Japan Today
world

Anti-Muslim group to run ads in New York subway

57 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

I’m running them because I can.

Freedom without responsibility. Stupid, stupid woman.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

"Freedom without responsibility. Stupid, stupid woman"

Ditto that. Without the responsible exercise of freedom, all that's left is simple anarchy. This woman is a tool.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.W

Are we at war with Islam? I am not. Are you? This lunatic is. And she would happily drag us and the whole world into a real war.

She is doing a good job at proving that she is just as much a savage as anyone. Clearly, she just hopes to instigate more violence.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It was pointed out on a "talk show" in the USA that the countries that are witnessing extreme, violent behavior have a citizenship that believes that nothing happens in a country without government approval. China, NK, Iran, Syria, and Egypt are a few examples. If the USA military leaves, as it should as soon as possible, China can provide the foreign aid. Then, the peope can experience the freedoms that the people in Nepal have: freedom of religion, speech and assembly. All of this financial aid could bankrupt the above countries, an interesting experiment.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I wonder why these kinds of ads are even allowed.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Looks like someone wants to be famous.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Are we at war with Islam? I am not. Are you?

Well, America IS at war with Islam. Why did 9/11 happen? What inspired the insanity of the hijackers? Who have US soldiers been fighting in Afghanistan for the past decade? What is their guiding principle?

Who has been bombing US landmarks and embassies and attacking its citizens for the last few decades? Buddhists? Sikhs? Errr...no.

Regardless of nationality, race, geographic location, these enemies of America all have one thing in common: they're Muslims.

She is doing a good job at proving that she is just as much a savage as anyone.

The day she flies a packed airliner into a large building, killing thousands of people, under the influence of religion, is the day you will be right.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

"“I think any war against innocent civilians is savagery,”

And yet here this woman is running her own personal little war of words against something she is afraid of and can't even bother to try and understand, let alone her unwillingness to tolerate. Calling Muslim MILITANTS savage is one thing, being anti-Muslim in general is something else altogether.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Radicals dare always evil. The the falts in any religion should be addressed by own religious people. Here we should protect the good muslims from the evil muslims. Giving the courage and support to those who are educated and civilized to speak against to the stupid blind mulims.. Then you can achieve the goal making a global community.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Elbuda you said it pretty straight.

What have any of these incidents had to do directly with Israel?

She basically equates savages with Jihadists and Jews with "the civilized man". And then declares WAR!

Israel is the military industrial complex's bread and butter. I bet she works as a lobbyist for defense contractors.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Correct me if I'm wrong but Geller is a typical Israeli name isn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I should have also pointed out that she equates protesting with Jihad...

She has a right to post bigoted posters intended to foment conflict and the Muslims targeted by those posters don't have the right to protest being targeted?

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

She's declaring war on innocents while declaring she is innocent. That's enough said for me. Amazing there are people thumbing down on this fact.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

ubikwit - muslims do have the right to protest, the could for example publish their own posters. What most civilised people dont agree with is the musim propensity to respond to words (they dont like) with violence.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

She has the absolute right to be stupid and anti Muslim if she wants. Her intentions are irrelevant. The posters clearly fall within the realm of free speech. The same was that athiest bus posters did a few short years ago. I'm sure the devout of many religions found THOSE posters offensive and blasphemous, but too bad for them.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Here's a quick question: if an anti-American Muslim radical living in the US, who had committed no crimes, bought subway ad space in New York City and put up ads like, "Happy 9/11!", on the anniversary or such ads, would it be okay because of freedom of speech?

This woman is a moron. Of that I think we can all agree. But she is also a hypocrite and a danger to society, as well as being as 'savage' as any Muslim walking the street.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Smith: Yes, it would. No accounting for taste, but free speech does not depend on taste.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Vast Right-Wing: "@Smith: Yes, it would. No accounting for taste, but free speech does not depend on taste."

I agree with you, but I bet New Yorkers would demand any such ads be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is nothing inherently wrong with hate, or hating someone

Maybe you should take that up with The Man Upstairs. Assuming you believe in him. Most right-wing wing-nuts at least claim to, despite all the self-contradictions and hypocrisy involved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JeffLee-san,

Well, America IS at war with Islam.

Is that so?

