Message to Pamela Geller: Free speech, not hate speech

by on August 17, 2012 22
19sharesFacebook
14tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
2sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

A friend sent along the following photos. For more on the Geller ad, see here.

Before
8/12/12 San Francisco Muni Bus Ad: Before
After
8/16/12 San Francisco Muni Bus Ad: After

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Activism, US Politics

{ 22 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. pabelmont says:
    August 17, 2012 at 9:57 am

    “Jihad” can be understood as code for Islamic or Muslim. It may be understood in its non-code meaning as a “struggle” or “war” and people who think of it as meaning (or embracing) “terrorism” (i.e., violence against non-combatants which the USA dislikes and does not support) will think that “jihad” is properly called “savage”. (Muslims who understand “jihad” more broadly will think otherwise.)

    However, because it can be understood as code for Islamic or Muslim, it is hate language. (Someone should ask Transit to demand that Geller revise the signs to actually SAY that “jihad” does not mean “Muslim” or “Islamic”, I expect she’d refuse, citing freedom of speech — it’s her message, after all, not Transit’s. The question of cleaning up misunderstandings in a touchy situation is important and difficult.

    BTW, the idea that Israel is properly characterized, here, as “civilized” is remarkable, although, of course, Nazi Germany was also civilized (if you ignore much of the stuff its army and secret police did).

  2. FreddyV says:
    August 17, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Great work. It’s just a shame it obscures the original text. Those ads far better serve to display the evil bigotry of Geller and her ilk than garner support for Israel.

  3. Dan Crowther says:
    August 17, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Not a fan of that, they shouldn’t have blocked it out.

    is there a worse term than “hate speech”? I’ve always found it so distasteful, I always think “Thought Crime” when I hear or read it.

    • chinese box says:
      August 17, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      I agree with Dan. I’m also against “hate crime” laws–too much potential for the laws to be abused for political or “identity politics” reasons.

    • Carowhat says:
      August 17, 2012 at 8:49 pm

      My reaction also. People who want to ban hate speech just want to ban anything they don’t want to hear. Once you grant them the right to ban hate speech then you will forever be fighting rearguard actions over whether a given statement is hateful or not. In the end they get what they wanted in the first place–the ability to ban political opinions with which they disagree.

  4. Annie Robbins says:
    August 17, 2012 at 10:51 am

    hey, political art..love it.

  5. Les says:
    August 17, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Geller will declare the attachment anti-Semitic.

  6. Carowhat says:
    August 17, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    The people who want to ban hate speech really want to ban anything they don’t want to hear. It reminds me of of the US policy of declaring an American citizen a terrorist so you don’t have to hold a trial to blow him up with a drone. American Jews have traditionally favored free speech. The place where they and free speech part ways is free speech about Israel. If you can successfully label criticism of Israel as hate speech you get to oppose it while still (in your own mind) remaining a fierce supporter of the Second Amendment. A really robust democracy (of which we are not one anymore) doesn’t get its shorts in a twist just because it’s favorite democracy in the Middle East gets lambasted now and then.

    • Fredblogs says:
      August 17, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      First Amendment: freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government.

      In America, hate speech is protected by the first amendment. Calling something hate speech is just engaging in more speech. Unless you do it in a way that actually prevents the other person from exercising their right to free speech.

      The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.

      • Shingo says:
        August 17, 2012 at 7:01 pm

        First Amendment: freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government.

        I beieve this modifiction to Gellar’s add falls into that category.

        • Fredblogs says:
          August 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm

          Sorry, vandalizing someone else’s ad doesn’t fall into the category of “free speech”. It falls into the category of “criminal act”. Paying for your own ad which consists of their ad with the depicted vandalism on it would be free speech.

          Do you think it is legitimate to vandalize your Palestine map ads? Or does your idea of free speech means you get to say what you want and prevent other people from saying what they want in the same circumstances?

        • Cliff says:
          August 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm

          Feel free to vandalize Palestinian map ads, Blobs.

