tangent4ronpaul
10-09-2012, 08:47 AM
http://blogs.voanews.com/digital-frontiers/2012/09/30/regulating-the-sacred-and-the-profane/
Eltahawy, who considers the ad hate propaganda, had had enough. She took a can of pink spray paint from her bag and began covering over Geller’s work. What she didn’t expect is that Geller supporter Pamela Hall was nearby doing an interview for local television. Hall thrust herself in between the ad and Eltahawy, and a argument ensued. “Mona, you think you have a right to do this?” asked Hall.”I do, actually,” Eltahawy shot back; “I think this is freedom of expression just as this (the ad) is freedom of expression.” A fight ensued; not long after two uniformed policemen put Eltahawy in handcuffs and arrested her. (She’s since been released.)
Initially, the Metropolitan Transport Authority barred the ads; however U.S. district judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the ads were protected speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment. ”Our hands are tied,” said an MTA spokesperson. “Under our existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is required to run the ad.”
Also under existing MTA rules, defacing any approved ad is an act of vandalism and graffiti, a misdemeanor, which is exactly what Eltahawy was charged with before being released. Which pretty much should have ended that story.
But in this small confrontation, we can see many aspects of the much larger and more troublesome conflicts triggered by those Internet clips of the movie titled “Innocence of Muslims” still churning. Such as: what constitutes free speech? When can hateful speech be banned, and what is an appropriate reaction to speech one finds repellent? And who decides such things?
“My right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel’s right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia,” writes journalist Khalid Amayreh in an online post. That heartfelt sentiment, while it wouldn’t pass muster in a U.S. court, appears to be one many Muslims are embracing. In other words, a new right: The Right To Not Be Offended.
At this week’s U.N. General Assembly, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is leading efforts to have all Muslim nations back “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred,” (although who exactly would make that call is unclear.) Wasting no time at home, Turkish Minister Egeman Bagis told TRT TV “we have now begun working on making insults against (holy) values a crime against humanity upon directives by Prime Minister Erdogan.”
Speaking Saturday with The Washington Post, Yemeni President Abed Rabbog Mansour Hadi echoed this theme, saying “It should not be understood that freedom of expression is freedom of attacking other’s faith.”
Except that it is. At least, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
(more at link)
While we are at it, can we kick all this PC BS out of our school system?
And nativity scenes and the banning of the word Christmas in favor of "Happy Holliday", etc.
-t
Eltahawy, who considers the ad hate propaganda, had had enough. She took a can of pink spray paint from her bag and began covering over Geller’s work. What she didn’t expect is that Geller supporter Pamela Hall was nearby doing an interview for local television. Hall thrust herself in between the ad and Eltahawy, and a argument ensued. “Mona, you think you have a right to do this?” asked Hall.”I do, actually,” Eltahawy shot back; “I think this is freedom of expression just as this (the ad) is freedom of expression.” A fight ensued; not long after two uniformed policemen put Eltahawy in handcuffs and arrested her. (She’s since been released.)
Initially, the Metropolitan Transport Authority barred the ads; however U.S. district judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the ads were protected speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment. ”Our hands are tied,” said an MTA spokesperson. “Under our existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is required to run the ad.”
Also under existing MTA rules, defacing any approved ad is an act of vandalism and graffiti, a misdemeanor, which is exactly what Eltahawy was charged with before being released. Which pretty much should have ended that story.
But in this small confrontation, we can see many aspects of the much larger and more troublesome conflicts triggered by those Internet clips of the movie titled “Innocence of Muslims” still churning. Such as: what constitutes free speech? When can hateful speech be banned, and what is an appropriate reaction to speech one finds repellent? And who decides such things?
“My right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel’s right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia,” writes journalist Khalid Amayreh in an online post. That heartfelt sentiment, while it wouldn’t pass muster in a U.S. court, appears to be one many Muslims are embracing. In other words, a new right: The Right To Not Be Offended.
At this week’s U.N. General Assembly, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is leading efforts to have all Muslim nations back “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred,” (although who exactly would make that call is unclear.) Wasting no time at home, Turkish Minister Egeman Bagis told TRT TV “we have now begun working on making insults against (holy) values a crime against humanity upon directives by Prime Minister Erdogan.”
Speaking Saturday with The Washington Post, Yemeni President Abed Rabbog Mansour Hadi echoed this theme, saying “It should not be understood that freedom of expression is freedom of attacking other’s faith.”
Except that it is. At least, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
(more at link)
While we are at it, can we kick all this PC BS out of our school system?
And nativity scenes and the banning of the word Christmas in favor of "Happy Holliday", etc.
-t