Is this your own idea, or is it backed up by the rest of your countrymen?

Why did 9/11 happen?

Damned good question.

I'd certainly like to know the answer to that one!

I wonder how two planes brought down three huge buildings neatly on their own footprint and exploded the concrete into huge clouds of very fine dust.

Who have US soldiers been fighting in Afghanistan for the past decade?

Whomever they were told to, right?

What's your take on it?

What is their guiding principle?

"Ours but to do or die, ours not to reason why." Isn't that the motto of any soldier?

Who has been bombing US landmarks and embassies and attacking its citizens for the last few decades?

Few decades, JeffLee-san?

Who's been shooting up Afghans, Iraqis and Pakistanis for the last decade?

Who invaded Iraq on a total lie?

Who sent drones into Pakistan?

Who's been creating mayhem in Afghanistan?

I'll give you a hint.

It wasn't Muslims.

Regardless of nationality, race, geographic location, these enemies of America all have one thing in common: they're Muslims.

So, 24% of the population of this planet are enemies of America?

Do you realise that's how many Muslims there are?

If you don't believe me, Google it.

The vast majority of Muslims are peaceable, a few are fanatics.

Fanatic anti-Muslims are, in my book, just as bad as fanatic Muslims.

Or fanatic anything.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Western media thinking; If 1 person do something wrong Then Media Makes That Act Of 1 Person As The Representation Of All ......so what we think about americans.....like old days dare i say racist.....hate speech.....warmonger.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

“I think any war against innocent civilians is savagery,” she said.

Unless those innocents happen to be Palestinian schoolkids. In which case, fire at will.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How about if someone buys signs that say, "The Holocaust never happened", or, "Heil Hitler" on the subway lines. Is that okay, too? That's what this woman is doing.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It's OK with me, Smith. However, those examples are a bit more extreme than Geller. Or dont you see a difference between "Heil Hitler" and "Defeat Jihad"?

@Lucabrasi;

Most religious texts are full of hate, so why should I worry? It's just a human emotion, perfectly natural, we all feel it at one time or another.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Vast Right-Wing: Define the woman's meaning of 'defeat Jihad'. At one moment she says she is against Muslim militants, but her message is simply against Muslims. So I'm sorry, but it is even WORSE than saying Heil Hitler, for the latter is simply supporting a murderous dictator while the former calls an entire race savages (I guess the irony was lost on you). So yes, the difference between the two is that this woman is demeaning and threatening a quarter of the world's population while the latter is just some praise for a fool.

"Jihad" means 'holy war'. I knew that at 10 years old, believe it or not. Only fools believe it only applies to Muslim radicals, however.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Jihad emans to fight one's own will.which doesnt mean to "fight against infedls".there are approx 2.2 billion muslims in the world and God forbid if they turn on us do we stand a chance?if any tool head think us advance army will crush them.see afghan-iraq wars.........all that money tech is down in the drain. Crazy White supremacist is as evil as those bone heads in muslim world.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Smith; sorry, youre wrong. She called Muslim militants "savages". Read the first sentence of the article for confirmation. She means defeat the head hackers, intolerant homophobes who murder gays, mutilators, and virulent anti-semites.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Muslims who are rioting and and killing people over the film certainly are savages, but I'm aware that there are moderate Muslims who don't agree with what they're doing.

od forbid if they turn on us do we stand a chance?

What would you rather do then? just roll over and submit to them?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Boring!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The American Freedom Defense Initiative is not "right wing", and is sad to see the article writer trying to smear people who warn against islamaziation in this way.

And the people who portray muslims as "savages" are the mobs of muslim savages who are rampaging and murdering across multiple countries right now. (And the islamist lawmakers who support them.)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

zichi:

" There are millions of muslims doing nothing more than like the rest of us, trying to survive the daily life and taking care of their families "

True. Alas they do nothing to stop the violent "misunderstandars" of islam, which islamic societies continue to produce; rather, by and large, they tell us to appease the radicals. So, this is kind of the islamic one-two punch.... while the tiny violent minoritiy terrorizes us, the vast peaceful majority tells us to look the other way.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

smithjapan:

" This woman is a moron. Of that I think we can all agree. "

Only ill-informed ignorants can "agree" on that. Pam Geller shines light on a situation that the brainwashed mainstream media ignore and has been receiving death threats for that. She is a hero.

