Public transportation

'Killing Jews' Ads Are Protected Speech, Allowed on NYC Transit, Rules Court

Securing First Amendment rights is in the public interest, writes judge.

|

@PamelaGeller/Twitter

Controversial posters that state "Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah" will be allowed to appear on public buses and trains in New York City. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl ruled against the city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which had tried to reject the advertisements on the grounds that they might incite violence against Jews. 

MTA staff "underestimate the tolerant quality of New Yorkers and overestimate the potential impact of these fleeting advertisements," wrote Judge Koeltl in his decision. "Moreover, there is no evidence that seeing one of these advertisements on the back of a bus would be sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore, these ads—offensive as they may be—are still entitled to First Amendment protection." 

Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), called the ruling "a triumph for liberty and free speech." AFDI, a pro-Israel advocacy group, is behind both the MTA lawsuit and the posters, which feature a young Muslim man in a headscarf (ostensibly) expressing the murdering-Jews-pleases-Allah sentiment. "That's His Jihad," the ads read. "What's yours?" 

AFDI claims its goal is to criticize Hamas and radical Islam. But in creating anti-Semitic, pro-violence ads that can easily be read as created by Muslims, it seems the group—which has routinely described Muslims as "savages"—may have another agenda, as well. 

"Whatever you make of the group, AFDI has been remarkably successful in bringing its message to America," notes Michael E. Miller at The Washington Post. "AFDI has filed at least nine lawsuits across the country, often against cities or their contractors that refuse to display their messages," which also include a depiction of Muslim leaders meeting with Adolf Hitler. 

While private transit companies could reject such messages, ad space on public transportation is subject to the First Amendment. Perhaps people should rethink their support for government-run transit—not free speech—if this situation bothers them. Another way around the issue without infringing on constitutional rights would be for MTA to ban all advertisements or at least all non-commercial advertisements (something it won't do because it needs that revenue). As long as buses and subways are government run, however, and as long as they allow political messaging of some sort, we simply can't have city officials judging which political messages deserve broadcast and which do not. 

MTA at least knew that it couldn't make arbitrary, content-based distinctions on which political ads it would allow, which is why it tried to claim the AFDI ad goes beyond being offensive to actually inciting violence—an assertion Judge Koeltl wholly rejected. "The defendants contend that the advertisement could be read as urging a subset of Islamic extremists to follow Hamas's command, but if that group is as violent and radicalized as the defendants contend, presumably they would not need a bus advertisement to remind them of Hamas's interpretation of the Quran," he wrote. 

As to MTA's claim that allowing the ad would run counter to public interest? "Securing First Amendment rights," wrote Koeltl (quoting an earlier case), "is in the public interest."  

Advertisement

NEXT: Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Pact: Yes, No, and Maybe

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.

  1. Let’s call this rolling trolling.

    1. That was also my first thought after reading this…..Punk’d by the AFDI.

  2. I don’t think it just underestimates the tolerance, but intelligence of New Yorkers (and humans almost everywhere!).

    The point of this sign is obvious- to think it would incite violence against jews is silly.

    1. I’d think the fear would be that it incites violence against Muslims.

      And as it’s coming from Geller, that’s arguably the point of the sign…

      1. That’s a bit much. Objecting to people who want to murder you is not the same as inciting to murder them.

  3. But in creating anti-Semitic, pro-violence ads that can easily be read as created by Muslims, it seems the group?which has routinely described Muslims as “savages”?may have another agenda, as well.

    Where could those evil racists have possibly come up with an idea like that?

    1. you know who else created ads that could easily be read as created by someone else (they don’t like)?

      1. Muhammad Lee?

      2. Nationwide Insurance?

      3. Apple?

    2. Certainly not from Hamas MTV, which I believe is accidentally listed on the ad, and in no possible way the source of such a quote.

      1. It’s not an accident, but it’s also not real.

        1. It’s not an accident, but it’s also not real.

          Has Hamas MTV ever said this? If not, wouldn’t that be libel?

          I would think Hamas has said horrible things against Jews that you wouldn’t have to make things up.

          1. In the sense that there isn’t actually something called “Hamas MTV.”

      2. Hamas MTV

        Real World vs Road Rules challenge with suicide bombers?

        1. I think frequent endings in smoldering holes is about the best way to improve reality TV at this point.

    3. Pam Geller needs no help to come up with crazed and evil stuff

      1. I know. Only a nut could think Muslims were savages. It is not like there haven’t been thousands of cases of Muslims blowing themselves up in order to murder innocent people or enslaving young women or throwing infidels overboard from ships or anything.

        Most of the time I consider you pretty stupid Bo. But even I have to admit, you really have this one pegged.

        1. You might want to read a bit about her before going full CJW commit mode John.

          1. Of course, knowing you you probably know and just agree with collectivizing nonsense.

          2. CJW. Oh its so cute when you try to be clever.

              1. LOL. I think that is what it is.

              2. Conservative Justice Warrior.

              3. MNG. He was a long time troll, and has reappeared using a persona of a fake lawyer with Asperger’s.

        2. Pamela Geller has defended anti-Muslim genocides on multiple occasions. She’s as bloodthirsty and insane as the mullahs, she just doesn’t have the power to enact her brand of genocidal sociopathy.

          1. She thinks Muslims are savages. That she would think it was anything but the most peaceful religion on earth clearly shows what a dangerous lunatic she must be.

            1. No John, she’s actively defended people murdering Muslims. This has nothing to do with your petty little desire to declare anyone who disagrees with you some sort of socially signaling libtard, this has to do with the fact that Geller herself is a despicable human being.

              I’m about as anti-Islam as they come, but Geller crosses a line between legitimate criticism and exhortations and defenses of violence.

