The video below has attracted considerable interest in the latest confrontation over an anti-Muslim ad campaign in the New York subway system. Many people have objected to the campaign by the American Freedom Defense Initiative which has put up signs reading “In any war between civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” However, columnist Mona Eltahawy who appears regularly on CNN and MSNBC took that opposition to a new level in this confrontation with a woman who tried to stop her from spray painting over one of the signs — an act that led to Eltahawy’s arrest. The incident involved a sharp difference of opinion on what constitutes protected freedom of speech.
The signs themselves led a court to reject a challenge to the campaign and order that the signs be posted as an exercise of free speech. I agree with that decision. Like most free speech advocates, I prefer to have such controversial views posted than to have the government engage in content-based regulation of speech.
That leads us to the recent confrontation. In the video below, Eltahawy insists that she is doing nothing but exercising her free speech rights in a non-violent protest. Pamela Hall challenges her with a camera and asks “Mona, do you think you have the right to do this?” Eltahawy responds by saying “I do actually. I think this is freedom of expression, just as this is freedom of expression.”
I am afraid that I have to disagree. Destroying a sign is an effort to keep others from speaking. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Throughout the ages, governments and majoritarian groups have torn down the signs and prevented the expression of unpopular groups or individuals. Eltahawy’s position is akin to saying censorship is the triumph of free speech in that it expresses an opposing view. If this were the case, any act of harassment and intimidation would be an act of free speech. It would make forced silence the ultimate triumph of free speech.
Notably, before the incident, Eltahawy reportedly tweeted to her fans: “Meetings done; pink spray paint time. #ProudSavage.”
None of this has anything to do with the merits of the campaign. The content of the speech does not matter. This is not a means used for free expression; it is the denial of free expression. For a prior column, click here. Ironically, her conduct has distracted the public debate over the content of the campaign, which was receiving considerable criticism. She has now given the sponsors the status of victim and compelled many to rally around the free speech rights of those sponsors.
Her lawyer is pushing the free speech angle but that will have little traction in an actual court of law. As a journalist, Eltahawy’s actions are doubly wrong and frankly reprehensible. The cure to statement view as “bad speech” is more speech — not trying to silence your opponent. Eltahawy was trying to keep others from reading the message as her form of free speech expression. That rather twisted view of free speech would leave only speech that is allowed by the majority. Indeed, it would deny speech opposed by any minority with each group tearing down or covering up message deemed wrong or offensive. It is the type of inverse logic denounced by Adlai Stevenson: “A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Free speech cannot be the basis for preventing the speech of others.
Yeah, one question. Who elected them?
Brief course in remedial civics.
You report to your boss. Your boss reports to his boss.
It is the same in the local government: The policeman reports to the Chief of Police, who reports to the Mayor, who reports to the City Council, who report to the companies who paid for their election.
Any questions so far?
Elthahawy goofed big time, but reading / listening to Sara Kendzion good point her behavior make some sense.
Teaching ecumenics—-good idea. Approve.
But how about a good civics course with remedial ones obligatory every 5 years. Otherwise loss of citizenship.
Much of what is laughingly called freedom of speech can be distorted by the stupids amongst us (I include myself , of course , in that specious group) . An overused inappropriate speech system can become a monopoly , Suppose a social group is told repetitively “it is sad that so and so is an aardvark ” then the “aardvark” can either a) continue defending the group think or deflect their dishonesties by saying “It is good we have freedom of speech but I feel dehumanised and (in the case of a woman ) defeminised when I am forced to listen 24/7 to people who don’t like aardvarks ” or b) continue insisting to diminish a man’s or woman’s reasonable history narrative with aggressively ” proving ” excess of aardvarkism is the only truth or c) say dociley ,” I never known an aardvark but I’m sure they’re nice .”
The Israeli group who wrote that poster shouldn’t be proud of their festering hate speech . I agree with Justice Holmes that Eltahawy should have plastered the wall with a more thoughtful advertisement .