Check out her "Atlas Shrugs" blog, before you dismiss her so cheaply.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Smithjapan:

" How about if someone buys signs that say, "The Holocaust never happened", or, "Heil Hitler" on the subway lines. Is that okay, too? That's what this woman is doing. "

No, that is NOT what this woman is is doing. The ad does not even mention muslims. The ad says:

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. --- Support Israel --- Defeat Jihad

Unless you define all muslims as jihadists, your statement is blatantly false. What is your actual beef with the ad? That we should side with savages? That Israel must not be supported? That Ahmedinejad and Hamas should have their way in "wiping Israel off the map"?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I've got no respect for her "method" on this. While I appreciate her helping Rifqa Bary and trying to raise awareness of Islamic fundamentalism, she should know better than to be anti-muslim. She obviously can't tell the difference between a follower of Islam (a muslim) and a religious ideology (Islam).

With the era of the internet available we're going to be hearing about these kinds of situations for the next few decades unless something finally comes to light.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This woman is being monitored as the leader of a hate group.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, described Geller as “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”

And you can't tell me she doesn't insinuate that all Muslims are "savages" in the following statement.

"I will not sacrifice my speech so as to not offend savages," said Geller.

These posters are a response to the protests by the general populous in Muslim countries against the despicable media products from the USA and France. She is an opportunistic hate monger.

But she's oh so civilized with her freedom, freedom to preach hate...

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Pamela Geller has been around for years and well known as a top member of American Jihad groups. She is a college drop out and she has been accepting donations from all of US supporters which I strongly disagree with.

There are crazy people like this here in US unfortunately. There are many blogs you can read that suggest a strong tie with Tea Party. FYI

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is a newly released study completed by University of Wisconsin. This is a worth reading material on Prejudice. I have a new discovery on Pamela Geller.

can cause depression at the societal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels September 18, 2012 in Psychology & Psychiatry Although depression and prejudice traditionally fall into different areas of study and treatment, a new article suggests that many cases of depression may be caused by prejudice from the self or from another person. In an article published in the September 2012 issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, William Cox of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and colleagues argue that prejudice and depression are fundamentally connected.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-09-prejudice-depression-societal-interpersonal-intrapersonal.html#jCp

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator: @Smith; sorry, youre wrong. She called Muslim militants "savages". Read the first sentence of the article for confirmation. She means defeat the head hackers, intolerant homophobes who murder gays, mutilators, and virulent anti-semites.

I can sit down and have a conversation with someone and agree that militants are the problem, but a vague billboard can easily be interpreted to include a lot of things. I could put up a billboard reading, "Stop the Bible thumpers" and then tell people that I'm just talking about the far-right religious radicals, but I know damn well it would be seen as inclusive of everyone who is Christian since I'm not going to be sitting down and explaining my thoughts to everyone who drives by. At this point we don't know if she intentionally did this to "accidentally" increase the scope of her message or if she had to water it down in order to allow placement of the ad.

In a broader sense, this is why ads like this won't help. On the flip side the writer of the article decided to call her "Anti-Islam" which could be challenged if she really does only focus on militants who are people who do not practice what most Muslims practice. In addition, this ad is in response to an anti-Israeli ad that went up in New York State and California, hence the "support Israel," and it's surprising (or maybe I should stop being surprised) that the writer doesn't mention that. So now we have one group going up against another and the media will be more than happy to distort any messages, if needed, to get attention.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@BertieWooster

Who have US soldiers been fighting in Afghanistan for the past decade?....Whomever they were told to, right?

As you don't seem to know, the answer is the Taliban and al-Queda, both groups firmly driven by the Muslim faith. If Islam didn't exist, those groups wouldn't exist.

The vast majority of wars-conflicts taking place on Earth now involve Muslims. And no, it's not just Americans or even Westerners versus Islam. It also Indian Hindus, Philipinos, Thais, Sudanese, Burmese and so on.

So this isn't about a tiny minority of "radicals." It's about a supremacist ideology, the most intolerant and violence-prone mainstream ideology around.