              1. I’m about as anti-Islam as they come, but Geller crosses a line between legitimate criticism and exhortations and defenses of violence.

                That is a good point. Why would anything think there was any need to resort to violence when dealing with Muslims? It is the religion of peace after all, not A Religion of Peace, but THE Religion of Peace.

                1. So you’re down with the killing of Muslims in Myanmar now. Wow.

                  1. Why would I be down with that Bo? Muslims are the most peaceful people on earth. I have said that like a 100 times.

                    1. You’re going from deranged to depraved John.

                    2. I am deranged for thinking Muslims are peaceful? Really? That is an interesting thing to say. Why do you think Muslims are not peaceful?

              2. I’m about as anti-Islam as they come, but Geller crosses a line between legitimate criticism and exhortations and defenses of violence.

                I’m about as anti-NAZI as they come, but Churchill crosses a line between legitimate criticism and exhortations and defenses of violence – Nevile Chamberlain 1935.

            2. I love how John totally elides your point and just repeats his.

              1. Maybe because you still haven’t gotten it?

          2. To be more specific, she defended what’s been happening to Muslims in Myanmar. She also argued the Muslims who were killed by a lynch mob because unrelated Muslims raped a girl had it coming.

            1. Like I said Irish, you had me at Muslims are anything but peaceful. Only a nut evil racist could think otherwise.

              1. All that matters for John is she shares his collective hate for all Muslims. Everything else’s forgivable.

                1. That is what makes her so bad Bo. The collective hate of Muslims. Everyone knows that you can only collectively hate Christians and Jews. Islam is the Religion of Peace.

              2. John, is there something that periodically makes you become insane? I’m honestly wondering, because you’ll go from cogent and reasonable around noon to ridiculously obtuse and irrational 3 hours later. Given my constant criticism of Islam, I’m clearly not attacking Geller for thinking ‘Muslims are anything but peaceful.’

                I’m critical of racists too, but if someone said ‘Hey, let’s murder all the racists’ I’d be saying the exact same stuff about them I’m saying about Geller.

                1. Irish, you are right. The woman is a nut. Islam is the religion of peace and anyone who thinks that violence is necessary to deal with it is nuts. I don’t understand why you are attacking me when I am agreeing with you. Muslims are peaceful and anyone who says otherwise is a nut.

                  1. Forget about Muslims for a second John. Anybody, any person who calls for and supports violence against anyone else is a scumbag. Pamela Geller could want to murder all the smurfs and she still would be a scumbag. That said, I do like her subway poster. It’s neat and she should be allowed to call Muslims whatever she wants.

                2. Forget it Irish, it’s John-land.

                  1. I don’t understand what the problem is Rhywun, I admitted upfront no one could ever rationally conclude Muslims were anything but peaceful. Geller is a nut. Everyone who isn’t racist knows Muslims are the most peaceful people on earth as a group.

                  2. I like it when John shows his unhinged side. Refreshing.

                    1. What is unhinged Waffles? Are you racist? Why do you think Muslims are not peaceful and wonderful?

                    2. I think some Muslims are peaceful and wonderful and some other Muslims are murderous savages. I think everyone can tell you’re laying on the sarcasm too thickly.

                    3. Maybe he has his Palin like thing for Geller as well?

                3. John is capable of making some really great arguments to support his point sometimes.

                  When he can’t do that, he resorts to ignoring all subtlety in his opponents points and just goes after caricatures.

                  I’m not even sure who he is trying to go after here. It seems like Reason commenters that don’t reflexively criticize the entirety of Islam, but who knows.

                  1. Here is what I am going for LynchPin,

                    I make the simple joke about “my God how could anyone think Muslims are savages” and immediately we have to get out the fainting couches. Really? We can’t joke about Muslims on here apparently if it involves acknowledging that a pretty large number of them really are fucking savages. Nope, we can’t do that.

                    And that pissed me off. If you people don’t think that Muslims are all peaceful and perfect, why the fuck can’t you take a simple joke about the millions of them who really are savages?

                    1. I’ve heard of walking something back, but running it back seems to exist as well.

              3. Hey, John, when you’ve got me taking Bo’s side against yours, that’s a little like watching the canary drop dead in your coal mine. It’s nature’s way of telling you you’ve gone too far and maybe ought to STFU.

                1. Hey Seamus,

                  What exactly is my side? I admitted you guys are right about Muslims being peaceful and Geller being insane. What else do you want?

                  1. Now I’m starting to think Andy Kaufman is still alive.

                    1. It’s like a really bad parody of Janeane Garofalo or something.

                    2. No Deatfbirsecia. I am just going by what is said on this board. And what is said on this board is that Muslims are peaceful. I am not sure why everyone is so angry that I am agreeing with them. If Muslims are not peaceful, maybe they should just say so. Yet for some reason they can’t do that. Funny that.

                    3. What is said on this board is that some Muslims are peaceful, some are not.

                      You’re reacting to something that doesn’t exist.

                    4. I don’t believe you that some Muslims are not peaceful. It just can’t be true. What would Sheldon Richman say to that? I don’t think he would be very happy, just saying.

                    5. Indeed, Sheldon Richman is the most popular Reason writer among H&R commenters.

                      Wow, sarcasm is fun!

                    6. John is the tenth-grade debate captain who just discovered “A Modest Proposal.”

                    7. No DEAT,

                      It is just funny to watch you people scream and cry at the thought of being forced to directly admit there are groovy brown people whom you might not want to meet. You are okay doing it in the abstract. But it fucking kills you to concretely and in so many words have to admit that maybe there some really violent evil Muslims out there. Damn it, Muslims are brown and our Prog friends don’t like it when we say bad things about brown people.

