Video of Mona Eltahawy Vandalizing Subway Poster

As noted at Reason 24/7, journalist and MSNBC talking head Mona Eltahawy was arrested in a subway station by New York police recently while spraypainting one of the controversial new posters that calls Islamic radicals "savages." 

A New York Post video of the suspiciously well documented incident is below. As you can see, Eltahawy gets into a scuffle with a supporter of the poster named Pamela Hall. Hall, who seems to know Eltahawy, attempts to get video of the episode herself, but I'd doubt she got any usable footage. 

Best part: Eltahawy asks, "Are you Pamela Geller?

Some more description from News Busters

“Mona, do you think you have the right to do this?” said Pamela Hall, holding a mounted camera as she tried to block the barrage of spray paint.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy calmly responded. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this is freedom of expression.”

Hall then thrusts herself between Eltahawy’s spray paint and the poster.

Eltahawy -- an activist who has appeared on MSNBC and CNN -- engaged her in an odd cat-and-mouse dance, spraying pink every time she had an opening.

“What right do you have to violate free speech,” Hall pleaded.

“I’m not violating it. I’m making an expression on free speech,” an increasingly agitated Eltahawy shot back.

Eltahawy is not a raving lunatic. In the past she has made some fairly intelligent criticisms of extremists. But even allowing that few people keep cool heads while getting handcuffed by burly cops, she has obviously gone off the deep end here. While I like a good piece of detournement as much as anybody, there's a clear free-expression distinction between buying advertising and destroying an advertisement somebody else paid for. There's also a clear distinction between making a movie and burning down a movie theater because you don't like it. Eltahawy's act may not be as lethal as that, but spraying paint around the face and eyes of another person comes pretty close to assault in my book. 

Feast yer eyes: 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • wareagle||

    Mona is emblematic of damn near all lefties - free speech means that with which they agree. If someone set a Koran on fire, would she call that freedom of expression or a hate crime?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What evidence do you have she is a "lefty"? Most Muslims are right-wing.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "MSNBC talking head"

  • wareagle||

    "MSNBC talking head" pretty much gives it away.

  • wareagle||

    that damn ant1sthenese and his/her quicker reflexes.

    **curses speed but smiles at knowing he wasn't the only one with that thought**

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Joe Scarborough and until recently Pat Buchanan are lefties then.

  • wareagle||

    Buchanan got fired for NOT being a lefty, and Joe hasn't know what he is for years. Just stop. The network is so far left it treats Kucinich like a moderate.

  • ||

    Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan weren't board members of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Kind of a stupid comment. She's a lefty because 1) Virtually all PMSNBC d-bag commentators are lefties (they kinda specialize in that, in case you didn't notice), and 2) because the comments she makes on PMSNBC are...(drum roll)...lefty comments.

    Her calling 7th century Islamic savages "right wingers" and comparing them to the Tea Party (because they've killed so many people, right?) is not exactly thinking outside the left-wing box.

    Buchanan is every leftard's fav right winger because he hates Israel, hates capitalism, and prattles on about the workers. And he's their race-baiting whipping boy.

    Joe Scarborough. Ha, ha. That's funny.

  • NotSure||

    Somebody who attacks a "righty" , who is attacking Islam, is generally going to be a "lefty".

  • Killazontherun||

    David Brooks eats shit, and the Koran (fuck the 'Q' and the ''', yo) isn't fit for human consumption. Now, which way did I just turn? Neither way, I kept going straight!

  • ||

    She works for the Toronto Star. Canada's leftie newspaper.

  • ||

    Curious, how do you know most Muslims are "righties?"

  • ||

    What evidence do you have she is a "lefty"? Most Muslims are right-wing.

    Arab Americans favor Obama 2-1, down from 2008

    Down, but still higher than Republicans.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Liberalism: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    Progressivism: I disapprove of what you say, but if no one can hear you say say it I win the debate by default.

  • The vermin in the media||

    Yep, this is exactly the kind of Shrieking Idiot - like mentally deranged lefty psychopath I was talking about in the earlier thread; the type that will hide out in the bushes waiting for the perfect opportunity to destroy someone's car because it has a republican bumper sticker on it.

  • R C Dean||

    Eltahawy is not a raving lunatic.

    You're sure about this?

    spraying paint around the face and eyes of another person comes pretty close to assault in my book.

    Probably is assault, actually. Assault commonly includes "intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
    imminent bodily injury." Being spray-painted in the eyes would definitely be assault, and probably aggravated assault ("causing serious bodily injury"). Having someone "threatening" you with getting sprayed in the face, by intentionally spraying it just past your face, probably counts. And a single droplet of spray paint on your face would seal the deal.

  • Sigivald||

    My (IANAL, but I know some!) legal research says it's even better than that, most places - though I'm not sure about NY or NYC specifically.

    The mere threat is assault, in the typical case.

    The actual contact will be battery.

    (Plus naturally if the paint damages her clothing, she can and should file civil suit to be made whole for that.)

    Me, I just can't get past the irony of a "journalist" taking on the role of speech censor and actually thinking that destroying someone else's speech is "free speech"...

    I presume then that she would not complain if someone took down MSNBC's ability to broadcast her content? Because there isn't actually any difference...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Islam is not a race, you idiot woman. You are saying all Muslims are jihadists when you make such a claim.

    But that was pretty entertaining but would have been even better had it really been Pamela Geller.

  • wareagle||

    perhaps all Muslims are not jihadists, but all jihadists are damn sure Muslims. There behavior over any perceived offense is as predictable as day following night.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    All sharks are fish too, so get the hell out of the water whenever you see a fish coming.

    Plus of course, "jihadis" are exclusively Muslim only because that's how we define the word. Not all religious warmongers are Muslims, that's for sure.