We are not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with everyone else.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Vast: "@Smith; sorry, youre wrong. She called Muslim militants "savages". "

And if you bother to read my posts you'll see that I pointed that out, but then went on to point out further that while she should have limited her attacks to 'militants' she goes on to brand Muslims in general in the actual ads. What do the ads say, Vast? Do they say, "All Muslim militants are savage"? No, they do not. It stands to reason that all militants are savage, but this woman only justifies her blatant savagery and racism by stating that, while her ads show her for what she truly is -- a hypocrite, and a hater.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

JeffLee-san,

Well, America IS at war with Islam.

That's what you wrote.

Now you change it to "Islam is at war with everyone else."

Do you realize that the the population of Muslims on planet Earth is 23.4 percent?

Do you realize that nearly ONE QUARTER of the TOTAL Earth's population is Muslim, and that there are 2,595,000 Muslims in the U.S.A?

So, all of these guys are at war with everyone else?

If you doubt my figures, check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

Since we are all living on the same planet and there's only one of it, don't you think we ought to be finding ways to get along?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Superlib

this ad is in response to an anti-Israeli ad that went up in New York State and California, hence the "support Israel,"

The ad characterized as "anti-Israeli" is not, as it is a joint ad featuring a Palestinian family and an Israeli family appealing for an end to US military support for Israel, as seen at:

http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/09/anti-jihad-ads-in-new-york-subway/

The article to the above link also has a clip of an interview with the Geller woman.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@BertieWooster

So, all of these guys are at war with everyone else?

Not what I said. I said Islam is at war with the rest of the world. You're confusing people with ideology. Duh! Islam is an supremicist ideology, which shows basically zero intolerance toward nonbelievers, and that is why nearly all current global conflicts involve followers of Islam, who are taking on Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, animists, atheists, communists...you name it, anyone who is different. Or maybe you think that's just a coincidence? LOL.

Islam breeds primitive, backward societies. Does that sound harsh? Well, name one, ONE modern, open-minded high-tech Muslim society today. And no, not Malaysia or Indonesia, as their economies have long been run by their Chinese minorities.

don't you think we ought to be finding ways to get along?

The ones who are not getting along are the societies subscribing to medieval superstition, whose Sharia courts treat women like chattel and forbid -- outright forbid -- Muslim women from marrying anyone who is not a Muslim. "Getting along" involves eradicating all that nonsense. Our Western societies already did that, like, 500 years ago.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hate vs more hate?? Jews hating Muslims and Muslims hating Jews is just as stupid as Christians hating Jews and Muslims or as stupid as Protestants hating Catholics and vice a versa. All of this hate is WRONG! I have friends from all of these religions, we are only human, so time to grow up and help each other, love each other, use our BRAINS for good, NOT EVIL! NMRK

0 ( +2 / -2 )

JeffLee,

Your hate is showing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Elbuda-san,

I totally agree with you.

The problem isn't going to be solved by hate.

Unfortunately, there are nuts like Pamela Geller in all groups of people, whether they are Jews, Muslims, or the US cavalry.

Years ago, I was asked by an Australian friend who didn't speak Japanese to interpret for him at an Interfaith meeting in Hokkaido. There were people there of all religions. Some from religions I had heard of and many that I didn't know existed.

I went to the meeting expecting to meet a load of nutcases, but that was just a stupid fixed idea that I had picked up somewhere. Surprisingly, I had a really good time. Some of the people I talked with rank amongst some of the most intelligent people I have ever met, not dogmatic at all, but capable of accepting other ideas and looking at things from other viewpoints.

That taught me a lesson.

I didn't go to Church before the meeting and I didn't suddenly start going after it, but my attitude changed.

Tolerance and understanding are what are needed.

Not for the fanatics like Pamela Geller, because a person blinded by hate is a long, long way from any kind of understanding.

But for the average guys, who are just trying to get along with their lives in peace.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

ubitwit: The ad characterized as "anti-Israeli" is not, as it is a joint ad featuring a Palestinian family and an Israeli family appealing for an end to US military support for Israel, as seen at:

The organization at the center of the ad has placed many other ads, not just the one in your link. I suppose it comes down to what you feel is "anti." They publish misleading information and obviously want to manufacture anger, kind of like political ads today. We probably don't say a Republican ad is "anti-Democrat" but it serves the same purpose.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Geller is a crank, a provocatour, a blowhard, a bigot and an idiot.