                    8. What’s funny is watching you arguing with people who don’t exist.

                    9. Really? If you are not one of the DEAT, then give me a good rant about the various evil Muslims in the world. Just go to the dark side and let it out.

                      Come on, do it. I bet you don’t for the simple reason that it would hurt too much.

                    10. Flakka is one helluva drug.

                    11. And of course you don’t do it. I knew you wouldn’t. You can’t say something bad about Muslims. You are just PC. You can at best admit, that well maybe a few bad people happen to be Muslims and in the abstract sure some Muslims are not peaceful. But no more.

                      Thanks for providing an example of exactly what I am talking about. Now scream Red Tony and Strawman just to make it doubly clear I am right.

                    12. *snerk*

                    13. Could you define where “you people” said *all* brown people are groovy and cool?

                    14. It was right before he took a triple dose of Flakka.

                    15. Muslims are brown? I thought it was a religion. Huh.

                    16. Conflating Islam, an ideology, with race is the insanity that John is pointing out here.

                      A person doesn’t choose what skin color they are born with.

                      But everyone can choose to disavow an murderous ideology like Islam at any point in time. Assuming otherwise, as many pc twits posting here are doing, is moronic and offensive. It’s akin to claiming that a person ‘born’ a commie or nazi can’t be held accountable for his beliefs.

                    17. But everyone can choose to disavow an murderous ideology like Islam at any point in time.

                      Except that in most predominantly Muslims countries a strong majority your neighbors would see you dead for apostasy.

          3. Not to mention that stating that “Muslims are savages” as John did is retarded collectivism.

            1. Of course. The statement “Muslims are savages” is a statement for which there is absolutely no evidence to support. Given the enlightened and peaceful nature of Muslim communities and countries around the world, there is no way anyone could rationally conclude such a thing.

              1. You don’t understand the logical problem with collectivization at a fundamental level John.

                1. Actually you don’t. Since ‘moslem’ is a self imposed label and not an inherent trait it is entirely reasonable to ‘collectivize’ the people that apply that label to themselves, as doing so includes embracing a well developed ideology that is more than one thousand years old.

                  Or is it your position that those brown people lack agency in this regard?

              2. You’re right collectivism isn’t rational. I’m glad you are seeing the light.

                1. Not really Aptheist. Collectivism is good sometimes, like when it is applied to SOCONS and how evil they are or when it is applied in the positive to Muslims and how wonderful they are or gays and how wonderful they are. So it sometimes has its uses. Anyone who reads Sheldon Richman knows Muslims are as a group absolutely peaceful and anyone who reads Reason knows gays are as a group superior citizens.

                  1. Again, the gay cake butthurt!

                    John point to the place on the Constitution where the bad man touched you.

                    1. What buthurt? Reason has convinced me. Clearly., those people deserved to be run out of business and bankrupted. It is funny how you people get all mad when i start agreeing with you. You get more angry when you win an argument than when you lose one.

                    2. Your butt is so sore you can only sit on a chair made out of Noxema.

                  2. For John two wrongs don’take right, they make a way of life. To the barricades CJW!! You’re not allowed any thought but in direct counter to your mirror imaged SJWs!!!

                    1. Bo,

                      I am really not much of a criminal justice warrior. I think most of the criminal statutes should be repealed and about 75% of the people in prison let out.

                      And I also agree with you that Muslims are the most peaceful people on earth and Geller is a nut for saying otherwise.

                  3. Take your pills man.

                    1. I don’t understand Aptheist. Are you saying Muslims really are not peaceful? If not, then what is the problem? You guys are right, Geller is insane and Islam is the religion of peace.

                    2. Could it be that Muslims really are not peaceful? I don’t believe that. You people are just racists.

                    3. John, I’ve been delighted by your efforts today. Can’t say I agree fully, but I sure do dig your style. Thank you.

                    4. Red-tony proves once again that peak derp is a myth both on the left and the right.

                    5. Is it DERP to say Muslims are peaceful MWG? Is that what this board as come to? That anyone who stand up and say the truth about the religion of peace is accused of DERP?

                      Where is the Reason I used to know!!

                    6. Rather poor Swift parody.

                    7. That or you people are so fucking terrified of not being PC, you can’t understand parody. There is always that.

                    8. Or you took a triple dose of Flakka prior to turning on your computer this morning.

                      There is always that.

                    9. DEAT,

                      The simple joke that “gee why would anyone think Muslims are savages” started this entire thread. Why? Well first because Bo is a retard. But as for the rest of you, it is because you fucking can’t even joke about the fact that a large number of Muslims, not a small number but a big number in the millions, really are savages. You can’t even joke about it.

                      Tell me you are not PC.

                    10. I’m just going to reiterate what I said upthread. Flakka is one helluva drug, not to be fucked with.

                      Too late for John, but others may benefit from the knowledge.

                    11. Yes DEATFBIRSCE,

                      Thank you for reiterating that I am absolutely right and that you can’t bring yourself to joke about the subject much less speak the uncomfortable truth. Thank you again for admitting that by rambling about drugs when my point is perfectly clear and just utterly true but something you don’t like.

                    12. Get help before the drugs take everything you’ve got.

                    13. “The simple joke that “gee why would anyone think Muslims are savages” started this entire thread.”

                      Nope. Anyone can scroll up and see that you started this when Irish and I informed you that Geller had a history of saying crazy and evil things. You responded to both of us separately with this retarded thing you did for the past hour. And now you’re trying to walk it back as some response to PC inability to criticize Muslims. You heard a criticism of someone critical of Muslims and went into full CJW barricades mode without thinking of what the criticism of Geller was in this instance about.

