Motus Mentis

34 Comments

1. JK says

   Pink paint and out of can at that seems an odd choice for that sort of expressing.

   Ms. Eltahawy? Don’t know you were aware of it but had you stuck to a good American brand of paint (say Krylon) you’d likely have been unmolested.

   The reason you were arrested Ms. Eltahawy was that the security cameras at the entrance to the tunnel caught sight of the text on the label of the can which plainly stated: “this paint contains chloroflorocarbons”.

   But what gave you away (before the security monitors could translate the label) your purse had not been zippered tight enough to hide from the authorites you were carrying a 16 ounce full strength soda pop as well as an incandescent lightbulb.

   You were not Miss Eltahawy, being denied the freedom to express – rather you violated two EPA regulations as well as New York’s Anti-Big Sugary Drinks ordinance.

   But be of good cheer Miss Eltahawy – only the one violation will earn you time in the slammer. The transit authorities would simply have confiscated your soda pop (maybe your lightbulb) and you would’ve been free to spray to your heart’s content.

   Didn’t you read the fine print on your citizenship test Miss Eltahawy?

   Posted September 25, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
2. Age of Treason says

   It’s unlikely that anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial ads would be allowed to run in New York. And Holocaust denial is illegal in many parts of Europe.

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 1:42 am | Permalink
3. Malcolm says

   I have a feeling that such ads would in fact be allowed to run in New York, though it would be a good time to invest in spray-paint stocks.

   As we know, Europe is hardly a bastion of free speech these days.

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 8:02 am | Permalink
4. Dom says

   Plenty of people carry signs with slogans like “Hitler was right” or “Prepare for the real Holocaust”. Neo-Nazis marched down Skokie Illinois with the ACLU defending them. I don’t have the energy to think of examples of ads about Holocaust denial, but I like to think that Americans, even this idiot woman, are too intelligent to deny a part of German history that the Germans themselves have long since accepted.

   There are plenty of outlets for anti-semitic nonsense. Your complaint is just that the usual outlets are not taken seriously. There’s a good reason for that. Americans like Jews.

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 8:02 am | Permalink
5. fnn says

   No march in Skokie ever occurred. The strange half-Jewish pedophile(he was later convicted of having sex with 10 year old boys)who was head of the local “nazis” made a deal with the Chicago Park District to instead hold a rally in Marquette Park near the party headquarters.

   BTW, there’s a famous SCOTUS case involving a
   Jewish (and probably also Communist) riot against free speech:
   http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/terminiello.html

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink
6. Age of Treason says

   “Anti-Semitic” or Holocaust denial ads would likely not be allowed to run in a place like New York. They would face even more opposition than these anti-Jihad ads. Expressing any sort of views deemed “anti-Semitic” is a career killer in many fields.

   Post-WWII curbs on free speech have been driven largely by Jews seeking to suppress “anti-Semitic” views (while advocating complete free speech in anti-Christian speech, obscenity, pornography, etc.), and now the Muslims are getting in on the game. This isn’t so much about free speech as about two theocracies, Holocaustianity and Islam, battling it out on Western turf to protect their sacred cows while allowing criticism and attacks on everything else in the name of free speech.

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
7. JK says

   fnn?

   How far might you be able to throw a stone?

   Skokie is at 42.04°N 87.75°W – Marquette Park, 41.76°N 87.70°W.

   Age of Treason?

   Far as I know, there are no Jews living within 100 miles of me. We had some other ethnicities in these parts up until 1906. HQ of the Klan being nearby – 36.31°N 93°W – might explain the dearth of minorities.

   Yet, for nearly the same 100 miles around, we have curbs on free speech. Post WWII.

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
8. JK says

   Age of Treason?

   I got to thinking you might have some doubts as to whether the coordinates I gave for the Klan HQ were to be depended on.

   Now admittedly the town that’s listed on the jump is some nine miles south of the location I gave, but it is in the same school district.

   http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/04/out-of-bounds.html

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink
9. Dom says

   JK? When you’re sober, you’re aces.