          We don’t agree with your political ideology.

          We don’t share the same values.

          Example: you think pedophilia is acceptable so long as a Zionist Jew is doing it.

          Ditto for Hophmi and gulug-g.

          In other words, if there is no common ground between us on basic moral values and decency (i.e., thou shall not steal, etc.) – than kindly **** off.

          You are the villain of this story.

      • Carowhat says:
        August 17, 2012 at 8:40 pm

        Re Second versus First amendment. Sorry about that. I’ve done that a couple of times over the years. Some Freudian short circuiting, I suppose.

  7. Fredblogs says:
    August 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    The vandalism is not political art, and not a legitimate exercise of free speech. Rather it is a violation of someone else’s right to free speech. It is wrong and uncivilized. If you object to the content, pay for your own ad.

    • Shingo says:
      August 17, 2012 at 7:00 pm

      It is wrong and uncivilized.

      Yes, calling Palestinians savages is civlized Fred. Way to go.

    • piotr says:
      August 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm

      This is more iffy. “Civilized against the savage” evokes and glorifies massacres committed by the scions of “civilization” against the “natives”. Mow the Fuzzy-woozies with Gatling guns, drive the Hereros into waterless desert and keep them there until they die of thirst, men, women and children, this type of glorious stuff.

      So at best it is ugly speech, following the principle that those who extoll superiority of their civilization do much to subtract from that superiority. Indeed, those are code words of the murderous racism of the colonial era. Jihad is just a cherry on the cake here.

      I would sentence the perps of this vandalism to two weeks of community service, namely personally lecturing Ms. Geller on evils of colonialism.

    • ColinWright says:
      August 18, 2012 at 1:11 am

      Fredblogs says: “The vandalism is not political art, and not a legitimate exercise of free speech. Rather it is a violation of someone else’s right to free speech. It is wrong and uncivilized. If you object to the content, pay for your own ad.”

      Assuming I thought it would actually be effective propaganda, I would vandalize one of these ads without hesitation. I’d feel about it exactly like I’d feel about screwing up one of Hitler’s torchlight parades.

  8. DICKERSON3870 says:
    August 17, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    RE: “Message to Pamela Geller: Free speech, not hate speech”

    MY QUESTION: Does anyone know which branch of Judaism Pamela Geller is associated with? Reform, Conservative, Orthodox or “other”? Or is she pretty much secular? Enquiring mimes want to know!™

    P.S. I do know that Pamela Geller’s “white supremacist” attorney (David Yerushalmi) is Orthodox.
    SEE: “David Yerushalmi, Islam-Hating White Supremacist Inspires Anti-Sharia Bills Sweeping Tea Party Nation”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 3/02/11
    LINK – link to richardsilverstein.com

    P.P.S. Pamela Geller and her ilk illustrate why I fear that Revisionist Zionism and Likudnik Israel (specifically by virtue of their inordinate sway over the U.S.) might very well be an “existential threat” to the values of The Enlightenment ! ! !

    • ALSO SEE: ‘Israelis are helping write US laws, fund US campaigns, craft US war policy’, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 6/30/12
    LINK – link to mondoweiss.net
    • AND SEE: “America Adopts the Israel Paradigm”, by Philip Ghiraldi, Antiwar.com, 7/05/12
    LINK – link to original.antiwar.com
    • AND SEE: “Report: Israeli model underlies militarization of U.S. police”, By Muriel Kane, Raw Story, 12/04/11
    LINK – link to rawstory.com

    • P.P.P.S. AND HERE’S YET ANOTHER THREAT TO THE VALUES OF “THE ENLIGHTENMENT”: “US Religious Right Propelling Homophobia in African Countries”, by Common Dreams, 7/24/12
    LINK – link to commondreams.org

  9. Keith says:
    August 17, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Speaking of free speech, how many are aware that the Obama administration has sought to silence more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange obvious examples, Assange not even a US citizen.
    link to zcommunications.org