                    14. Bo for the last time I am not a Criminal Justice Warrior, whatever that is. And the parody portion of this thread is over. The adults are talking and you need to go back to the retard table and post some PM links about the evil SOCONs or something. You have nothing interesting to say, so stop saying it.

                    15. The parody of your was stillborn John, it was over before it began. But I admire the sheer chutzpah in trying to recast things on a forum where it’s all written down and easy for all to see.

                    16. Maybe we’re terrified of being an idiot, something I grant you have great courage in.

                    17. John, you know damn good and well that plenty of people here have expressed their dislike for Muslim extremists. Not everyone (read almost no one) takes the Richman stance that they are all good and pure.

                      Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

                    18. John, you know damn good and well that plenty of people here have expressed their dislike for Muslim extremists.

                      Sure, but we all know they are just like that because of the things the US has done. And sorry, but mostly it is “What has America done to cause this”. And again, this entire thread is the result of a single sarcastic comment. You guys are so sensitive to this you cna’t take a single sarcastic comment that might imply that Geller, crazy or no, might have a little bit of justification for not liking Muslims.

                    19. Johns lying or demented, trying to bury his pathetic performance here. Let’s roll the tape, here is Irish’s first comment and his first response to him. Notice that there is no hint in Irish’s comment about him being reluctant to criticize Muslims or opposing Geller because she does. He informs John that Geller has supported violent attacks on Muslims in general, and John goes directly into the routine.
                      Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|4.22.15 @ 4:15PM|#

                      Pamela Geller has defended anti-Muslim genocides on multiple occasions. She’s as bloodthirsty and insane as the mullahs, she just doesn’t have the power to enact her brand of genocidal sociopathy.

                      reply to this
                      John|4.22.15 @ 4:17PM|#

                      She thinks Muslims are savages. That she would think it was anything but the most peaceful religion on earth clearly shows what a dangerous lunatic she must be.

                      reply to this

                    20. Bo,

                      Go back to the retard table. You can’t follow normal arguments let alone this one.You have the lowest IQ of anyone on here. You have nothing to say so stop mucking up the thread.

                    21. It’s not retardation. It’s trolling from someone with years of experience. In his last identity, he finally ran away crying. I guess the new fake-lawyer-with-Asperger’s one has a bit more to run before he makes a similar exit, just to re-emerge with a new name and fake back-story.

                    22. The bulk of this thread is due to you laying the sarcasm on extra thick and being so over the top in response to Bo.

                      He really get’s under your skin, doesn’t he?

                    23. I was being sarcastic yes. To make a point. Bo if quite literally the slowest person on here. I should be more charitable to him because sometimes he tries but just doesn’t’ get it. He gets under my skin to the extent that I just can’t suffer stupidity. Trolling I can handle at some level but not real no kidding stupidity. And that is Bo. And as his post below show, the entire point of what I was saying went right over his head.

                    24. He really get’s under your skin, doesn’t he?

                      That’s the whole point of trolling.

                    25. There’s only two possible positions here for John: if you think Geller is crazy and/or evil it must be because you’re too PC to dare criticize any Muslims. Captain False Dilemma reporting for duty as usual.

                    26. What’s sad is he’s sitting there in his own smug sense of self perceived Derpness, I mean cuteness.

                    27. John, You are nuts and tend to go way over the top but that was a masterful trolling job.

                  4. And that undocument Messicans are all proto anarcho-capitalists who have only been chased away from their inherent libertarianism by stinky SoConz.

      2. Such as?

        I’ll bet you’re one of those people who calls her “far right” for her “Islamophobia,” yet also calls Jihadists “far right.”

  4. While private transit companies could reject such messages, ad space on public transportation is subject to the First Amendment. Perhaps people should rethink their support for government-run transit?not free speech?if this situation bothers them.

    They should, but they won’t. They would rather compromise one of America’s most important founding principles than let the private sector profit by providing better transportation service at a better price, with a disparate benefit for the poor.

    1. You want to bring back the robber barons. You’re obviously paid by the Kochtopus.

    2. What is the point of providing transit when it offers no opportunity for graft and corruption and doesn’t further the larger goal of more governmental control?

    3. Private transit used to murder 80,000 black people a year to power its satanic engine with their blood. Whereas public transport has been responsible for 25% increase in puppy cuteness since 1960.

      1. Anyone who wants private transit companies only does so because they want black people riding at the back.

        1. I would gladly ride a black-owned rickshaw. And if they took me to my destination safely AND polished my monocle well enough I would give them an extra dime for their good work. But the government would fuck it up with schemes like rickshaw medallions and minimum charges.

          1. The thing is, I bet there are some black people out there who are in shape and would be happy to have the work. They of course must remain poor and unemployed because making an honest living is less important than not making white liberals feel bad or something.

      2. #thescience

  5. Kudos to the judge in this case, too.

  6. So, has anyone watched Kennedy in a while? I watched it last night for about 15 minutes. It was nothing but fluff.

    1. Kennedy has her own show?

      1. You know who else had their own show…

        1. ? and is green …

    2. If it was nothing but fluffing I might watch.

    3. I watch her during commercials in Stanley Cup and NBA games. She tries hard, but the show just doesn’t keep my interest. It’s too breezy. She often laughs off disagreements with some prog rather than eviscerating them. Her schtick is a bit tiresome.

    4. My elderly father watches her show. He thinks she’s funny.

    5. I watched the first one and the guest were good but she was well Kennedy. Then a couple weeks back I caught her hosting red eye. It seems like maybe she had gotten some coaching or maybe the platform worked better for her because she did a great job. No interrupting. No awkward stamering when trying to make her point. I was impressed actually.

      1. Thing is I like Kennedy. It’s unfortunate her mouth and brain are at such odds with each other. I think she is intelligent, she just has a hard time articulating it. It’s like that Indian dude from Big Bang when he tries to talk to girls.

  7. “a depiction of Muslim leaders meeting with Adolf Hitler”

    You know who else met with Muslim leaders?

    1. I haven’t seen the ads, but I doubt they are a “depiction of that”. They are likely a photograph of when it actually occurred.

      1. As I suspected, it’s this famous image (at bottom)

        http://www.truthrevolt.org/sit…..es/ads.jpg

        1. And, yes, it happened, it’s not just “depicted.”

          1. But I don’t think the exiled mufti of Jerusalem (appointed originally by the British) was the leader of the Muslim world.

            1. Nope, not a leader of the Muslim world as such (never was a man like that since Mohammed, even in the days of the Caliphs), just a appointed by the British because they wanted someone reasonable to deal with. He was then a lead figure in ’36-’39 revolt against British mandate and Jewish immigration, and, having to flee, obviously allied with Hitler.

              He did have some authority, and helped SS recruit three Muslim divisions in the Balkans, but that’s about it.

              1. And it is not like plenty of Americans didn’t kiss Hilter’s ass back in the day, like pretty much the entire American Progressive movement right up until the day Hitler invaded Russia.

              2. I’m guessing someone didn’t understand what this was.

    2. President Obama?

  8. “which had tried to reject the advertisements on the grounds that they might incite violence against Jews. ”

    So they tried to ban advertisements produced by Jews which were made in order to criticize Islamic Jihad against Jews because they were worried it would incite violence against Jews?

    That’s some seriously impressive missing of the point.

    1. No, it was just the best they could come up with. And it wasn’t much.

  9. Now if they would only place my ad “baking cakes for gays brings us closer to the Golden Girls.”

    1. +1 Johnny Longtorso

  10. “there is no evidence that seeing one of these advertisements on the back of a bus would be sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore, these ads?offensive as they may be?are still entitled to First Amendment protection.” “

    I’m not familiar with “incitement” law as it relates to speech, and what the traditional tests for it are….

    I am aware of “hate speech” law, particularly as related to examples like the KKK and various kinds of religious speech….

    but incitement is a bit different. His talk about “evidence” suggests that he’s trying to measure something in the speech itself that would ‘trigger’ a reaction.. Which to me is not the legal ‘test’, which i’d presume would be *intent* of the speaker.

    Because a person pre-disposed to over-react to certain kinds of speech could turn anything, no matter how innocuous, and claim it “caused” them to become violent. The measure of whether speech is incitement would – in my limited view – require demonstrating that the purpose of the speech was to achieve a violent effect.

    see the Oberlin freakout over the CHS speaking event, and how police were brought in to protect “one feminist from other feminists”…. were any of them “inciting violence” between one another? Is talking about Feminism “the wrong way” asking for trouble?

    It seems like his ruling is concerning, because it leaves open the idea that the measure by which speech is judged is its “effect” rather than its “intent”.

    1. Where is the real harm in actually inciting violence? Is it simply assumed that if I tell you I want you to kill Epi, you can’t resist and will do it? You are assumed to be so weak that just the suggestion of violence will put you over the edge? What are the supposed conditions where inciting violence has any effect? If you follow my theoretical incitement, why is it not obvious that the desire to do violence was inside you already and that my supposed incitement is simply an excuse?

  11. This doesn’t make me want to kill the Jew, this poster makes me wary of Muslims that want to kill the Jew. Is that the intended effect? I don’t want to kill anyone.

    What’s for lunch?

    1. Oh I get it now.

    2. Nice font. Is the Helvetica Jew Sans?

  12. Wait, “Hamas MTV”?

  13. Pam Geller?

    Isn’t that the Atlas Shrugs lady?

    Just goes to show I support free speech even if I don’t like what people are saying–or the people who are saying it.

    “If you want to listen the fruits of Geller’s self-education, check out her interview with 60 Minutes from a few weeks ago. Note, though, that after the interview, Geller helpfully provided some important context in which to watch the segment: 60 Minutes “is part of the Islamic supremacist agenda.”

    My all-time favorite Geller moment is still the time she published proof that Barack Obama is the illegitimate love child of Malcolm X.

    ….

    Geller would be easy to dismiss and not take seriously…if it weren’t for the fact that a disturbing and growing number of people take her seriously.”

    —-Radley Balko, October 12, 2010

    https://reason.com/blog/2010/10…..ela-geller

    I suspect Geller thinks libertarians are with the enemy in the War on Terror.

    1. My all-time favorite Geller moment is still the time she published proof that Barack Obama is the illegitimate love child of Malcolm X.

      That can’t be true. If Obama were the son of Malcolm X, he would be a lot more masculine and a lot smarter.

      And is the Islamic Supremacist Agenda part of the secret gay agenda?

      1. I don’t know.

        But it looks like she’s been in panic mode for 14 years–running around in circles and screaming non-stop.

        1. It is almost like there are people out there who don’t like Muslims or something. I honestly can’t fathom how that could be given that Islam is the relation of peace and Muslims the most tolerant people on earth.

          1. I tend to lean in the direction that elective abortion is probably immoral, and I don’t think Christian business owners should be compelled by law to violate their religious convictions in regards to gay marriage–but that doesn’t mean I have to defend the Westboro Baptist Chruch.

            If you’re someone who happens to think that radical Islamists are a serious threat to peace and freedom in the West–that doesn’t mean you have to defend Pamela Geller either.