And she is right. She does have the right in America to blear her nonsense as much as she pleases. Time and place restrictions applying, naturally.

That is what it means to live in a country with the First Amendment: no speech can be silenced for being "offensive." Content is speech is NEVER reason to censor. (Again, time and place restrictions aside) That much is, or rather, should be, crystal clear.

What is not so clear to many here is that this dedication to free speech is a good thing. Many here seem to think that free speech should be, ought to be, or even perhaps must be, moderated when it is found by some to be 'offensive."

I find it sad that we must, here at the dawn of the 21st century, still be fighting that old fight. Let me state it plainly, then,

The freedom to speak only acceptable ideas is not the freedom to speak. Precisely for this simple reason we must defend the right of the crank, the provocatour, the blowhard, the bigots and the idiot to offend.

It is not more complicated than that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, it is moral, if you wish to view things that way.

It is moral, because the the freedom to speak only acceptable ideas is not the freedom to speak.

Get it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@JTDanMan

You take the right in an absolute sense, while I think it is instructive to consider its original context.

The rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech are related to the right of self determination. That is to say, in a democracy people need to get together and talk about things without worrying about offending authority in order to arrive at truths that help them decide, individually at first and then collectively, what course to pursue into the future.

We have Hate speech laws because not all forms of speech are aimed at promoting the collective self-determination of democratic society by protecting the right of individuals to speak their mind without fear of being suppressed by some vested interests of power, as in a feudalistic society.

I think that the examples we are seeing hear are pushing the boundaries of how people define free-speech in the USA, and before too long some further qualification may be necessary. Inciting riot is already part of the Hate speech laws, so you can be sure that if these posters cause riots, they will be taken down.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

ubikwit

Thank you for your reply. You err is saying that I take the right to free speech in the absolute sense. I wrote "Time and place restrictions applying, naturally." And I should have added "manner." Time, place and manner restrictions (TPM) on free speech are anything but absolute free speech.

What is absolute, however, is CONTENT cannot be censored. It is Geller's right to hate Muslims, and it is her right to let people know that she hates them. What she cannot do is express her hatred of Muslims in such a time, place, or manner that violates the TPM restrictions placed on free speech. If her add read:

"Be Vigilant! Protect Israel! Punch Every Jihadist's You See in the Nose. They Cannot be Trusted."

then clearly her add would violate manner of expression b/c it incites violence. And incitement to violence is not protected speech. Nothing is the current add meets the legal standard for incitement violence. The current add says: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” Clearly, Geller had her lawyers proof read the add.

You could make the argument that the subway is responsible for the content of the add. You would be very foolish, I believe, to make that argument, because then all adds on the subway would be subject to the same standard. And thus the Family Research Council could target any Planned Parenthood ad, any Democratic organization could target any Republican candidate's ad, etc etc.

You also could argue that because the subway is owned by the City of New York, that the add is in government public place, that the anti-Jihad add is someone condoned by the City of New York. Again, the problem with that argument is the same as above: the Family Research Council could target any Planned Parenthood ad, any Democratic organization could target any Republican candidate's ad, etc etc.

The bottom line is that Geller's ad falls well within what our society tolerates in terms of free speech.

I think it is a good thing that we tolerate a wide range of unpleasant speech. I know I can handle coming across speech that I not only do not like, but content that I strongly feel threatens the American Way of Life. It saddens me that many people do not seem to be able to handle that. It saddens me that many people think it is better to silence odious ideas rather than take them on and destroy them.

And it disturbs me that people have come to believe that "That's offensive" is any kind of argument in taking on odious ideas.

Here is the way I look at it: I try to take the form of a given idea that I think is stupid, or ignorant, or hateful, or idiotic, and I change the subject matter. Then I take a look at what I got, and see if I can or cannot tolerate it. Here, changing Gellers ad to an Islamist one and get:

“In any war between the one true God and the Heathen, support the followers of the Muhammed. Support Iran. Defeat Israel”

Can I handle that? Yes. Do I think the people of New York can? Yes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JTDanMan

And thank you for the further thought provoking response.

I have to admit that I don't see anything but problems in relation to this conundrum.

