my house, so I tend to keep the volume down on my computer low.

 

[Ernie S.]

Although, I am annoyed by the fact that the spraypainting woman got arrested, but the camerawomen that assaulted her did not.

The camera woman was trying to stop a crime. She got her clothing spray painted which constitutes assault.

Actually, the better argument would be that neither of them committed assault because there is no injury. I'm just annoyed that the cop arrested one person involved in the exchange while not saying anything to the other, when her actions were the violent one.

So, you're OK with destruction of property? Or just when it's an anti Islamic terrorist advertisement?

 

[Annie]

Defacing public property is a crime. All is well that ends well.

Exactly. The person committing the crime was arrested. The right thing was done.

Unfortunately not, more undermining of First Amendment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/n...html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

M.T.A. Amends Rules After Pro-Israel Ads Draw Controversy
By MATT FLEGENHEIMER
Published: September 27, 2012

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for advertisements on Thursday, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

The 8-to-0 vote by the authority’s board came three days after pro-Israel ads characterizing Islamist opponents of the Jewish state as being “savage” began appearing in subway stations, setting off vandalism, denunciations of the authority and calls for the ads’ removal.

The authority had initially rejected the ads, citing their “demeaning” language. The group responsible for the ads, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued, and in July won a federal court ruling on First Amendment grounds.

“We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today,” Joseph J. Lhota, the authority’s chairman, said at a news conference on Thursday...

 

[Amelia]

Oh great. A win for the vandals and professional whiners.

 

[CMike]

Maybe Obama will go on a world tour apologizing for the ad.

 

[daws101]

Maybe Obama will go on a world tour apologizing for the ad.

looks like a typical day on the subway in nyc....
A tip. if you're planing on defacing property use dark colored spray paint (rustolium) is best .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Defacing public property is a crime. All is well that ends well.

Exactly. The person committing the crime was arrested. The right thing was done.

Unfortunately not, more undermining of First Amendment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/n...html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

M.T.A. Amends Rules After Pro-Israel Ads Draw Controversy
By MATT FLEGENHEIMER
Published: September 27, 2012

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for advertisements on Thursday, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

The 8-to-0 vote by the authority’s board came three days after pro-Israel ads characterizing Islamist opponents of the Jewish state as being “savage” began appearing in subway stations, setting off vandalism, denunciations of the authority and calls for the ads’ removal.

The authority had initially rejected the ads, citing their “demeaning” language. The group responsible for the ads, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued, and in July won a federal court ruling on First Amendment grounds.

“We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today,” Joseph J. Lhota, the authority’s chairman, said at a news conference on Thursday...

Even more idiots that don't understand free speech.

 

[8236]

I love America. We get to watch great comedy like this on youtube on a daily basis! Sadly, in my country (UK) this kind of entertainment couldn't happen because the poster would have been considered 'an incitement to racial hatred'. Bah! The person responsible for the poster would have been jailed and the spray painter would have been given a scholarship for her contributions to contemporary art.