            1. No it doesn’t. But it also doesn’t mean you have to act like she is saying the Amish or the Boy Scouts are violent either. Everyone on this board is so fucking PC and so fucking terrified of not being seen as such, you just have to laugh. If Geller were a Muslim saying this about Americans, half the board would be justifying her because God damn it look at all of the things we have done to make her feel that way. The idea that perhaps Muslims have created some crazy but justifiable hate against them in the world is a truth that is simply too horrible for many people here to contemplate.

              1. What Balko fails to see with all his hand-wringing is the simple truth that Geller is just cut from the same cloth as Coulter and Malkin. For whatever reason “conservative” (she’s an Objectivist, I know, but I’m talking in simplified media terms) women in media can’t find success unless their schtick is to say outrageous things. Most people who read Coulter, Malkin, or Geller get it; they’re sophisticated enough to know that it’s just a schitck, a posture, a hustle, just as they’re sophisticated enough to know that Howard Stern, in reality, is very little like the person he portrays in his radio show.

                1. Mulatto,

                  That is a great point. And he can’t see it not so much because she is conservative or a woman, but because she is being outrageous when talking about Muslims. And even a lot of people on the right are bullied into treating Muslims differently than other religions.

                  Think of it this way, what if she were doing the same act but as an atheists against Christians. I bet Balko would get the joke then.

                  1. “What Balko fails to see with all his hand-wringing is the simple truth that Geller is just cut from the same cloth as Coulter and Malkin.”.

                    There’s a difference between being inflammatory and being a crackpot.

                    I despise Obama as much as the next libertarian, but he’s not Malcolm X’s illegitimate lovechild.

                    This stuff isn’t so much like Coulter or Malkin being inflammatory. It’s more like Todd Akin telling people that women’s bodies block pregnancy in cases of legitimate rape.

                    And, I’d also add, the fear she’s trying to whip up against Muslims has been used by anti-libertarians on both sides of the aisle to justify all sorts of un-libertarian shit–despite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

                    Fear is the mind-killer, and she’s spreading it everywhere she can reach.

                    P.S. I’m no fan of Coulter or Malkin either, by the way.

                    1. There’s a difference between being inflammatory and being a crackpot.

                      Right. The crackpot believes what he is saying. Geller’s comments on Obama’s parentage were made with a quite obvious tongue placed firmly in her cheek. But like a professional wrestler, she won’t break kayfabe when the cameras are on.

              2. There’s less PC on this board than anywhere else on earth John, and you should know that.

                1. There is a ton of PC on this board. Give me a break. Since when is asking if someone is “gay affirming enough” as Robby did last week not PC? We all must be gay affirming you know.

                  1. Gay cake butthurt, yet again.

                  2. Fuck teh gayz.

                    The can gargle my balls.

                    1. Is that a legitimate offer?

              3. “Everyone on this board is so fucking PC and so fucking terrified of not being seen as such…”

                Yeah Red -tony, that’s what it is.

                “If Geller were a Muslim saying this about Americans, half the board would be justifying her because God damn it look at all of the things we have done to make her feel that way. ”

                Burn those strawmen, Red-tony!

                1. MWG,

                  That is not a strawman. It is the fucking truth. How is that any different than “blowback”? And there have been how many threads on that and how many adherents to the idea that even the craziest most irrational hate is the direct result of our actions? Yet somehow that theory is never applied to any other group but Americans. Muslims are never expected to ask “why do they hate us” and hatred against Muslims is never justified by the actions of Muslims themselves.

                  Yell strawman all you want. And red tony too. That just means I hit a nerve and the truth fucking hurts.

                  1. There’s a difference between trying to understand Muslim hatred of the U.S. and justifying suicide bombings.

                    Seriously, you really are some unholy hybrid of Tony and Tulpa. It’s as if they got together and created the perfect sock puppet. Smug, stupid, and lacking in self awareness.

                    1. There’s a difference between trying to understand Muslim hatred of the U.S. and justifying suicide bombings.

                      If it can be understood, why can’t it at least at some level be justified. Moreover, you still haven’t answered my question, why can’t you apply that same principle to Muslims? Maybe there are people out there who hate Muslims for a reason. Maybe Muslims have done something to create people like Geller just like you claim the US has done something to create suicide bombers. If you can admit that about t he US without justifying suicide bombers, why cna’t you admit that about Muslims without justifying Geller? You could but you don’t and that is the problem

                      And please yell Tulpa some more and call me more names. It is just you admitting I am winning the argument and you don’t like it.

                    2. “If it can be understood, why can’t it at least at some level be justified.”

                      No doubt some people do. Can you name anyone from the commentariat who justifies suicide bombings and/or 9/11, besides those in your head?

                      “Moreover, you still haven’t answered my question, why can’t you apply that same principle to Muslims?”

                      You absolutely can, but the answer to people like Geller is because she’s a collectivist piece of shit.

                      “And please yell Tulpa some more and call me more names. It is just you admitting I am winning the argument and you don’t like it.”

                      I think the the comparison to him and Tony is well deserved. I still can’t quite understand why you aren’t as universally mocked the way they are whenever you show your true colors on a thread like this. You show up on a thread and actually defend a genocidal sociopath and when you get called out for it, you bitch that everyone here is so PC. You should be laughed off the thread from here on out the same way that Tulpa is mocked for getting caught using a sock puppet.

          2. Just the other day, I met two new clients, one Jewish, the other a Syrian Muslim. They have been in business for 3 years and they asked me to draft an Operating Agreement for the LLC they are forming. They were referred to me by two lesbian nurses for whom I did good work.

            See, we can all love each other and live peacefully and prosperously.