First, I have to agree with basically every point you cogently make regarding the right of free speech per se. Particularly within the context of American society, most people are acultured to encountering untoward and even anti-social speech and then trying to address those issues in an open manner. But people even in America are circling the wagons, becoming entrenched in bunkered mentalities in which dogma encumbers the capacity of reason, to the point where even holding an intelligent conversations on an issue of mutual concern in a forward looking manner becomes near impossibe. When you extend that to developing countries where religious institutions still play a large role in education, etc. especially in the case of Islam where there is a long tumultuous history with the West, the effect of free speech acts within the USA reach far beyond the shores of the USA, but have repercussions in the USA.

Second, although I personally favor implementing some provisions to contain this type of deliberately inflammatory kind of speech, I don't see any way to do it yet.

For example, if you try to simply extend the effective scope of the hate laws, you could see scenarios evolve in which groups react violently simply to exploit that scope in order to further the ends of their own private agenda against speech that should be protected as free speech but which they target because it threatens their agenda. That certainly would not serve to promote the modern open society embraced by the American Way of Life.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It looks like we agree on everything. Except whether the ad reaches "inflammatory speech."

It does neither in our current free speech doctrine, nor does it IMHO.

Perhaps this is because both our current free speech doctrine and IMHO, the way to solve the circling of the wagons is not to curtail speech, but to increase it. People circle their wagons only when they think they are distinct from the other and they are being attacked.

The full embrace of the freedom of speech -- the full appreciation that no idea is beyond the pale for the public sphere, of the body politic -- inevitably erodes any necessity to circle the wagons. The only groups we need to circle against are those who will violence to accomplish their goals in our civil society.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ubikwit

Alow me to weigh in as well. The problem is what is "deliberately inflammatory speech". How can you determine if speech is deliberately inflammatory, or accidentally inflammatory? I dont want the courts/police trying to read the minds of people to determine their intent. Speech is what it is.

Far too many civil rights have been won by speech that was considered inflammatory- equal rights for blacks, homosexuals, women. Not to mention, how is it possible to regulate speech that originates in one country (with a set of laws) but causes upset in another country (with radically different laws)? You can't make people responsible for what happens halfway around the world as a result of their words.

I can only see a very few reasons to restrict speech;

a/libel fraud, and slander b/ proprietary information and confidentiality c/ immediate incitement to violence

Other than that, nothing. Clearly Geller's bus poster doesn'T even come close to the boundary of what is illegal.

Personally, I think we have hate speech laws because it's easier to censor than to ignore things we don't like. Nobody wants to be uncomfortable, and there is the temptation to just ban things that make us feel that way. We so want everyone to be civil and nice that we try to legislate it. But that road only leads to tyrrany.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

Yeah, the more I think about it vigilance in paying attention to what people are saying and then amplifying speech that would seem to exceed simply being a controversial opinion.

One reason for that is because you are right that there is no means of entrusting authority with regulating speech, as you say, and as you have pointed out the court had determined in advance that the poster did not cross the line of Hate speech. On the other hand, I think that the poster is inflammatory insofar as it simply pits one group of people against another, characterizing one as savages and the other as civilized. And it should be notes that the transit authority, that is to say, the people responsible for maintaining order on the subway system, did not want this poster going up, so they refused it.

You point to another issue regarding the international aspect, and technology has facilitated instantaneous transmission of speech and media across the globe. This is also something that is basically a recent development, and I'm all for it, basically.

You raise the point of different laws in different countries, and that is another pertinent issue. A lot of countries are modernizing and embracing the societal values of democracy and civil liberties, etc. and the Internet is by and large a positive interlocutor in enabling people to learn, which brings the world closer together. There are a few who are trying to exploit it to push people apart, however, foment conflict, etc. That in turn has resulted in more calls for regulating and curbing the Internet in some countries.

The West didn't develop and become modern overnight, and it is unreasonable to expect other countries to do so. When people see a "disgusting and reprehensible" video that insults and denigrates them coming from the USA, it damages international relations and wreaks havoc in some countries. It certainly doesn't portray American values of modern society in a good light, and it may even contribute to curbs being placed on free speech in a regressive manner. But I digress, just thinking about the implications of all this.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This kind of thing doesn't help and should be punished severely:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19708371

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites