But that's the entire thesis of your argument in that death penalty thread
Good point. But antimuslim propaganda must be stopped because its true purpose is to make non-muslims and muslims hate each other.Freedom of speech is not the freedom to offend.
Nonetheless, I've been pretty clear about this, many times. You can indeed say whatever you want. No one can stop you. Same way no one will stop all of the radical crazies that want kill you, for pissing them off.
But, when you get your head caved in, don't expect me to rally by your side and demand ALL Muslims be wiped out - because you are purposely going out of your way to incite and get a violent reaction from a group you are clearly fearful and bigoted towards to.
That's why we have a G-d given right to armed self defense.My fault for not being clear - freedom of speech is not freedom to offend without consequences.
You are right - no government is going to stop you from offending someone (as is the result in this case).
However, no government is going to be able to stop the consequences of your offensive act. They will obviously punish your murderer,... but, what does that do you for, when you've been killed by them?
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to offend. <--- actually you are wrong!! If you can`t handle the heat5, get out of the kitchen! Where does it say you can only exercise your freedom of speech if your speech does not offend?/ Please show us???
Nonetheless, I've been pretty clear about this, many times. You can indeed say whatever you want. No one can stop you. Same way no one will stop all of the radical crazies that want kill you, for pissing them off. <-- it does not matter if you have been clear or not....now really? Does it matter??
But, when you get your head caved in, don't expect me to rally by your side and demand ALL Muslims be wiped out - because you are purposely going out of your way to incite and get a violent reaction from a group you are clearly fearful and bigoted towards to. <-- Why does it seem like Muslims are always being offended?
They'd have to find someone to write it for them but if it is a generic racist ad (not a specific threat) it would be protected speech.I wonder if the KKK could place a Racist Ad?
The American Freedom Defense Initiative was co-founded by Pamela Geller.
PHILADELPHIA -- Anti-Islamic ads could soon be coming to Philadelphia public buses.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-philly-public-buses-must-run-ads-linking-muslims-to-hitler/#postComments
CBS Philadelphia reports that a federal court judge on Wednesday sided with a New Hampshire based non-profit on its claim that it has a first amendment right to run bus ads linking Muslims to Hitler.
Hi guys, wanna know your opinion!
What do you think about this? Is this ads made to stop humiliation of jews, or to insult "poor" innocent muslims?
Maybe you think that it is okay, or you think that this ads discriminate everybody?
If the ad venue is being offered by a government agency, and political speech in the ads is allowable, then I don't see how racist ads that didn't advocate illegal acts could legally be blocked.I wonder if the KKK could place a Racist Ad?
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to offend.
Has become? I think it's morally wrong, but that's what this country has always done. It's just that our 'undesirables' keep changing. 150 years ago, people would hang signs in windows saying "No Irish." ~60 years ago, there were concerns about electing a catholic and whether he'd be beholden to the pope; the civil rights movement; etc...this is such a blatantly racist ad. it saddens me that this country has come to the point where flagrant racism is tolerated as long as it is towards the 'undesireables' (muslims/arabs)
it is a free speech issue but the problem is that there would very much be an issue with making an advertisement blaming jews for anything. look at the passion of the christ, that was a freaking movie and it was boycotted and caused so much controversy just for showing a few jews 2000 years ago acting moderately poorly. do you really think that this would be ok in this country if it was targeting anybody but muslims? i think a poster earlier mentioned that they had tried to blame israel for human rights abuses, which has *nothing* to do with being racist, and they had to remove that ad!Has become? I think it's morally wrong, but that's what this country has always done. It's just that our 'undesirables' keep changing. 150 years ago, people would hang signs in windows saying "No Irish." ~60 years ago, there were concerns about electing a catholic and whether he'd be beholden to the pope; the civil rights movement; etc...
And at the same time, it's a free speech issue. I don't think I want the government saying what speech is and is not acceptable. Today's free speech might be tomorrow's objectionable speech. I don't think the people that post these ads really help their cause anyway, just like the WBC doesn't convince anyone about their views. And the city transit association can always put a banner underneath the ad stating something along the lines of "The views stated in this advertisement are not the views of the city and are solely the views of the organization running the advertisement." (or something along those lines)
We shouldn't allow ourselves to live in a bubble. You should be able to confront ideas you find objectionable without banning the expression of those ideas. After all, we're not clones. What you find benign, another might find objectionable.
They have a right to close spaces to public speech (ie: they don't have to have ads on their buses at all). Once they decide to open an area to speech it is really hard for them to discriminate based on the content of that speech. It would basically have to be obscene, defamatory, inciting violence, or something like that.
It's sort of like the stupid nativity scene stuff every year. There's no requirement that any town open up any part of their land for religious displays. Once they do it though, they have to accommodate just about everyone.
Sorry to the late response. I was reading an article about a case going in front of the SCOTUS about the Texas DMV denying the Sons of Confederate Veterans custom license plates. It reminded me of what I was thinking in my post about this topic.
Which is I thought this could fall under Government Speech?