  • wareagle||

    Muslims are the only group whose religion is the backbone of its default violent response to anything.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I guess we Americans are in the clear since our default violent responses (War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on ____, etc) are not motivated by religion?

  • wareagle||

    those have nothing to do with religion. Drugs is all about money; half the law enforcement budgets in the country would be lost without that cash cow. And the War on Poverty sure as hell was not religious.

    Even Terror does not apply; you think we would have ignored it if 19 Swedes went on a flying spree?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So that makes our violent responses OK?

    Through most of Christian history, there has been plenty of religious-motivated violence performed by Christians.

    As Christianity has been hollowed out in our society, we've found new justifications for violence. Yippee for us.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Not all religious warmongers are Muslims, that's for sure.

    First you will have to define "warmonger". According to many here, you fit that definition. How about "mass murder in the name of their religion"? Strangely, I can't think of any that are not moslem, can you?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It's not a hard definition... a person who favors and seeks to cause war to happen.

    I'd love to know who here considers me to be a warmonger. I don't support any war since WW2.

  • Marshall Gill||

    But you didn't come up with any religions that are actually committing mass murder in the name of said religion. You have stressed that it is something that is hardly unique to moslems but still fail to mention all of the other mass murdering religions. Why is that?

    As for your imbecilic definition of an emotive word, typical. Keeping our treaty obligations with Kuwait was the "favoring of war"? By that idiot definition, why exclude WWII? You "support" the idea of WWII, so you are a "warmonger", right? Oh, there might be actual reasons to support a war?

  • Calidissident||

    There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. While I would agree, as would any honest observer, that currently, Muslims are much more likely to respond violently to say a video, or to commit religious-motivated terrorism, at the same time, it must be kept in mind that only a very very small portion of the 1+ billion has to react that way for people to stereotype all Muslims. In percentage terms, the vast majority of Muslims don't riot over videos or cartoons or commit terrorism. And a jihadist is by definition Muslim so that doesn't mean anything

  • Marshall Gill||

    What is the "small percentage"? Just so I know. Can I show opposition to them or do I have to wait for them to murder me so that I do not stereotype the supposedly innocent ones?

    I get it now. Just because Nazism was an ideology of hatred it doesn't mean that all Nazis were evil.

    Islam shits on women. It ranks with Nazism, at minimum. Any members of this religion that are not coerced are evil. Clearly, tens of millions of nominal moslems are coerced with the threat of death, mostly women. They are victims, not worshipers of the pedophile priest.

  • Calidissident||

    Nazism at a minimum? I'm not fan of Islam, but that's absurd. You honestly find the average Muslim to be as reprehensible as Nazis? I never said you can't show opposition to the evil ones, what kind of a straw man is that? Though I would advise that we stop our insanely irrational foreign policy in the region, occupying countries for decades and drone striking weddings and funerals trying to end terrorism.

    I don't know the exact percentage, but you do realize that even if we were talking about just 0.1% of the population, that's still more than a million people, who are obviously capable of a shit ton of damage? I'm not saying it's that low, just illustrating the point that it really doesn't take that many people to commit terrorism or riot. If you wanna wage a war (and I mean war war) against the entire religion of Islam, you're insane. A best-case scenario would still be catastrophically horrific. At the end of the day, I think our government is a much greater threat to the lives and liberties of the American people than Muslims or Islamic terrorists could ever be.

  • Marshall Gill||

    How many Nazis or moslems have you ever known in your life? For me the number would be zero and a couple only vaguely. Of course, I must admit to being influenced by Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books. I trust her word about Islam more than most others.

    I question any male who is willing to shit on women, so yes, I do find them as repellent. Crapping on Jews or crapping on women and Jews is equally reprehensible.

    But I am not talking about Arabs or any specific "people". I am not saying all Germans were evil Nazis, the Order of the White Rose comes to mind, but can't one assume that the majority of those who were Nazis were actually evil? How many of these supposedly moderate moslems believe that killing for "honor" is evil? How many believe in Jihad as a "inner struggle" and not killing infidels?

    I don't know these numbers either. I am not willing to sacrifice my life or the lives of my children to defer to the "good" moslem. It is up to them to reform their religion. Until they do, they should expect thinking people to be suspicious of them.

    I agree that our government is probably a greater threat than Islam will ever be.

  • Calidissident||

    I've never met an admitted Nazi, but I don't think I could ever be friends with one. I know a handful of Muslims, including a couple that I would consider casual friends.

    I would also agree that oppression of women and hatred of Jews is bad. But let's also acknowledge that women have been oppressed (though maybe not as bad)for the vast majority of Judeo-Christian history. Jews, likewise, have also been a common target of hatred. And again, not all Muslims hate women and Jews.

    I haven't taken a poll of Muslims, so I don't know exactly how many support honor killings and violent jihad, but neither do you, and I'm not the kind of person to accuse someone of something with no proof.

    Not sure what the second to last paragraph means. I'm not saying you should sacrifice your life or anyone else's to defer to anyone. At the same time, you have no right to aggress against those Muslims that have done you no harm. They're not responsible for the actions of other people. That's a basic tenet of libertarianism. Which is why I would prefer if our counter-terrorism strategy revolved around intelligence-gathering and arresting (or killing if necessary) those plotting against us or who have harmed us in bin Laden style raids, rather than occupy countries for 10 years and drone strike weddings.

    Agreed.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palih's Buttwipe,

    Islam is not a race, you idiot woman. You are saying all Muslims are jihadists when you make such a claim.


    Actually, all Muslims have to be jihadists, Buttwipe.