   Posted September 26, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
10. the one eyed man says

    1) Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published around the turn of the last century, and was used by people ranging from Henry Ford to Adolph Hitler to stir up anti-Semitic hysteria. Although it did not single-handedly cause the Holocaust, it was used widely by the Nazis to further their interests.

    What, if anything, should the interested parties – Jews, the goyim, the state – have done following its publication?

    2) Let’s suppose that you’re black. Let’s further suppose that the KKK buys space in the subways for posters depicting blacks as baboons eating watermelon. You pass by the poster twice a day, to and from work, and often with your children. Would it be wrong for you to deface the poster?

    Posted September 26, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
11. Malcolm says

    Why single out blacks? People insult other people in print all over the place.

    I can certainly understand why a person thus offended would want to deface such a poster, and I can understand why all decent people would shun and revile the KKK for putting up such an ad, just as they shun and revile Fred Phelps for his “God Hates Fags” campaign.

    As for “wrong”, are you asking about the law? You’ve always been a pretty hard-core free-speech absolutist, as I recall. The problem here is that when “offensive” speech is banned, and what is “offensive” is up to the offendee, free speech goes out the window pretty quickly. So we have to permit some pretty distasteful stuff.

    Yet another argument against radical multiculturalism, by the way: the overlap in the Venn diagram of what’s offensive to all the different groups gets smaller and smaller.

    Posted September 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
12. the one eyed man says

    I am pretty close to an absolutist on the First Amendment. I believe that Nazis should be able to march through Skokie, crackpot preachers should be able to burn Korans, and so forth.

    However, I do not feel that those who control media have an obligation to display any and all advertising that someone wants to buy, regardless of how repugnant it is. The owner of the medium – regardless of whether it is a private company like CBS or a public venue like the subways – should have the right to decide, in its sole discretion, whether advertising is so offensive that it ought not to be displayed. I include advertising which gratuitously insults races or religions in that category.

    The distinction is that if you publish a racist and incendiary book, its exposure is limited to those people in bookstores who seek it. If you put a poster in the town square or on a 30 second ad on television, it will be seen by many people who would be deeply offended by it. We could argue about where the line should be drawn, but advertising which suggests that Muslims are savages or blacks are baboons are surely beyond the pale.

    I had a deeply conservative professor in college (Hadley Arkes – you can wikipedia him and see just how conservative he is) who argued that civility is a public good and the state has the right to support it. The conflict here is between the right to express abhorrent images or ideas and the societal right of civility. I have no doubt that a black kid or a Muslim kid would be deeply scarred from constant exposure to racist advertising. I do not think that the state has the right to prohibit this type of advertising. However, I think the owner of the medium has not only the right, but also the obligation, to ban ads like this.

    As for the woman who spray painted the poster: you would call it vandalism, but I would call it civil disobedience. If I were on the jury, I would vote to acquit.

    Posted September 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
13. JK says

    I can’t get you “add image doo dad to work Malcolm. Check your email in a sec. Don’t know it’s the same (incendiary) as “baboons eating watermelon” but it did keep Branson Missouri’s tourists pretty much WASP.

    Posted September 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
14. Malcolm says

    Here’s JK’s image:

     

    

     
     
     
     

    Posted September 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Permalink
15. Malcolm says

    Peter:

    Well, this is where libertarianism collides with traditional conservatism (which in turn is distinct from fiscal conservatism).

    I have considerable sympathy for traditional conservatism. Your professor’s viewpoint seems to be that of a traditional conservative. Are you arguing for traditional conservatism here?

    If so, keep in mind that traditional conservatism requires a shared understanding of “the good”. Or to put it another way, traditional conservatism rather obviously requires that there be, in the first place, common traditions.

    In communities where most values, mores, traditions, language, religion, etc., are shared, laws that constrain behavior in accordance with those shared habits, preferences, and moral and social guidelines, impinge very lightly on perceived freedom. (This was the point of a post on the meaning of liberty I wrote a little while back.)

