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.
martingugino 1, October 9, 2012 at 6:10 am
What’s your point?
If only the criminals and the Zionist hadn’t ” gone away with murder ” when they got gifted with other peoples land ! I often dream of how wonderful the Middle East / Asia would have been. The lost opportunities, the wars that would never had been fought, the people who didn’t have to die ……… ahhh
what a scenario. Injustice has always prevailed.
You’ve no doubt seen this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XID_UuxiGxM
martingugino 1, October 4, 2012 at 9:07 pm
1) Do we all reject UN resolution 242, joining with Micronesia?
=================================================
Doubt it. That said, the U.S. won’t be controlled by the U.N.
http://www.wildolive.co.uk/United%20Nations.htm
======================================
2) Do we all dislike Norman Finkelstein?
In 2007, after a highly publicized row between Finkelstein and a notable opponent of his, Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein’s tenure bid at DePaul was denied.[1] Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave for the 2007–2008 academic year, and on September 5, 2007, he announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
======================================
I didn’t resign, and I didn’t get a settlement.
Martin,
The UN is a Potemkin Organization, where the majority of States are Islamic. Their resolutions are not international law, but are examples of lobbying and money winning out over what is right. As a peacekeeping/making organization it is a sham.
When it comes to Israel Finklestein and Deshowitz both are ideology driven polemicists. Neither has a grasp of the issues in Israel and in the social, political and economic sense their ideoogy blind them to both truth and reality.
Kraaken: Yes I understand that burning the flag is allowed as free speech, with the understanding that it is your own flag that you burn, and some other minor conditions.
Actually I am undecided about graffiti – whether it is or is not a legitimate means of expression for the oppressed. I lean towards is.
1) Do we all reject UN resolution 242, joining with Micronesia?
2) Do we all dislike Norman Finkelstein?
martingugino 1, October 2, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Matt – you don’t feel that Cast Lead was barbaric, an insane amount of firepower? Or that the placing of Gaza “on a diet” is illegal, and the continued expropriation of land in the West Bank will be seen in the future as anything other than what it is?
==========================
Should Israel give back the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights? That’s a pragmatic decision.
======================
In January 2010, King Abdullah of Jordan, after a meeting with the Israeli president Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos, declared that his country does not want to rule the West Bank and that “the two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the only viable option. If rule over the territory was to be transferred to the kingdom, it would only “replace Israeli military rule with Jordanian military rule… and the Palestinians want their own state”.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_the_West_Bank_and_Gaza_Strip
==============================================
If they can stop shooting at each other, the Palestinians should have their own state.
Did you hear about the recent skirmish between Syria and Turkey?
Matt – you don’t feel that Cast Lead was barbaric, an insane amount of firepower? Or that the placing of Gaza “on a diet” is illegal, and the continued expropriation of land in the West Bank will be seen in the future as anything other than what it is?
MartinG,
The West Bsnk land wasn’t expropriated, it was won after Jordan and the other Arab states attacked Israel in 1967. It was actually land taken from Israel in the 1948 War.
I personally believe Israel should demolish their settlements and allow a Palestinian State to be formed. I believe that not because I feel Israel has no legitimate claim to the land, but because they’d be better off without the Palestinian population under their control. However, it is not as if Hamas et. al. have been willing partners to make peace either. Yes Netanyahu is a bad leader, but that also can be said about his Arab counterparts.
Now of course you may question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, that is of course a different issue.
Kraaken 1, September 29, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Krissy, there is nothing in our Constitution to protect one against poor taste or being offended. There IS, however, a guarentee of free speech and the right for your property to remain undamaged by vandilism.
————————————————————————-
Lona 1, September 29, 2012 at 5:53 pm
I think it’s clearly thought to be defamation, therefore treated as so. As Israel is mentioned who would be the Savages.
———————————————————–
Who are the Savages?
I think it’s clearly thought to be defamation, therefore treated as so. As Israel is mentioned who would be the Savages.
Krissy, there is nothing in our Constitution to protect one against poor taste or being offended. There IS, however, a guarentee of free speech and the right for your property to remain undamaged by vandilism.
It was in poor taste for the MTA to allow advertisements by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the hate group that inspired the Norway murders by Anders Brevik of 8 adults and 69 children. Pamela Geller incites violence and as it is the subways are too violent.
another egyptian!
martingugino: We will have to agree to disagree. Destruction of property is NOT free speech, it’s vandalism. Not every felony or misdemenor is a human rights case. SOMETIMES it’s just simply vandalism, pure and simple.
martingugino 1, September 28, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Lona – if the situation were reversed, the ad would be met with thoughtful nods of agreement.
================
You just proved something. You’re full of feces.