(VIDEO)Woman arrested for defacing anti-jihad poster

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Here Neo, this one is for you too.





posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


I gave you a star. Interesting twitter quotes there. If I may...

"Islamaphobia dressed up as freedom of speech is still Islamaphobia" -TheQ



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
What this so called do-gooder did was no different than what taggers or gang members do. Defacing public property is a crime, and if caught? You get arrested! No controversy here. Just a lady looking for a attention. In the article it says she is a journalist? Why not write a column about why the sign is so bad? She could have lodged a complaint with the City of New York and the New York Transit Authority. Furthermore, why not stand in front of the sign with a sign of her own while ringing a bell?

Just another drama queen. They come from all walks of life. I hope she makes it out of lock-up with those designer boots. Next time, think twice before defacing public property, and taking it upon one's self to be a part of the censorship brigade. The lady could have utilized her right to disagree, but chose to do so in a way that is against the law. There is nothing more to say. Just my thoughts on it, and by all means feel free to disagree.
edit on 26-9-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Since when is graffiti freedom of speech, good one.
She's lucky they didn't shoot her when she reached into her bag, cops in NY have itchy trigger fingers.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


While I agree what she did wasn't the most elegant way of doing things, but would you still be so adamant if you saw this instead?


Censorship and freedom of speech is a two way street. In America you don't have hate speech laws, but we all know the implications of said ad. It crossed the line so therefore non-censorship shouldn't apply. They cancel each other out.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
____________________________

I'm soooo glad that I don't live in u.s. !

They have become such a hate-filled manipulating police state.
Just to challenge the oxymoranic mentality of u.s someone
should do likewise and put up posters ditto:

"in any war between the civilized man and the savage,
support the civilized man. Support democracy .
Defeat zionism-Defeat colonialism-Defeat apartheid "

Lets see if there is TRUE Free Speech let the hypocrisy and lies from u.s. be exposed for the world to witness.
It's time to boycott all u.s. made produce and goods.


Originally posted by neo96
Religion is not a race no matter how much some people want it to be.
It is a choice just like Jihad is a choice.

Nether is zionism.,yet undemocratically forced upon us


_________________________
edit on 26/9/12 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


My whole quarrel is not with those that oppose the sign. They have every right too do so. I do have reservations about those that go around with sharpies, spray paint, stickers, ect. to distort, obscure, or censor the views of others. The group responsible for the "anti-jihad sign," has a right to post it. They went through the proper channels to have the sign posted. If they had not? It would have been torn down. That wall belongs to the City of New York. Those who oppose such a sign have a right to disagree. They could post a sign of their own, lodge a complaint, or form a peaceful protest against said sign. Not a problem.

That lady, or anyone for that matter has no right to obscure or distort the speech of others because it may hurt their feelings, religious preferences, or political leanings. That is flat out wrong, and a disservice to a free and open society where we should be able to express ourselves and exchange ideas. That is the essence of the First Amendment.

I will admit I have seen some tactless advertisements, horrid political posters, and other obnoxious things that I personally disagree with. However, it does not give me the right to blind others to it, put earplugs in their ears, or deface or obscure the views, speech, or expression of others. That is where I draw the line. Here is a clip from the film "The People vs. Larry Flynt," and a fine example of what I mean.

edit on 26-9-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Actually, instead of vandalism the lady should have complained to the Anti Defamation League, I would very much like to see their interpretation of the offending poster.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I have to agree with some of the people here, I see the problem with the sign, however it didn't give the woman the right to go and spray paint over the sign. If she has such a problem with the message it sends why wouldn't she make up a new sign and get it approved.

Sorry but I will never take the side of someone who likes to step on free speech! We were given the power of it many years ago, she could make up her OWN sign that counters it have it registered and approved by NYC.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


lol...Israel sure does love its propaganda...The lady shouldn't be vandalizing it though...that is illegal for a reason. Free speech means Israel gets to spread propaganda all the live long day...

It would have been much easier and quicker to sharpie out "Israel" and sharpie in "Palestine" though...

Its ALL nonsense...



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Yes, this is the price of that freedom. I agree. Using Larry Flynt as an example is a great one because this is exactly what is going on. However, do you not think that this freedom can be abused? Is it not possible to twist those rights to suit not the needs of those who are publishing, but for those who are viewing? In other words, it's a personal freedom to enjoy to look at whatever you want. Even Larry Flynt knew how to manipulate the system to help sell his magazine.

Case in point, the 1978 edition cover of Hustler. The difference is, people have the choice to read or to not read. To view or not to view. Where is that choice when it is plastered all over the subway system for 1000's of people to be forcibly exposed to? This is no longer freedom of speech. This is propaganda in its purest form infringing on the rights of american citizens, Muslim or of non faiths, or anyone who finds it offensive. And defacing that propaganda (as legally wrong as it is) is in itself, balance to inappropriate use of the first amendment.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhoDat09
I have to agree with some of the people here, I see the problem with the sign, however it didn't give the woman the right to go and spray paint over the sign. If she has such a problem with the message it sends why wouldn't she make up a new sign and get it approved.

Sorry but I will never take the side of someone who likes to step on free speech! We were given the power of it many years ago, she could make up her OWN sign that counters it have it registered and approved by NYC.


It's all in the wording my friend. "Savages" "Jihad" It's a loaded statement. Both of those words were carefully selected to conjure negative connotations.


sav·age [sav-ij] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, sav·aged, sav·ag·ing. adjective 1. fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts. 2. uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes. 3. enraged or furiously angry, as a person. 4. unpolished; rude: savage manners. 5. wild or rugged, as country or scenery: savage wilderness.



World English Dictionary jihad or jehad (dʒɪˈhæd) — n 1. Islam a holy war against infidels undertaken by Muslims in defence of the Islamic faith 2. Islam the personal struggle of the individual believer against evil and persecution 3. rare a crusade in support of a cause [C19: from Arabic jihād a conflict]


So what do we have? A wild uncivilized cruel Muslim. Why not say Extremist, radical, fundamentalist...
This is what we are against. Not some loosely accepted term of Jihad. I can see through it, so why can't the rest of you? Because you want to read your islam porn, that's why. But I don't. I don't want to see hate seep through the cracks of ideological loopholes. We all want peace, we all want to find a way to stop corruption. We all want a job, a home and people to call friends. We all see the atrocities happening in the world on a daily bases and we can all feel tensions building up to a final crescendo. And most of all, we want happiness.

But let's put up some crap on a subway and impose our views on everyone else. Stop it already.
edit on 27-9-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


LOL It is because I DO see through the sign!!! I see it as a hateful statement, I can't NOT and WILL NOT condone anyone defacing it tho!! I see it for what it is, a sign to cause people to get angry, but I also see whoever made the sign as having...... something our constitution grants us........ FREE SPEECH!!

I don't hate Muslims, I don't hate anybody for being who they are, but when somebody decides to try and stand on our right to say whatever the hell it is that we want to say, even if it's stupid and I don't agree with it .....then I have a problem!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhoDat09
reply to post by FlySolo
 


LOL It is because I DO see through the sign!!! I see it as a hateful statement, I can't NOT and WILL NOT condone anyone defacing it tho!! I see it for what it is, a sign to cause people to get angry, but I also see whoever made the sign as having...... something our constitution grants us........ FREE SPEECH!!

I don't hate Muslims, I don't hate anybody for being who they are, but when somebody decides to try and stand on our right to say whatever the hell it is that we want to say, even if it's stupid and I don't agree with it .....then I have a problem!


No you're missing it! I have to thank Jake51 for using Larry Flynt as a prime example.
12 most controversial magazine covers

I cannot take out an ad with a specific cover in that link and post it in a public place. Forget the obscenity laws. Let's pretend you don't have them. How long do you think they would last before being torn down? Would you agree or disagree? How about a picture of your family? Maybe your boyfriend/girlfriend? Do I have a right to do that? No.

Can I talk about your family or boyfriend/girlfriend in public? Absolutely. You see, you may think it's all fine and dandy because you don't have hate speech laws. Well so was driving and texting until people got killed. It wasn't fine before the law and it isn't fine now.

In Canada, we have hate speech laws. Because there is a need for them. Something Americans should be considering.
edit on 27-9-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Isn't someone limiting someones legal advertisements by spray painting them pretty much the "savage" one of the two? Just saying....



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Yes. But let's call it "rough justice"



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I'm kinda amazed they allow posters like that in the you-es. In Canada you'd never see that. We're so freakin sanitized were like bleach!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by abdel
Actually, instead of vandalism the lady should have complained to the Anti Defamation League, I would very much like to see their interpretation of the offending poster.


It looks like I may been have over critical of the A.D.L.
this is what they said:

"The pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League said that Geller "fuels and fosters anti-Muslim bigotry in society."

However the Southern Poverty Law Center had this to say:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has called Geller "the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead" and has categorized American Freedom Defense Initiative as a "hate group."

See, I do do research sometimes.
edit on 27-9-2012 by abdel because: I'm not telling you.





new topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join