    But as societies become more diverse, and there is less and less overlap in terms of shared traditions and sensibilities, the possibility of community-wide agreement on any broad basis for tradition-based law withers away, because less and less is shared. At the same time, opportunities for giving offense increase exponentially. So in contrast to homogeneous, tradition-based societies, in which the public square is a comfortable place that is, in effect, a communal extension of the home, in diverse societies liberty in the public square, being limited to what is acceptable to all, shrinks perceptibly as what is acceptable to all gets smaller and smaller. (That traditional pig-roast at the company picnic that everyone used to look forward to is no longer acceptable, for example, if Muslims are present.)

    In such situations, then, when it is difficult to find a natural consensus based on common tradition, everything becomes a matter of law, and the more diverse the community, the more bickering there will be about what the laws should be: about what offends, and what must be accommodated. There being no shared, higher definition of the good to appeal to (particularly in secular societies), the only bedrock left, the only possible authority, is the Constitution — and where shared tradition is absent, that authority is likely to be appealed to more and more often. When natural communal cohesion based on common tradition is adulterated out of existence, what’s left behind is only a “proposition nation”, with nothing more than a set of abstract principles as society’s only foundation.

    I imagine that the suppression of opinion in a government-run venue like the subways is Constitutionally impermissible. And if the ad is there legally, then spray-painting it is an illegal act of vandalism, and is a private attempt to suppress Constitutionally protected speech. I’d vote to convict.

    The particular ad in this case asserts that jihadists are savages. Not that Muslims are savages, though jihadists are of course Muslims. It says nothing whatsoever about race.

    I think “savages” here is not the best choice of words. Some jihadists, especially the dawa jihadists of terror-renouncing organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood (and its many front groups in the West), clearly are not savages (though they share the same goals as the violent jihadists, and in my opinion pose a far direr threat to our civilization). But a very great deal of very brutal savagery has been committed by jihadists, again and again. I don’t think, for example, that it is unfair to describe as “savages” jihadists who behead helpless hostages, commit intentional mass murder of innocent civilians, or slaughter young girls for going to school. At the very least, I think it’s fair, if I may use a “traditional” term that all would have agreed on in more “traditional” times, to call them evil. In that sense, then, the ad calls on civilization to stand up against evil — something traditional conservatives should have no problem with.

    How would you resolve the Constitutional issue here, given that the subway is a public institution?

    Posted September 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
16. fnn says

    How far might you be able to throw a stone?
    Skokie is at 42.04°N 87.75°W — Marquette Park, 41.76°N 87.70°W.

    That’s in an urban area with about eight million people. Marquette Park is on the
    SW Side of the City of Chicago and Skokie is a suburb contiguous to the far NW Side of Chicago. Different worlds then and now-even though the ethnic and racial composition of both places has changed radically since the days of the neo-nazi hysteria.

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 3:46 am | Permalink
17. JK says

    Thanks, haven’t visited there personally since my Dad was stationed at Great Lakes in the late 50s although a time or two I flew over when I was active in the very early 80s.

    I’ve no plans to visit (physically) unless when I decease I get surprised and find there is a Hell.

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 5:24 am | Permalink
18. JK says

    I’d just add – while there are none of the demographic groups I earlier mentioned living here, frequently I do entertain and enjoy overnight company.

    When I returned from service, having never been thoroughly indoctrinated, I’d developed a quite eclectic variety of friends and acquaintances. Some few (well a number actually) of the old-timers admonished me but I never was one to give even a small rat’s ass what other people deemed “ill-considered friendships.”

    The natives have adapted to my eccentricities – with the exception of the KKK zealots. Matter of fact, there’s a sign posted on my gate: “No Jihadis, No KKK, No Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

    Alas – it’s very difficult apparently to teach a Jehovah’s Witness to read.

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 5:54 am | Permalink
19. Dom says

    One of the more depressing things I’ve read. And from a Lawyer, Posner.

    I’ve never read such a collection of muddle-headed sentences. But be sure to read the comments.

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 8:06 am | Permalink
20. JK says

    Back up the thread a’ways Dom, you cheered me up – and it looks like my sobriety-stretch might extend (through no fault of the VA’s scheduling, something else) for at least a couple of weeks.