    "The Qur'an (the Islamic Holy Book) and the Hadith (the collected sayings of Muhammad) use the word "jihad" to refer to personal struggles: Putting "Allah ahead of our loved ones, our wealth, our worldly ambitions and our own lives."

    ** Resisting pressure of parents, peers and society; strive against "the rejecters of faith..." (Quran 25:52)
    ** "...strive and struggle to live as true Muslims..."
    ** "Striving for righteous deeds."
    ** Spreading the message of Islam. "The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful." (Quran, 49:15)

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Look, I don't want to parse the Quran. Most of us in the West associate jihad with violence.

    Eltahawy has some serious issues. That poster was not racist or illegal in any way.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    Most of us in the West associate jihad with violence.


    So who's wrong, then?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You realize that jihad is an Arabic word?

    English borrowed it for a SPECIFIC SUBSET of its meaning in Arabic.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    English borrowed it for a SPECIFIC SUBSET of its meaning in Arabic.


    So you're saying that the English language is wrong.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    ?????

    How long since they removed your brain and replaced it with rat droppings?

  • ||

    ?????

    As a third person who has violently disagreed with both of you on a variety of subjects:

    I don't understand what point either of you are trying are make.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Corning,

    I don't understand what point either of you are trying are make.


    I was simply making fun of Buttwipe, and Tulpa went knight-in-shinning-armor for lady fair semantics, all of a sudden.

    So I don't know now.

  • ||

    My understanding is that jihad means "struggle", with much broader implications that just violence.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    In Arabic it does.

    To an anglophone audience, it means violence in service of the faith. So when you say "All Muslims are jihadis" it's going to be misunderstood if you have the Arabic meaning in mind.

    OM and WE are probably trying to take advantage of that confusion to push their anti-Islam bigotry.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    To an anglophone audience, it means violence in service of the faith.


    Again, you're saying that the English language is wrong. If the meaning of the word is not related to violence, then the English language is wrong.

    By the way, what you're talking about is the colloquial use of the word jihad, not the usage in English.

    So when you say "All Muslims are jihadis" it's going to be misunderstood if you have the Arabic meaning in mind.


    I didn't simply say that - I provided proof.

    OM and WE are probably trying to take advantage of that confusion to push their anti-Islam bigotry.


    So now it's my problem or wareagle's if we are misunderstood. Not the other lesser brains, no - MY fault. HIS fault.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Again, you're saying that the English language is wrong.

    Just like the Spanish language is wrong for calling a guy from Mississippi "Yanqui"?

  • Marshall Gill||

    anti-Islam bigotry.

    You mean the religion that shits on women?

    Considering who you must be, I can understand that there are no women in your life. You are pathetic. Some of us, however, have women in our lives. We actually believe that our wives and daughters and sisters and mothers are equal human beings.

    Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel and get back to me about "bigotry" you fucking turd. There is no such thing as bigotry against evil.

  • ||

    Don't be pedantic OM

  • OldMexican||

    Re: heller,

    Don't be pedantic OM


    Only those who know, can afford to be pedantic.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So I guess when someone says jihad is a bad thing, you correct them too?

    Or are you intentionally trying to confuse your audience into hating on Islam?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    Aggression is wrong. Jihad is just a fucking word.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You're not answering the question.

    If someone says that jihad is wrong, do you correct them in their use of the word?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    If someone says that jihad is wrong, do you correct them in their use of the word?


    Your question is loaded - what would the person mean by qualifying jihad as "wrong"? I don't know.

    If a person believes that all jihadists must be terrorists, then I would say that he or she wrong. When Buttwipe says anyting, I give him the business any way I can because he's an idiot and a liar. Which is why you're surprising me by acting like a buttinsky.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I give the business to arguments, not persons.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,


    I give the business to arguments, not persons.


    Yes, I know you're a perfect being, T.

  • Marshall Gill||

    So I guess when someone says jihad is a bad thing, you correct them too?

    Words have meaning. Clearly, their meaning is simply something for you to twist for what ever reason. Jihad as non-violence, is a joke. You supposed moderate mohammadean does not go on Jihad at the office to increase productivity or go on jihad to make his family life with his wife and daughters more loving. You are channeling Edward Said and Nick here, shit for brains, and I suspect that you know it. Sure CAIR claims the bullshit you are spewing but they also know it is just that. Jihad means violence. The "internal struggle" garbage is simply fodder for the ignorant, like yourself.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That's not what the word is understood to mean in the West. So when you say "all Muslims are jihadists" to a western audience you're implying something that's certainly not true.

  • wareagle||

    if you want to debate root origins of words, that's a different thread on a much more boring blog. Muslims are the only group whose default switch is set to violence. For just about anything.

  • ||

    Muslims are the only group whose default switch is set to violence. For just about anything.

    I think someone's been reading too much Newsweek.

  • wareagle||

    then who else? And you would never find that sort of line in Newsweek.

  • ||

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Nothing's more boring than the tired flow of bigotry from your keyboard. Seriously.

  • wareagle||

    nothing is more foolish than denying things are blatantly obvious. This is the only group on the plant that responds to any perceived insult with violence - from Rushdie to the cartoons to the Koran incidents to this. Who else acts this way?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: wareagle,

    Who else acts this way?


    Wait, wait... I'm thinking!

    Uh, how's your schedule?

    (Ok, nobody else. You got me.)

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Get a room, guys. Make sure it's downwind from mine.

  • Calidissident||

    There's a key word in your post "group." People are individuals. Did the majority of the more than 1 billion Muslims riot over Rushdie or cartoons or whatever? Rushdie would be long dead if the average Muslim wanted to kill him.

    It's absurd when libertarians of all people resort to simplistic collectivism

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Calidissident,

    Rushdie would be long dead if the average Muslim wanted to kill him.