            1. Sure we can. You know what the greatest cross cultural success story is? The one that cuts across time and all sorts of conflicts, no matter how nasty? Organized crime. I don’t care how much people hate each other, if there is a buck to be made, they will get over it.

              1. I don’t care how much people hate each other, if there is a buck to be made, they will get over it.

                Well, that’s the thing isn’t? Isn’t it curious that the second Intifada of 2000 to present corresponds with the fact that after the first Intifada ended in the early 90s, in the short 7 years of relative peace, Palestinians in the West Bank were starting to see their incomes and standard of living rise through the opportunity to work in Israeli-owned factories or providing services to them. Similarly, through having Palestinians in the workforce, many Israelis got their first personal experience working side by side with someone who, before, was just a “nebulous” other. Fatah and Hamas just don’t work as well when Palestinians aren’t poor, miserable, and angry in refugee camps; just as Likud doesn’t work as well when Palestinians are just Abu Mosen, the guy two positions down on the assembly line.

                1. But that can’t be right. I’ve been told, by reputable news sources like Mother Jones, mind you, that capitalism is a force of pure evil that inevitably leads to income inequality, environmental destruction, and war. Oh, and also racism.

                  /prog

              2. If Joe from Lowell knocked on my door, checkbook in hand, why wouldn’t I take his business?

                1. I agree Liberty Mike. That is why boycotts are fascist and contrary to a free society. If you boycott over politics you are just admitting that politics is the most important thing in life. And that is evil.

                2. If Joe from Lowell knocked on my door, checkbook in hand, why wouldn’t I take his business?

                  That’s easy. His check would bounce.

                  1. He certainly made assertions that his arguments couldn’t cover.

            2. See, we can all love each other and live peacefully and prosperously.

              Except the Dutch.

    2. Geller is either an awesome troll, or genuinely unhinged. And I can’t decide which, because there’s much evidence either way. I’d like to believe someone that unhinged couldn’t survive without choking on their own shoelaces, but she seems serious.

  14. Is this the Pam Geller post on Burma that people were arguing about above?

    http://pamelageller.com/2013/0…..-man.html/

    1. Perhaps this one?

      http://pamelageller.com/2012/0…..oman.html/

    2. We are talking about Muslims here. They are the most peaceful people on earth. They are almost as peaceful and wonderful as gays. Clearly Geller is just a nut and made those things up. Or they are just false flag operations done by Jews or SOCONs.

      1. Could you tone it down, John? Is this some kind of no-enemies-to-the-right thing?

        Either the accusation against Geller is true and she advocated killing innocent Muslims (yes, there are such people), or else the accusation is false. Now, I didn’t find her saying innocent Muslims should be killed, I found her saying these clashes are ultimately the fault of Muslims – a defensible view, which I wouldn’t necessarily confuse with advocacy of assassination.

        But if someone *did* advocate killing innocent Muslims, that would be wrong, no matter how bad Muslims may be.

        And it’s not as everyone with reservations about killing innocent Muslims is some kind of jihad-denialist.

        1. But I think it’s a stretch to blame Muslims for alleged reprisal attacks on their communities – as with the Burmese rape story.

          There, I just outed myself as a jihad-denialist who thinks Lizard People Zionists have poisoned our drinking water. /sarc

        2. Fuck toning it down. The people on here are totally incapable of admitting that maybe Muslims have some of the hate directed against them on themselves.

          1. Maybe you can find one or two folks who think all Muslims are shiny happy people holding hands, but in general there’s agreement at H&R that there are too many radical, explod-y Muslims, and that the behavior of these explod-y types has harmed the reputation of Muslims in general.

            I think the question is how far Geller is willing to go in the name of fighting jihad – is she going to paint *all* Muslims with the same brush? Is she going to blame Muslims when non-Muslim rioters attack a Muslim community?

            1. They are not all peaceful but the ones who are not are acting rationally in response to US actions. There is always blowback.

              1. Oh, for crying out loud, this isn’t an argument, this is abuse!

                1. ht monty python

                2. Think about it. Every Muslim who hates America is doing so, according to some on this board, in response to the actions of America. America is getting blowback for its actions. Yet, no one will ever admit that maybe Muslims can be subject to the same phenomenon.

                  1. “some on this board”

                    Maybe some, but not everyone you’ve been giving the benefit of your sarcasm

                    You seem to think that if you acknowledge there are peaceful Muslims, or that maybe some non-Muslims have acted unjustly to some Muslims, you would basically be turning into either a hippie or a terror apologist.

                    1. I really have difficulty imagining you as a hippie, and I’ll try not to put such an image in my mind.

                    2. “You seem to think that if you acknowledge there are peaceful Muslims, or that maybe some non-Muslims have acted unjustly to some Muslims, you would basically be turning into either a hippie or a terror apologist.”

                      That’s exactly what he thinks.

                    3. No MWG, that is not what I think. My guess I have known more actual Muslims than you ever have. That is the reason why I view them as human beings rather than cardboard cutouts in my own little morality play like you people do.

                      There are lots of peaceful Muslims. There are also tens of millions of them who believe horrific things. And a lot of them are really peaceful and nice people to meet. Fundamentally, you people are not much different than Geller. You both look at Muslims as one dimensional objects. You just have a more positive view of them than she does.

                    4. Look, I don’t really think very many H&R denizens are dewy-eyed coeds cooing about a “religion of peace” and thinking “Islamophobia” is a worse threat than terrorism. There’s a variety of viewpoints, but generally involving a concession that there’s a lot of violent, explodey Muslims out there. Some say the explody Muslims are like a nest of scorpions who can be bypassed by prudent avoidance, some say we have to go in and take them out, but here’s what I *haven’t* heard – “every single Muslim is a misunderstood ambassador of peace.”