    So – tit for tat. And a Irishman at that. (Don’t tell Duff.)

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-all-sides-are-not-equal-in-religious-violence-3233155.html

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink
21. Dom says

    That was a great article, JK, and exactly what I needed after Posner’s nonsense.

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink
22. Jeffery Hodges says

    As soon as I saw the headline to Posner’s article, I knew it wouldn’t be worth reading . . . so I didn’t read it.

    Did I miss anything?

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
23. Jeffery Hodges says

    “No Jihadis, No KKK, No Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

    They can read, JK, and when they saw that you had no JWs, they merely wondered if you needed any.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
24. the one eyed man says

    Sorry for the late response. I have been working like a dog (as if dogs work. Mine sure doesn’t).

    I am arguing for – or at least sympathetic to – traditional conservatism in this instance.

    I do not think that diversity is an impediment to defining core American values. In this example, I would think that recent immigrants have at least as much of a disgust towards hate speech as native born Americans – probably more so, as they are much more likely to be its target.

    I doubt that the fact that the subways are public has constitutional relevance. I would think that advertising featuring a naked man with an erect penis would be banned on subway walls – or even a flaccid one. If the subways can ban offensive images, why not offensive speech? They are (or can be) both instances of the expression of an idea.

    It is disingenuous to suggest that the offensive posters are aimed at jihadists. Does Pamela Geller think that a jihadist would look at the poster and think “Oh, wow! I am so wrong about this!” Nor is it aimed at those who oppose jihad – pretty much everybody – as they don’t need any convincing on the subject.

    Geller is a bomb thrower, and her intent apparently is to insult and provoke Muslims, in much the same way that cartoons showing Mohammed as a drunken pederast do. This sort of speech may be legal, but it is indefensible.

    This week’s Economist featurs an insightful piece about why Americans are remarkably civil, but American politics are remarkably incivil:

    http://www.economist.com/node/21563312

    Posted September 27, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
25. JK says

    Jeff? Tho’ you’re first in line, I’ve got to deal with this first.

    Peter?

    “I doubt that the fact that the subways are public has constitutional relevance.”

    Notice that image Malcolm managed to get the “add image doo dad” to insert? Think Missouri’s DOT just said “Sure Mr. Dragon, we’ll paint up a sign and even plant it for you nice fellers of the Klan who’re gonna take over picking up the beer cans so we DOT guys can go back to eating donuts“?

    Actually, it took SCOTUS to stop eating their donuts before the sign got planted.

    (It was only after a few of the hooded guys got beaned by a few folks who switched from aluminum cans to bottles the hoods decided they didn’t really care whether they’d won their case. A bottle travelling in the neighborhood of 60 mph can be mighty discouragous.)

    Jeff?

    I added, “Allowed” – I do hope that works. Thanks.

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
26. Dom says

    Well, vandalism is illegal, but it gets results. Now the MTA in NY will tell us what is free speech and what is not.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
27. JK says

    Admitting I’m not well-equipped to use language like many here are, something Peter you’ve typed looks like I might be able to hit at least into the infield.

    “It is disingenuous to suggest that the offensive posters are aimed at jihadists.”

    I’d posit the posters are not in the least “aimed at jihadists” – rather the posters are aimed primarily at a community. In this case a community from which jihadists are known to spring.

    And while the posters, were they pasted to the walls of the subways in say, Kandahar could probably not be hoped to have the intended effect – in New York, there’s a chance the target audience might understand it is only from them that effective communications within that community could discourage some who might be tempted toward jihad.

    You may recall Peter, you’re old enough, it wasn’t so long ago we here in the US understood what the phrase “Going Postal” meant – I doubt very much Peter you’re aware as I am (I’ve a kid who was a Postal Inspector) but anyway, variations on “Going Postal” began appearing in places where that community was made aware a positive message might be ameliorative. If the affected community was made aware the community itself, held the key to the medicine.

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
28. JK says

    Dom?