    Theo is very dead.

    So is your point.

  • Calidissident||

    So now the average Muslim is represented by the guy who killed Theo van Gogh? For an anarchist, you have quite a collectivist streak. My point went sailing over your head. My point was not that Rushdie still being alive is proof that no Muslims want to kill him. My point was that given that there a pretty good number of Muslims in the places Rushdie has lived in over the last 20 years, that odds are some random Muslim would have killed him long ago if the average Muslim wanted to do such a thing

  • Marshall Gill||

    You do get that people actually choose to follow the pedophile priest, right? When people join a group, say Bass fishermen of America, isn't it safe to assume that they are American and like fishing for Bass? If people claim to be Nazis that are really, really nice, should I ignore the Nazi part?

    Read a few pages of the Koran. It is the opposite of a tome of Liberty.

  • Calidissident||

    Marshall, I've read a lot of religious literature, and if you look at all 3 of the Abrahamic religions, there is some really fucked up shit in all of them. Do you think all the girls that got married in the Bible were overage? Not t mention genocide, slavery, and a whole host of atrocities. I would say that Islam's the worst of the 3, and nowadays, Christians and Jews don't take it literally enough to be much of a threat (and I would say this is true for most Muslims as well, though there is a significant minority that does that is capable of causing a lot of trouble), but historically that wasn't always true.

    Anyways, your post was a non sequitir. I didn't say that you can't draw any conclusions about someone claiming to be a Muslim. I said that trying to draw the conclusion that because someone's a Muslim, they likely wanna kill Rushdie, riot over cartoons and videos, commit terrorism, etc is idiotic and obviously untrue

  • Marshall Gill||

    I think you missed my point. Could someone be a Nazi and NOT be evil? Did all Nazis actively kill Jews? Didn't some of them just provide emotional and material support? The fact that the old lady who danced in the Gaza strip after the news of 9/11 didn't actually blow herself up means she was appalled?

    Freely joining an oppressive and evil association does not imply that you are oppressive and evil? It does in my world.

  • Calidissident||

    The vast majority of people inherit the religion and beliefs of their parents. Doesn't mean they embrace everything in there. If Christians and Jews fully embraced the Bible, gays and adulterers would be getting stoned, and we'd be killing kids who disrespect their parents. Are Jews and Christians evil? By your definition, the overwhelming majority of people are evil. In which I case I don't see why you're singling out Muslims. The Nazi analogy is still terrible. Nazis, by definition, unless coerced, supported Hitler and his ideas of eliminating and/or enslaving inferior peoples. There are plenty of Muslims who oppose terrorism. And the vast majority don't perpetrate it. The old lady in Gaza may fit your description. The countless people who didn't react that way? The three old Muslims around the world? The Afghans who haven't even heard of 9/11 and don't know why we're there? Why does her action reflect on them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Muslims are the only group whose default switch is set to violence. For just about anything.

    Some of them say the same thing about Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

    Is there anywhere left on earth that Anglo-Saxon Protestants haven't invaded?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is there anywhere left on earth that Anglo-Saxon Protestants haven't invaded?

    Thailand.

    Thus your argument is invalid.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, obviously if Anglo-Saxon Protestants never invaded Thailand...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....ty_of_1909

    ...Darn it!

    Well, there's gotta be some place somewhere we haven't invaded!

    Since we're the arbiters of "whose default switch is set to violence".

    I don't think there's ever been a group of people more aggressive than us Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I can't think of any other group of people that has invaded--pretty much the whole freaking world at one time or another.

    Archangel?

    Check.

    South Pacific Islands?

    Check.

    Falkland Islands?

    Check.

    Swaziland?!

    Check.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's just a treaty between the British and the Thais delineating the border between Siam and Malaya. (Which one of the causes for the current Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand.)

    If you want to look for a European country that invaded Siam/Thailand you have to look to the French!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Okay, so the British treated Malaysia and Singapore like a colony, and we invaded Vietnam. I believe we also crossed the border into Cambodia. We bombed the hell out of Laos. I know the British ruled Burma from 1824 to 1948...

    ...but if we somehow missed Thailand? I'm sure it was by accident.

    I hope they aren't offended.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A New York Post video of the suspiciously well documented incident is below.

    Has this been explained? How this was so nicely filmed? It looked like a skit.

  • ||

    I think men and women are different.

    Pretty sure if two men were involved it would have come to blows within 5 seconds.

    I think without the testosterone they were simply acting on pure principle.

    This explains the skit like nature of the whole thing in my mind.

  • entropy||

    She announced she was going to do it ahead of time on twitter or something, so people showed up expecting her to pull some publicity stunt.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Aha, the Twitters! I should have known the crafty and inscrutable Twitters were behind it!

  • Torontonian||

    I'm sure she wouldn't mind if you took a can of spray paint to her house or car... after all... freedom of expression!

  • SIV||

    My reading of Guy Debord has a different definition ofdetournment than the crude defacement as practiced by Mona.

    THIS is how you protest non-violently.

  • SIV||

  • SIV||

    My youtube links fail

  • Paul.||

    I think you got illuminati'd!

  • A Serious Man||

    Leftism: my outrage trumps your property rights. I wonder if she'd be okay with the Klan burning a cross on the lawn of a family of black Obama supporters who have signs on their lawns. After all, they're just adding their speeh to the family's speech.

  • ||

    Most people don't believe in real freedom of speech. It's not just the leftists. Many right wingers hate porn and would suppress it if they could.

    There are very, very few people in this world with real principles of individual liberty. For fuck's sake, we see copious evidence of this every fucking day, day in, day out. It's why people like Gary Johnson have no chance.