                  2. To completely discount the idea of blowback is to say that there will never be consequences for the Government’s actions. Which I think for most here, is patently silly.

                    In all reality, it’s pretty damn obvious to most people that it’s a healthy mixture of hatred of our way of life, abject poverty being the suckage, and the USG occasionally putting it’s dick into hornets nest.

                    1. To completely discount the idea of blowback is to say that there will never be consequences for the Government’s actions.

                      Okay, then why isn’t Geller just blowback for the things Muslims have done? Why does no one ever apply that principle to anyone else but the US?

                    2. Because most of us are American?

                      For what it’s worth, I think people like Geller ARE a response to the extremist. Just like Coulter and her schtick are a response to the left.

                    3. Yes they are and there are going to be more of them. And being Americans is no excuse for only applying our principles to America.

                    4. The dispute is an evidentiary one – are the radical Muslims a nest of scorpions who will confine themselves to stinging each other so long as we don’t come along and poke them with a stick, or are they going to get out of their nest and hunt us down if we don’t hunt them down first?

                      I see very few people considering option three – that they aren’t scorpions at all, but adorable kittens instead.

                      So there’s where to focus the debate.

                    5. Why is it not obvious that they simply believe what they say they believe? It’s an odd sort of racism/ethnocentrism to deny Fundamentalist Muslims their ability to define for themselves what their goals are and what their philosophy is. The handy thing about radical Islam is that it’s adherents are not sly or sneaky about what they think. They are explicit. They have told us what they believe and what actions they intent to take to further those beliefs. And when they do just that, why is it I so often hear people claiming there’s some hidden, subconscious agenda?

                      The USA has nothing to be ashamed of with respect to treatment of Muslims. Yes, I said that. Nothing. If the standard by which we are judging our own actions is the actions any other nation or collection of nations on earth generally, and other Muslim nations specifically.

  15. Controversial posters that state “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”

    I would have thought that this crossed the line into ‘incitement to violence’.

    1. By whom? Muslims?

    2. Warning *against* killers is incitement to violence?

  16. I have yet to see evidence that Geller “advocated killing innocent Muslims.” And no, she didn’t say that Obama was Malcom X’s son, she published a blog post by someone else, which included that claim. Editors often publish things they don’t entirely agree with.

    In any case I am inclined to cut her slack. As a Jewish woman, she is doubly-targeted by Islam. It’s not paranoia if people really are out to get you.

    As for the charge of “collectivizing,” it’s not that simple. True, every individual Muslim is not a terrorist. Also, every Communist is not running a gulag, and every Klansman isn’t lynching someone. But if one is a member of a religion or ideology that supports murder and other anti-liberty acts, it’s not entirely invalid to make a “collectivizing” connection. It’s inarguable that the Koran supports killing Jews, killing apostates, killing blasphemers, killing gays, etc., etc. And according to Islamic theology, that’s all the word of Allah and not to be questioned or contradicted. Islamic clerics regularly publicly support those actions. It’s not like the “Christian terrorism” that some point to, which is either in the past (“but the Crusades!”) or some cult in a jungle somewhere with basically zero outside support.

  17. Islam is perhaps the major anti-liberty force in the world today, and part of its success comes from the fact that it’s not just a religion but a political system. We enlightened Westerners like to think that because all religions should be equal before the law, that they are thus essentially the same. Unfortunately not. One wants to take over the world, and is essentially running a good cop/bad cop combination of “moderate, innocent Muslims” and admitted totalitarians and terrorists. So it’s hard for me to see “moderate, innocent Muslims” as equivalent to “moderate, innocent Christians (or whatever),” because other religions have no totalitarian terrorists to speak of.

  18. Wow. John really went full retard on this thread.

  19. My my…. The antisemitic Rhomites at “Reason Magazine” are in a tizzy because the heroine, Pamela Geller, exposes the bloodthirsty ideology behind Islam’s hatred of the Jews. In addition to juden hass the Muslims have been America’s enemies since the dawn of the republic. What is the matter with you Libertarian eliminationist antisemites? Don’t you want your philosophy emblazoned on buses as Pamela Geller has done? Are you ashamed of being elimintationist antisemites and Islamic terrorist supporters. If the six million Jews of Israel are killed by your Muslim heroes, you can always pull your holocaust denial schtick as you did back in 1975.

    p.s. I have given money to support those ads and Pamela Geller. Do you Nazis love me now?

    “Killing the Arabs is the best thing Israel does.”

    Ayn Rand on the Phil Donahue show

    The Trayvon Martin Lied

    The Jewish Defense League Marching Song

    “There’s no need to fear — Underzog is here.”

    1. What is the matter with you Libertarian eliminationist antisemites?

      They’re Cosmos.

      Libertarianism is just a foil for them to bamboozle useful idiots into aiding an expansion of the state.

      1. The Talmud says greed is good.

        The Marxists agree but hide it behind the state.

        Too subtle for you, I guess.

  20. I am unaware of AFDI calling, Muslims savages. My understanding is they call Islamic Fundamentalists advocating and engaging in jihad savages. Also, the new ad, whatever it’s flaws, are not “pro-violence”. They are not advocating violence. They are illustrating a philosophy of violence against Jews. Whatever flaws the ads might have, or the group may have, it serves no one to misrepresent them.

  21. In case some people don’t get the whole notion of context, ADL and other organizations (via puppet Pammy Geller) had large posters throughout NYC and other major metro areas where people were urged to destroy Islam for the security of Israel and Judaism.

    It’s not like this was unprompted.

    Linkage here. (Link opens in new window)

    1. Hot linking not allowed. Heh. You bandwidth thief.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.