So perfectly human are the inhumane . Teaching ecumenically to respect different religions is an approach that might dissipate the resentment experienced by extreme fundamentalists .
My advice is spray on the wall, or on a blank spot on the ad, so as to leave the original message intact and intelligible.
JT<"The content of the speech does not matter. This is not a means used for free expression; it is the denial of free expression."
So then, hypothetically, someone putting up posters saying that the Holocaust never happened is ok; That civil rights for minorities is wrong?
Justice Holmes is correct. This shouldn't be a case of first amendment rights, this should be a simple case of vandalism. The organization(s) that posted these posters have the right to do so, IMO. They also have the right not to have their property defaced. Seems to me that this is a matter of someone trying to attract publicity. I would think the correct thing for her to have done would be to put up her OWN posters next to the ones that she finds offensive. "Let a thousand flowers bloom; let a thousand thoughts contend". Uhoh….sorry. That was Mao.
Free speech is the right to voice ones opinions and philosophies that others may disagree with. Discussion and civil dialogue are the best use of free speech. These involve thinking and using ones brain.
Dusty and rusty brains often prefer to have others think for them.
Soma baby Soma, it helps dust and rust to comfortably occupy our brains.
What Justice Holmes said.
This lady is gonna have to find another prong of the First Amendment to straddle.
“If you react to sensational verbiage by biting the sensationalist on the leg it is called petulance.” -Snoop Dogg
It is free speech by the ad place purchaser.
She made her headlines, and may make a career of it.
Let us go back to the speech purchased by the Koch brothers.
Let us go back to the speech we are propagandized by our government, which is mostly misinformation and outright lies.
Let’s not vent our energies on the small stuff. Or is she significant in someway trend-wise or principally?
If you attack Lona it’s called justifiable.
the poster isn’t anti muslim it’s anti jihadist.Therefore you have come to the conclusion that Eltahway is pro Jihad.
Oh I’m not saying she was right in her attempt to prove something she believes in,no she went about the wrong way, she has the right to defend free speech! She, and I recommend all of you on this blog, should listen to Sarah Kendzion : The Right to defend free speech. That’s what it’s about !
If you defend yourself against racists it’s called whining.
If you defend yourself against antisemites it’s called racism.
If you defend yourself against hate speech it’s called Nazism.
If you defend yourself against intolerant homophobia it’s called undue influence.
If you defend your own right to criticize your own country’s policies it’s called pinko commie anti-Americanism.
If you defend the right of Muslims everywhere to be free of the kind of broadbrush animus that results from hate-mongering anywhere it’s called liberal knee-jerk unpatriotic conduct that invites violence against innocents.
And calling any of these things any of the above (or other) phrases is called free speech.
This is not an issue of Jews vs. Muslims. This is an issue of grandstanding and vandalism.
This woman proudly made a public spectacle of herself, with two cameras (one held by Hall, the other held by whomever took the video we saw) on her.
She committed vandalism in public, drawing as much attention as possible to herself, until she was arrested. By the way (BTW), if you’re spraying paint to make an heroic(?) radical gesture, and someone steps in front of you, you don’t spray the human. That’s battery.
This is only a free-speech issue if we consider vandalizing someone’s sign, denial of free-speech.
The vandal was quite freely dispensing speech. No one attempted to stop her from screeching. Her protest, that her right to freedom of speech was abrogated, is quite ironic.
The vandal got what she wanted. She’s famous.
Roger Lambert,
Graffiti vandals escape arrest because their primary object isn’t to get arrested.
It is a dual language spoken lona.
If you attack black people, it’s called ” RACISM ”
If you attack Jews, it’s called ” ANTISEMITISM ”
If you attack a religious sect, it’s called ” HATE SPEECH ”
If you attack Homosexuality, it’s called ” INTOLERANCE ”
If you attack your country, it’s called ” TERRORISM ”
If you attack Islam / Muslims it’s called ” FREEDOM OF SPEECH ”
” Funny unexplainable ” observation.
An Egyptian with Mad Cow. They are out there somewhere, it’s just locating them that is the issue.