  • Sudden||

    Most people don't believe in real freedom of speech. It's not just the leftists. Many right wingers hate porn and would suppress it if they could.

    Though I appreciate the example, I would've used a different one (most right wingers would suppress someone calling for proletarian revolution etc.). Porn may be a an interesting speech case, but as something other than overt political speech, I think it merits slightly less absolutist considerations than overt political speech.

  • SIV||

    most right wingers would suppress someone calling for proletarian revolution

    When has this ever happened in the USA?
    (by rightwingers)

  • ||

    When has this ever happened in the USA?
    (by rightwingers)

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

  • Ken Shultz||

    Can you apply that to the Boston Tea Party? ...meaning the one in 1773.

    Destroying other people's property should almost always be illegal, but if I were there in 1773, I'd like to think I would have been right there beside them. Destroying other people's property.

  • ||

    I don't think they would allow someone who doesn't use the word cunt to go with them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, they were they tough back then. Not like so many of us now. It wouldn't drag on for months and months...

    They'd get over it.

  • entropy||

    Actually it might just escalate until it leads to them shooting each other 2 miles out from the city limits.

  • entropy||

    Hamilton had it coming though.

  • A Serious Man||

    The East India Company was practically an entity of the British government, so I don't feel sympathy for their lost cargo which was being forced upon the colonists by a coercive act of Parliament.

    And unlike an anti-WTO riot, the original Boston Tea Partiers didn't damage the ship carrying the cargo or injury the crew. They replaced the padlock to the cargo hold they busted open to get to the tea.

  • Ken Shultz||

    My understanding is that many of the shareholders in the East India Company were in parliament, and that parliament represented a lot of shareholders, who had just received a massive bailout from the crown.

    This would be like Americans getting together and destroying AIG offices becasue they got bailed out with taxpayer money.

    Destroying other people's property is almost always wrong, and the tax on tea may have been meant to help finance the bailout of the East India Company, but that tea was not the property of the colonists who threw it into the harbor.

    Again, they may have been morally right to do what they did in that situation--even if destroying other people's property is usually unethical. But there's no reason to pretend that tea really belonged to the colonists, any more than I have reason to pretend GM's property actually belongs to me.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There is a narrative, the truth of which I do not vouch for, that dumping the tea in the harbor not only thwarted the Authorities, but did a favor for the ship's captains, crews, and perhaps the owners. The ships were not permitted to leave port until they had been unloaded, and could not unload until somebody ashore paid the tea tax. When the tea was dumped overboard by 'Red Indians', the ships were freed to return to their interrupted business.

    Whether the owners were more hurt by the loss of the tea than they were by the immobilization of their ships is (from where I sit) an open question.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's another narrative, the truth of which I can attest to, that some of the Sons of Liberty or Loyal Nine (whatever they were calling themselves then) were smugglers of Dutch Tea--and had a lot to gain by throwing their competitor's under-priced tea into the harbor.

  • Ken Shultz||

    While I like a good piece of detournement as much as anybody, there's a clear free-expression distinction between buying advertising and destroying an advertisement somebody else paid for.

    There's a difference between advocating that the government censor something and taking things into your own hands, too.

    I don't think people should be free to destroy other people's property just becasue they don't agree with what's being said, but, on the other hand, being willing to go to jail for what you believe in can be...admirable.

    Think of it this way... I don't think much of neo-nazis, but I don't think the government has a right to stop them from marching. I think anybody that physically assaults neo-nazis while they're marching should have to face the legal penalty for doing so.

    ...but those of us who are willing to physically confront neo-nazis and are willing to face the penalty for doing so aren't necessarily...um...wrong.

    Sometimes we're morally compelled to do things that are legally wrong.

  • ||

    Yes they would be wrong and she is wrong. Also, one day in jail for spraying somebody in the face with paint is way too short. Lionizing people who use violence (which vandalism and assault are) to shut down other opinions endorses the hecklers veto.

  • Ken Shultz||

    A heckler's veto is when the government restricts speech with the justification that it will prevent violence.

    I'm not suggesting the government do anything--except prosecute people for crime. So, I don't see an endorsement of the heckler's veto anywhere.

  • ||

    No, what she did is the heckler's veto, it has nothing to do with the government. You endorse it by saying there is nothing wrong with physically confronting nazis who are following the law or finding actions like the above admirable.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We're dealing with different definitions here, then:

    "A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto

    I'm not advocating that anywhere.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You endorse it by saying there is nothing wrong with physically confronting nazis who are following the law or finding actions like the above admirable.

    I didn't say there was nothing wrong. I said it's possible that it can be legally wrong--and should be punished as such--and it's also possible that the same act is morally compelling.

    I also said that being willing to go to jail for what you believe in can be admirable. I even italicized "can" up yonder.

  • ||

    I was using the laymen's definition in your link.

    I don't find using violence to silence speech to ever be morally compelling.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Only if the law that allowed your jailing was unjust. We're not talking about Rosa Parks here, we're talking about assaulting someone for unpopular speech.

    Of course going to jail for your beliefs can be a good act. But those cases are limited to a very specific subset that doesn't include what you're arguing for.

  • entropy||

    I wanted to respond to this but I couldn't phrase it.

    Until I stumbled into this:

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/09.....-a#comment

    I'm guessing that's how they felt. Gots to stop the nazis.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Sometimes we're morally compelled to do things that are legally wrong.

    I would only support that statement in (some) cases where the law making it wrong is unjust. Laws against assault are not unjust.

    those of us who are willing to physically confront neo-nazis and are willing to face the penalty for doing so aren't necessarily...um...wrong.

    In this scenario, what are you preventing the neo nazis from doing? If you're stopping them from destroying property, assaulting other people, or illegally harassing people, you're in the clear legally. If you're just trying to stop them from speaking, I don't see how that's moral.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Let's say...you're a Jewish holocaust survivor, who has seen Nazis march before, and you're trying to stop the neo-Nazis from marching past the homes of other frightened holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois.

    Yeah, I think it's possible to be both legally wrong and morally right. Just like it's possible to be both legally right and morally wrong.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If they can't handle other people's free speech they should to move to a country that will protect their delicate sensibilities. If you assault someone because some people might feel fright when they walk by you're a thug and deserve to be treated as such.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You can't seem to get it through your head that no one is talking about the government letting people commit acts of violence without being held criminally responsible.

    You can't seem to get it through your head that there's a difference between morality and legality, but I promise you, when a law happens to be ethical? Sometimes it's just a coincidence.

  • ||

    Every once in a while you drop the retard and say something right.

  • ||

    That was to Tulpa

  • Paul.||

    Both of them were clothed. Why am I watching this tussle?

  • RPR2||

    so according to mona, I could spray paint her face to make her shut up because first amendment.

  • OldMexican||

    Speaking of pyramids of severed heads, does anybody have an issue with what Obama said during his speech in the U.N.?

    "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,"

    He does realize that, by not being Muslim, one is ipso facto slandering the prophet Mohammed by implying he's a liar. Doesn't he?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Barack Obama is a long term idiot.

    The last thing we should be doing is pandering to extremists right now.

    He's trying to keep things cool for two months.

    Obama doesn't give a damn about our establishment rights. He doesn't give a damn about our rights.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama then quickly defended the Right to Blaspheme.

    He is saying that slandering that lousy "prophet" is no way to profit. I haven't made a dime doing it.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    He does realize that, by not being Muslim, one is ipso facto slandering the prophet Mohammed by implying he's a liar.

    What the fuck? Failing to act in accordance with someone else's wishes means you imply they're a liar?

  • A Serious Man||

    Yeah, I mean all non-Mormon Christians think Joseph Smith was a fraud even if they don't all say it. Ditto for Muhammed who had revelations in cave and was possibly an epileptic.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Most non-Mormon Christians don't know or care who Joseph Smith was.

    In any case, "slander" implies more than just a negative belief about someone, it implies a statement of that negative belief (among other things)

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa Doom,

    In any case, "slander" implies more than just a negative belief about someone


    Hence, not being a Muslim. There's no more immediate and definitive statement than that.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Not being a Muslim is a statement?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    Not being a Muslim is a statement?


    Oh, you don't think so? Where do you think the term "infidel" comes from? Or did you think it was a term of endearment?

    Of course, you and I are rational beings for whom unbelief is not a statement in itself. However, try that logic with a true believer...

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa Doom,

    Failing to act in accordance with someone else's wishes means you imply they're a liar?


    Not to act - to be. You're either a Muslim, which means you accept Mohammed as God's true prophet, or you're NOT a Muslim, which ipso facto means you reject that notion, which is the same as believing he's a liar.

    And there's a good reason why I am not a Muslim - I DO believe he was a fucking liar. There, I have no future, Obama dixit.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    BO's statement is way overboard.

    So is yours. Slander requires more than belief, and I doubt many non-Muslims have ever considered the question of Mohammed's honesty or lack thereof.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa Doom,

    Slander requires more than belief, and I doubt many non-Muslims have ever considered the question of Mohammed's honesty or lack thereof.


    You know that and I know that. The issue is with Barry Soetoro's statement. Technically, by not being a Muslim you're stating that Mohammed is a liar. Even if you haven't consider the implication behind your decision not to be a Muslim (as i am sure most people haven't), it still places one in an interesting position when it comes to Barry's proposition: That we don't have a future.

    The point is, Tulpa, that the guy is either incompetent when it comes to logic and semantics, or that there's something sinister behind his thinking.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    There are a bazillion other reasons to think BO is sinister/incompetent. Your fixation on this one is the distrubing thing here.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    Your fixation on this one is the distrubing thing here.


    What's disturbing about this one is that the guy said it in front of hundreds of representatives from all countries, some of them Muslim, and he was totally oblivious to the implications of his proposition.

    What's disturbing is that he thinks (as you do) that slander only means a Youtube video. Just remember why Muslims feel so much outrage at apostasy, and why inquisitors tortured heretics. It's not something I conjured up out of nowhere, T.

  • ||

    Does this also apply to Christianity, i.e., one either accepts that Jesus is the son of God, or one believes he is a liar and is thus slandering him?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I've been slandering Odin all my life without even knowing it.

  • ||

    Well one guy I'm certainly not slandering is Cthullu, if you get my drift *wink wink* *nudge nudge*.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    I've been slandering Odin all my life without even knowing it.


    You'll have no future the moment Barry says so. Just wait.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And with all this vitriol against BO you still won't vote for the one man who can stop him.

  • Calidissident||

    Because that guy is a giant douche as well Tulpa. As I've explained over the past few days: 1) My vote (and yours) is never going to decide the election. Even if you live in a swing state the odds are 0%. 2) Given that fact, if you're going to vote, the only logical thing to do is vote for the best candidate on the ballot. Why does it matter to my vote if I would need 100,000 people to join me to sway the election to Mitt Romney, or 50 million to sway it to Gary Johnson?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If you go to a blog and convince 1000 people to vote for your guy it might swing the vote.

  • Calidissident||

    Are you freaking kidding me Tulpa? That's a pathetic response. And don't you live in Pennsylvania anyways? Obama is definitely winning that state

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    And with all this vitriol against BO you still won't vote for the one man who can stop him.


    Non-citizens cannot vote, remember?