    By any chance do you know (screenshot maybe) what exactly the poster stated in it’s entirety? Just from the bit I discerned, I couldn’t tell how it illustrated “Pro-Israeli.”

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink
29. the one eyed man says

    JK: it looks like the KKK sign is an adopt-a-road thing, which is different from advertising which expresses an idea. If they want to be a proud sponsor of I-70, so be it.

    However, if they bought an ad which said “Come join the KKK in our snazzy white outfits (gray for away games) while we string up schvartzes,” that would be different.

    As for who the MTA ads are addressed to: I agree that it is aimed at all Muslims, which is why it is so deeply offensive. Your suggestion is that the way to win hearts and minds is to call people savages?

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
30. Dom says

    I can’t get a screenshot but it looks like: In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.

    I thought it was aimed at Americans who support jihadis, like university professors.

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
31. JK says

    Peter?

    I’d appreciate it very much if you can provide me a full-text screenshot showing whatever the nice Miss Eltahawy was pinking, was indeed an advertisement.

    I’d like very much to see how Jews (or any adherents of anything) would phrase so to “advertise” anybody to anything that’d guarentee me a virgin. Though for me, no more than a baker’s dozen.

    (I’m very curious ’cause I’d really really enjoy knowing how I could print myself up a billboard and get laid a few more times a month than I did when I was younger.)

    Yes Peter, the KKK sign was just that, but you’d typed, “I doubt that the fact that the subways are public has constitutional relevance.”

    Peter? Did you happen to read the comment where I’d described the sign that’s on my gate? “Savages” are not anywhere described – however it’s easy enough to rid oneself of a Jehovah’s Witness. Without having to call in a Medi-Vac.

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink
32. Holger D. says

    Here is the advertisement.

    Posted September 28, 2012 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
33. JK says

    Appreciate it Holger D.

    (If I’d known I was gonna be taking up having alot to do on a blog, I’d not eaten so much. Thank God for heartburn’s effect on sleep.)

    Oh what tangled webs [are] weaved.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209227/Mona-Eltahawy-EXCLUSIVE-Woman-attacked-defending-anti-jihad-subway-ad-plans-sue-activist-sprayed-HER.html

    Don’t use Wiki much myself but I do like the way it cites!

    So – here we have one Miss Hall with some connection/arrangement (apparently/coincidentally) to/with the “AFDI” which purchased the ads. Miss Hall with tripod equipped camera just happens to be standing very close by (with a film crew) the sign which itself we are given to understand ticked off Miss Eltahawy.

    Oddly, “The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (a mainstream umbrella group for the Jewish community) has called it “Bigoted, Divisive” and JCPA President Rabbi Steve Gutow has said “The fact that ads have been placed in the subway attacking Israel does not excuse the use of attack ads against Muslims…”

    ((I wonder… is it just possible Miss Hall was kinda close to inciting??))

    My first words on this thread, “Pink paint … seems an odd choice” now seems if anything, even odder. The vid rendered the paint kinda ineffective at obscuring the text of the ad.

    And Miss Hall is not suing Miss Eltahawy for spraying the ad, no Miss Hall is suing Miss Eltahawy for spraying Miss Hall with the pink paint.

    I’m not sure if it’d fly in a New York courtroom but were I Miss Eltahawy’s attorney I’d tell the jury, “Miss Eltahawy didn’t really bear any animus to the sign. No indeedy no.

    Miss Eltahawy was actually, in fact, trying to unite the communities – given that females of both are equally deficient in breast cancer awareness!”

    Then – were I Miss Eltahawy’s attorney – I’d slap a suit on Miss Hall for violating Miss Eltahawy’s right to free speech.

    In any case, this little foofaraw doesn’t seem what it did not so long ago.

    Posted September 29, 2012 at 2:29 am | Permalink
34. Malcolm says

    There is much I’d like to respond to here — in particular the bizarre idea that one can simultaneously be a traditional conservative and a diversity-mongering multiculturalist — but we are still too bogged down in all the exhausting complications of moving house for me to be able to at the moment.

    Posted September 29, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Permalink