US Ambassador to Lybia, along with 3 others, killed

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Rerun, you're not the one who has to ride the subway and put his life in danger for someone else's cause. You'd be singing a different tune if we were talking about a street in Okotoks. Would you be willing to put your family and neighbors at risk for this?

What I always find ironic about NY being placed in the middle of all this is, that it's probably the closest humanity will ever have to a city where all sorts of international cultures and people get along relatively (but not perfectly) peacefully. Yet people from outside of the place always want to use it as a pawn for their own racial fights.

New Yorker's lives are in danger every day. New York City is the #1 target of all Islamic radicals who support terrorism. This ad will not change a thing in that respect.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Rerun

It isn't hate speech. It's an anti-Jihadist ad.

It doesn't mention jihadist anywhere. It mentions jihad, which is an integral part of Islam, for all Muslims, as it means internal struggle as much as anything else.

I think the ad would be fine if the wording were tweaked slightly to make it a little less vague. As it stands now, it seems far too easy to view it as being insulting. It wouldn't be that hard to tweak it to make its meaning clear.

[Table 5]

I propose we make Okotokos the new battle ground for this fight. Rerun is it cool if we use your lawn to run some ads? I was thinking of a nice big mural of a Jihadist being pounded hard by a goat. You don't mind, right?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Is “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man” vague?

The point is that again NYers are being put at risk over a squabble between countries 5000 miles away. Leave the hipsters out of it!

I still think it's a vague.

You'd have a hell of a lot more problems on your hands if you said "defeat Islam".

"Defeat Jihad" has the same message as "defeat war drum banging". It's not exactly specific enough to target any one group of Islam or anyone who supports a "holy war"; it's more of defeating an idea, which in all reality, the ad is really saying support the Jewish state.

Not sure how "support the Jewish state" is going to cause Muslims to break out into violence and protests any more than they already are against Zionism?

[Sliver]

lol Okotoks.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I see it as something that should be found to be unprotected hate speech, I'm actually surprised that the courts don't agree.

Hate speech laws are very liberal in the USA. Unless you are promoting imminent violence, it won't be hate speech in the United States.

All this bus add does is call jihadist "uncivilized". Although I don't agree with putting controversial political or religious statements into the public sphere in general, I don't see how this is any different than "Israel Apartheid Week" or any of the other constant messages coming from the pro-Palestinian camp.

[Cheese]

Great article by Sam Harris on the Freedom to Offend

Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City. The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Rerun

By burn_this_city calling the whole article dumb just because the first four paragraphs had incorrect facts about Libya, is stupid.

Rerun defending an article in which a professional journalist didn't check his facts is stupid.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Hate speech laws are very liberal in the USA. Unless you are promoting imminent violence, it won't be hate speech in the United States.

All this bus add does is call jihadist "uncivilized". Although I don't agree with putting controversial political or religious statements into the public sphere in general, I don't see how this is any different than "Israel Apartheid Week" or any of the other constant messages coming from the pro-Palestinian camp.

I think you could make a pretty strong argument that this is inviting imminent violence, which admittedly puts a bit of a twist on the typical hate speech doctrines.

I just see it as an intentional attempt to add fuel to the fire, and the geographic placement as an attempt to provoke another incident in NYC in order to pull America into a holy war.

[Rerun]

When you mention the word "Jihad" to 99% of people, we all know what comes to mind.... and its usually not peaceful.

That may not be the "correct" definition but its what people believe it means.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Rerun defending an article in which a professional journalist didn't check his facts is stupid. If I want fiction, I'll read the Bible or Koran.

The article may have been written before all the facts came out. It happens all the time in the print media.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think you could make a pretty strong argument that this is inviting imminent violence, which admittedly puts a bit of a twist on the typical hate speech doctrines.

I just see it as an intentional attempt to add fuel to the fire, and the geographic placement as an attempt to provoke another incident in NYC in order to pull America into a holy war.

No that's not a strong argument at all. Just because one side in this debate is going to react with violence to another's speech that does not mean you are inciting violence. Saying "kill muslims" is inciting violence. The only people who are guilty here are the ones actually doing the violence.

Once again, this is no different than the messages that come from the Pro-Palestinian camp constantly, including the aforementioned Israel Apartheid Week, where much worse things are said.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think you could make a pretty strong argument that this is inviting imminent violence, which admittedly puts a bit of a twist on the typical hate speech doctrines.

I just see it as an intentional attempt to add fuel to the fire, and the geographic placement as an attempt to provoke another incident in NYC in order to pull America into a holy war.

Hate laws are designed to protect those targetted by hateful speeches.

We all know that we don't need protection from the ads creators or supporters. The people we need protection from is the ad target.

You are convoluting the law.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Rerun

When you mention the word "Jihad" to 99% of people, we all know what comes to mind.... and its usually not peaceful.

That may not be the "correct" definition but its what people believe it means.

When you mention jihad to 99% of Westerners, sure, but that's not necessarily true when applied to those who actually follow the religion jihad is a part of. Usually, when contemplating whether something is offensive or insulting in some way, you need to actually consider the group of people it is likely to offend or insult. The sword doesn't feel the pain it inflicts, and all that.

I don't think the ad is really overtly hate speechy, just necessarily vague and could easily be prone to misunderstanding and offence.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I don't think the ad is really overtly hate speechy, just necessarily vague and could easily be prone to misunderstanding and offence.

And I'm sure that's by design.....just on this side of legal, so while it still insights hate amongst your target audience, whoever put it up can still cry innocence if need be.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Rerun defending an article in which a professional journalist didn't check his facts is stupid.

The opinion piece in question isn't written by a professional journalist. You're stupid not to know that (sic).

Basically, she's relating her personal experiences as a hunted ex-Muslim, then relating it to the current situation. She does a good job.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...nal-stand.html

Cowperson

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

No that's not a strong argument at all. Just because one side in this debate is going to react with violence to another's speech that does not mean you are inciting violence. Saying "kill muslims" is inciting violence. The only people who are guilty here are the ones actually doing the violence.

Once again, this is no different than the messages that come from the Pro-Palestinian camp constantly, including the aforementioned Israel Apartheid Week, where much worse things are said.

As I said it's a twist on the doctrine, but I don't think it's a weak argument at all. Perhaps restricting it as hate speech was the wrong channel, an argument for a restriction based upon public safety concerns makes more sense.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

As I said it's a twist on the doctrine, but I don't think it's a weak argument at all. Perhaps restricting it as hate speech was the wrong channel, an argument for a restriction based upon public safety concerns makes more sense.

It's not a twist. Your aiming the protection of the law at the exact opposite group the law was designed to protect.

Public safety concerns are an entirely different thing and this would potentially be covered by the much more draconian anti-terrorism laws, but this speech in no way fits the definition of "hate speech" in the USA.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by valo403

As I said it's a twist on the doctrine, but I don't think it's a weak argument at all. Perhaps restricting it as hate speech was the wrong channel, an argument for a restriction based upon public safety concerns makes more sense.

So now you want to censor free speech inorder to protect the law abiding public from criminals.

So we should never say anything bad about the mob or biker gangs or gangs in general?... or does this censoring only apply to violence prone religious zealots?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's not a twist. Your aiming the protection of the law at the exact opposite group the law was designed to protect.

Public safety concerns are an entirely different thing and this would potentially be covered by the much more draconian anti-terrorism laws, but this speech in no way fits the definition of "hate speech" in the USA.

Thanks, which would be why I said that calling it hate speech previously was incorrect.