  • wareagle||

    I'm mostly bothered by his constant use of "the prophet Mohammed" rather than just Mohammed. Who does that? But, that's just me.

  • ||

    No, it isnt just you.

  • NotSure||

    Slander is relative term, in Mecca one of the rituals is to stone the devil, clearly satanists would consider that slander against satan. If there were a billion satanists and only a tiny amount of muslims (i.e. insignificant voting bloc) then I would have no doubt that the panderer in chief would be stating how in Mecca they are slandering the devil, and such hateful behaviour does not belong in this world.

  • Paul.||

    I'm listening to it with the sound down, using my lipreading skills, "What are you arresting me for...what are you arresting me for?"

    Uhm, if you're caught tagging the walls of a New York subway and one of New York's finest happens by... yeah, expect at least a ticket.

  • ||

  • Jerry on the road||

    Can't we just ban advertising on public property?

  • ||

    Can't we just ban public property?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Actually transit agencies can refuse advertisements on a content-neutral basis. I'd be totally OK with the transit agency refusing to post religious, political, or anti-religious advertising.

  • ||

    seattle metro had a bit of controversy over iirc this exact same poster. these agencies make a fair bit of coin from allowing such advertising and i think it's poor policy to give in to the heckler's veto and decide not to carry any political etc. advertising just because a few nuts are going to protest and commit crimes. arrest the criminals imo is the best remedy

  • Ice Nine||

    I've got no sympathy for Mona but, FWIW, Pamela Hall was just about as obnoxious as was Mona, just quieter. Also, I'm pretty sure she committed battery on Mona.

  • Paul.||

    I noticed she kind of began to shove her around.

    The whole thing is a bit of a tempest in a teapot.

  • ||

    pamela hall was responding to a crime in progress and doing her best to prevent that crime from continuing. she did absolutely nothing wrong. she would have been entirely justified in ripping the can of spray paint from this deluded woman's hands.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Defending property of a person you don't know is a dangerous thing though. What if Mona turned out to be the owner of the poster?

  • wareagle||

    she bought the ad in order to deface it? Okay. Why would someone do that?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Presumably the Koran burning pastor didn't steal someone else's Koran.

  • ||

    tulpa, it's always possible any # of things aren't as they seem

    what the law, the reasonable person standard, the metric that judges, arbitrators, cops, etc. use though is a much simpler standard - the reasonable person standard.

    iow, there very well could be some remote possibility that this woman is enganged in lawful behavior. and all hall does at first is enquire and at best try to block her from spray painting. it's not like she tackles her

    so we have two factors

    1) what pamela hall sees, interprets and how it appears to her and is that a reasonable interpretation

    and

    2) what actions she takes

    both are CLEARLY well within the reaosnable person metric. and if upon inquiring furhter, 2 turned out to be something totally different (which is exceptionally unlikely, but remotely possible, then so be it)

    the law does not require perfect knowledge, omniscience, etc

    for cops we are required to have reasonable suspicion. that;'s it. given that RS, the force we use must be PROPORTIONATE to the perceived threat. again, it's all about reasonable.

  • ||

    things very well may turn out to be different than they first appeared. and that;s fine. some uninformed person here a ways back was opining that if a terry stop didn't result in arrest than it was a bad terry stop. that's exactly 100% wrong. if all terry stops lead to arrests, you are doing something very wrong. MANY SHOULD turn out to be entirely innocent, or not serious enough to warrant arrest if they do turn out to be a crime, but only a warning or something. some will see that as "harassment" and so it goes.

    what we see in the instant case is pretty clear. there is a remote chance it is not some loon defacing somebody else's property. the private actor should be more certain than the cop, since they don;t have qualified immunity. but the concepts are the same. act REASONABLY and the law will protect you

  • ||

    The Koran actually says "you did not buy this"

    Its under section 2 of the "crazy shit you need to do to infidels" chapter.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    For verily, Allah who is supreme and wise sayeth: "For what purpose did I create spray paint and those easy-spray cans, if not to deface insults to my holy faith? Sprayeth thou, then, with vigor those signs which insult Me or My most holy messenger, and do not letteth the pig cops prevent you."

  • ||

    tulpa, btw feel free to read the commentary over at volokh.com

    i post as pwhit.

    what's cool is that several posters comment on how they were lookign forward to hearing my opinion. not because i'm wicked smaht and all that, but because when adults are discoursing we recognize that unique perspectives, experience and expertise are a good thing. different perspectives are generally respected, and what you don't see is a bunch of people chattering around about another person and making all sorts of inane trolling posts, etc. it's really quite refreshing. people often back up their POV's with case law, too. but again, just in that brief thread, as is not uncommon, people will go out of their way to say they respect my (and other's) opinion, and that they even scanned the thread searching for it. stuff like that is why when the bigorati spew i knew it's exactly that, because in other fora ... where adults tend to go, i see the EXACT opposite of what i see here from the bigots.

    ok, just had to get that off my chest and into the intertoobs.

    as to your point. as i have repeatedly explained when looking at UOF's and how people (cops or otherwise) respond to potential crimes in progres--- the law does not require omniscience or anything close to that.

  • ||

    the standard, as always is the REASONABLE person standard. if you see some lady spray painting a (obviously charged political) advertisement, iow it appears like somebody is defacing somebody else's property (and the nature of the way the ad is framed etc. makes it pretty clear this is a sponsored ad, not something just taped to the wall), then that's an entirely reasonable thing to conclude. and when hall inquires as to what is going on, the vandal's speech just confirms what she suspected - that she;s a vandal and a loon and destroying somebody else's property.

    in all sorts of force incident, interruptions of inchoate crimes (whether by cops or others), etc. there is always a POSSIBILITY things aren't as they seem. the metric, the one that i apply and the one that i see judges, arbitrators, and those tasked to make these determinations apply, is a common sense, reasonable person standard.

    if you endeavor to read some cases on this (i suggest some of the arbitrator reports i have posted, or some case law like Terry v. Ohio etc.) you will see this is a commonality.

    iow, yes.. sometimes things aren't as they appear. however, if you hear hoofbeats outside your enumclaw home, it is reasonable to assume that it's probably a horse. it MIGHT be a zebra, and you can later determine that visually, but it;'s not unreasonable to assume it;'s a horse until proven otherwise.

  • ||

    No offense, but it doesn't surprise me that you find less animus on a site that isn't heavily populated by people many of whom have an ideological opposition to the very existence of your position in society.

  • ||

    absolutely. my points are this. that several of them in this cadre have made claims that my posts are entirely unreasonable, full of shit, that i always take the side of the police, that i employ this double standard of analysis, bla bla.

    never to my recollection, btw, have any of them welcomed a unique, informed viewpoint, which is what i have. that's not bragging. it's just that when discussing police UOF, a viewpoint from a police officer (vs. an outside observer) who actually has USED deadly force, who has been shot at , who has invesitgated deadly force incidents, who has taught deadly force law, who has testified in various related inquiries, etc. might be welcome and they could actually learn something. just as if we are talking about ER medicine, i naturally want to hear from an ER doc, etc

    but that aside, my point is that volokh is hardly a pro police site. they are a libertarian blog, and prof. volokh and several other professors are well respected in their fields, have been cited by the supreme court, etc. iow, they have some gravitas. and that if what the cadre of trolls said was true, i would see similar commentary there, which i don't. heck, there have been occasions when i have taken a side that the police officer in a case was wrong, and one of their commenters defends the officer. the idea that i am a police apologist is laughable.

  • ||

    so, when i look at evidence like this, it just reinforces that the small, but vocal cadre of loons here, is simply acting out of emotion. their bigotry is apparent, their hate (some of these people post with names like "die in a fire, dunphy") apparent. that's why a few weeks ago i said enough was enough and decided to just ignore the roughly half dozen of them and since then i have found that APART from that very small but vocal group, people here are quite reasonable, whether or not we agree, the discourse is rational and not based on emotion and bigotry, solely.

    i've learned a lot from the conspirators, and a lot from the people here OUTSIDE that narrow cadre of trolls, i enjoy being here, and i won't be driven out by the name calling and now the new tactic, that has escalated are the literally dozens of posts where all that is discussed is shit like "dunphy would say..." or other such meta third person crap. it's just ridiculous. adults discuss concepts, children discuss others like "sally would say bla bla".

  • ||

    to reiterate, i have certainly been defensive. natural, when you are attacked, but i stand by my posts and i stand by my viewpoints as rational , consistent with the law and i love to hear from people with diferent viewpoints, learn from them and freely admit hey i was wrong, when i am . i'll continue to post here, and i'll continue to ignore the trolls

    and the reaction i get OUTSIDE the narow cadre of trolls is something i trot out to show that what they say is wrong. if i was the one in this discourse who was unreasonable then i wouldn't get the reaction i get ... either in the real world, or at sites like volokh.com where there is moderatin such that it doesn't become "circle jerking trolls run wild" .com

    back to discussing issues, not personalities!

    cheers!

  • Tulpa Doom||

    No offense, but it doesn't surprise me that you find less animus on a site that isn't heavily populated by people many of whom have an ideological opposition to the very existence of your position in society.

    I don't think it's the anarchism angle. I don't see the same level of vitriol toward DMV clerks, Amtrak conductors, or postal workers here. It's specifically a cop thing.

  • ||

    I don't see the same level of vitriol toward DMV clerks, Amtrak conductors, or postal workers here.

    Probably because they don't have legal authority to hurt us or throw us in jail.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    A cramped window seat on the overnight Lakesore Ltd is not much above a prison cell.

  • ||

    not because i'm wicked smaht and all that, but because when adults are discoursing we recognize that unique perspectives, experience and expertise are a good thing.

    Adults also spit the best bile filled vitriol.

    Can't we have both?

  • Paul.||

    It's public property. We all own the poster.

  • MWG||

    #MuslimRage

  • ||

    Bitch's accent was annoying.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, filmmaker behind anti-Islam film ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ taken into custody by feds

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....z27iIDjX4F

  • Tulpa Doom||

    They're not specific as to what kind of custody, so I'd await details.

  • OldMexican||

    He was detained because he has no future.

    Barry said so.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    No, he didn't.

  • Paul.||

    Just to add to the discourse, here's an article by Eltahawy on the treatment of women in the Muslim world:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....?page=full

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    See? She's not a nut by nature. The post has some links to stuff she wrote for free speech (or at least opposing the thug's veto) in the Danish cartoon episode.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    This was especially funny WHEN I SAW IT LAST NIGHT ON REDEYE

    /petty

  • ||

    Here are her tweets. Scary. Clueless. Dangerous to freedom of speech.

    https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy

    /vomit.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    But she represents the fresh and exciting.

    I also liked the "paid speech is not free speech" canard. Leftist semantics FTL.

  • Paul.||

    If I understand twitter-- which I confess to finding it a jumble of LOLWTFZO,MG texting, I believe that was a 're-tweet'.

  • An0nB0t||

    My favorite: "advertising is NOT free speech, its (sic) paid speech, further separating the haves from the have nots."

    While the rest of us offer our brilliant insight to the world for free, this woman is paid to speak about politics on national television.

  • An0nB0t||

    Dammit, Tulpa.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement