Mona Eltahawy, as police infringe on her exercise of the rarely invoked Eleventeenth Amendment, which protects a citizen’s right to spray any message she doesn’t want others to see with pink. paint.
The controversial ads went up in DC Metro stations today, after efforts by the city to have them blocked were declared, properly, to be unconstitutional by a sane and objective judge. The ads read,
“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
The controversy over the subway ads started heating up in the wake of the “Innocence of Muslims” debacle, when a crude internet trailer for a crude anti-Islam movie was used by extremists and fanatics around the world as an excuse to demonstrate against or attack U.S. embassies. The Obama Administration’s less-than-ringing defense of free speech in its efforts to minimize the violence had the undesired effect of emboldening domestic censors, among them Mona Eltahawy, a free-lance Egypt-born journalist, who spray-painted one of the anti-jihad ads, the creation of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in a New York subway station where it had been hung on September 24. She argued, as she sprayed, that censoring someone else’s protected speech was her First Amendment right. No, it’s not. A 2011 naturalized citizen, she needs to bone up on her American Constitution before she speaks at any more college campuses. She was arrested. Good.
Showing similar ignorance and worse judgment, the York City Metropolitan Transit Authority was then moved to try to ban ads that might incite others to violence, like, say, misguided Egyptian-born journalists. This is prior restraint, a First Amendment no-no, and also certifiably idiotic, as it rewards violence and makes the validity of a message dependent on how unstable those who disagree with it are.
Now various pro-Islam groups are planning counter-ads, which is how it is supposed to work, and heaven knows that public transit needs the money. I am scratching my head, however, over the objections to the original ads. Eltahawy called them “hate speech,” but in fact the ad states a bedrock principle of American law and culture. The concept of jihad, literally a holy war, is alien to United States soil and sensibilities, and the ad’s statement that in this country, by this country’s traditions, ethics and morality, jihad is uncivilized and savage, and is wrong and intolerable by definition, is simply true. To Muslims who are offended by the designation of this Islamic duty of believers as “savage” have my sympathy, but tolerance in the United States is not without limit. If ads condemning jihad constitute “hate speech,” so are the ads condemning bullies, drug dealers, sexual harassers and bigots. I’ve seen those ads, and I’ve never seen anyone try to deface them. They are correct as well.
There is nothing wrong with the American Freedom Defense Initiative ads There are, however, serious things wrong with the city bureaucrats in New York and D.C. who tried to censor them—like a disturbing deficit in courage and commitment to basic American values.
____________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: Kelly James Clark
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I agree – the system is working correctly to protect Free Speech by allowing these ads. And the correct method to counter them is to buy your own ads. Or stand in front of an ad ( or a street corner), on your soap box and explain why you disagree. If you commit civil disobedience – whether it’s by spray painting an ad you disagree with, or holding a rally without proper permits – well, you’ll pay the legal price.
I think this is a type of situation that gives many Americans the willies. Similar to when the ACLU defends the KKK to march in your local town. “Yeah, I get it, free speech, but still, really, the KKK?”.
Americans have pride in their tolerance and first amendment rights. But still, there’s that nagging sense of “but that’s really a wrong thing, and we can hate it, can’t we? After all we’re all _______here”.
I find that so many people have a firm visceral moral belief system, often in regards to issues that have a deep emotional base in a religion. Yet they have not truly thought through an ethical answer regarding so many other concepts. For example, most have a thought-out belief as to whether the death penalty is allowable. But how many have thought out whether unearthed funeral objects should be repatriated to native persons in the US or abroad? Let alone Dolly the sheep, the test-tube baby, or the baby who had a baboon heart transplant.
This incident how fragile our rights are and how cowardly we have become as a society. When NYC tries to ban such ads because “they might incite violence”, they’re admitting to the truth in the ads while admitting that they don’t have the backbone to stand up to the savages. When something like this gives people the willies, we are losing the war to hold onto the values and freedoms that we have spent centuries building. Thus country has spent almost entire existence arguing about rights and freedoms. We didn’t get it right in every instance, but we have slowly, over time, been moving to a society that embodies our founding ideals. There have been a lot of struggles, and a lot of good people lot their lives along the way.
It really infuriates me when people wring their hands over something like this. The only reasons people would be uncomfortable with this is because they are afraid of a violent culture that will send its citizens to murder and maim people at anything it views as a slight, criticism, or offense, or because they have been indoctrinated into the multicultural “ever culture is equally valid except that of the US, which is the most unjust, racist, sexist, and homophobic that has ever existed”. Incidents like this are where multiculturalism bumps its head on the low lintel of reality. Do we really forbid such a poster if it offends Muslims? What is offensive about it? Is it wrong because Muslims might kill people if they are criticised for killing people who criticise them? That seems to be the NYC argument. Do we allow Muslims to kill people who offend them because their culture demands it? What do we do with such a culture? Is such a culture compatible with the society of freedoms we have built? Do we give up our freedoms because Islam has demanded it under threat of death? I think we know New York City’s answer to the last one.
What the hell is hate speech anyway? Can anyone tell me?
Also, while I agree with the first statement Ive never found the nation of Israel to be “the civilized man”, not to say they are on the same level as the jiadists but Israel and its supporters, like the JDL, have done some horrible things also.
Freedom of speech? Amateur…
She should have said freedom of religion. Jews don’t get the best of the bargain in the holy book. She could have argued that the Qur’an even issues kill commands against Jews on several occasions. But even she knows that may be spraying “I don’t like Jews” over the original message is not all that smart in the US of A. Hence the First Amendment stuff as a smoke screen. Anyone who has ever followed Arabian tv shows knows how well-liked the Jews are in the muslim world. 😉
Jihad is a struggle. Ghandi waged jihad against the British. Some less admirable souls choose to hurt others as part of THEIR version of jihad.
To say supporting Israel will defeat jihad is to make presumptions that are thoroughly debatable. Do not West Bank zionist Jews engage in a jihad of their own? We don’t call it that, but do they consider domination of all Canaan to be a religious duty? You’re thoroughly biased if you don’t entertain the notion at least a little.
I want to defeat jihad by peaceable understanding. This may or may not include support of Israel at a given time.
As for this specific advertising problem, the government can help the situation with clear postings under EVERY ad stating “This paid advertisement does not necessarily reflect the views of ”
It’s done all the time for infomercials. It would be of great help in explaining to foreign parties that we don’t necessarily LIKE everything that happens under our constitution, but we uphold our laws lest all sorts of useful controversial speech be crushed.
I see no reason for such a disclaimer. The government should support the right to express political advocacy. Placing this disclaimer under all ads is pointless. Who believes that paid Metro advertising constitutes endorsement by the government? Ignorant people. They need to learn; that’s their responsibility as citizens, and abroad, as critics. When the disclaimer is only on one set of ads, as will be the case in New York, it suggests DISapproval. If it’s on every ad, it’s stating the obvious. A waste of ink.
Meanwhile, your critique of the content of the ad is rather irrelevant to the post. It could read the reverse (“Support jihad!”) and the ethisc of the situation wouldn’t change one bit.
Trouble is, to most Muslims jihad means an inner struggle to become a better person. So I’d be happy to be called, along with you, Jack, a teacher of jihad.
That may be true, but then: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” And calling jihad, as it is used in the Quran, “an inner struggle to become a better person” doesn’t change the fact that it is used to mean a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty to defeat the infidels. Thus is is fair to say, given the reference to savagery, that those who define jihad like you do have nothing to be offended by in the ad at issue, since it obviously refers to practitioners of that more traditional, brutal form of jihad. Unless you think that Jews think its savage to become a better person. My guess is, that’s not what the ad means.
Where have YOU been? I miss you.
In Rome and Florence, studying the jihads of the Church. Back to work soon.
Thanks to Bob and William for the proper translation of “jihad.”
Jan, that’s just not true. No source gives that as the dominant or primary or historical translation. It is a current, politically favored translation by those who want ton minimize radical Islam’s commitment to violence against “infidels.” Bob’s point is worth making, but it is hardly definitive.
On the contrary, the word “jihad” more often than not means either an internal struggle or an outwardly non-violent struggle. There is also, of course, the outwardly violent struggle, but that is not dominant. The “holy war” translation is a current, politically favored translation by those who want to point to radical Islam’s commitment to violence against “infidels” and portray it as being mainstream. Bob’s point is right on.
Sure. And the ad was meant to designate those seeking to better themselves as “savages.” It is clear what definition the ad refers to, isn’t it? Then what’s the point of arguing against the ad using to another definition that makes no sense in that context? Most dictionaries still list the actual war before the metaphorical one, but who cares? It is clear which definition is applicable.
Sold. Also, I’d argue that jihad has been considered by Americans to be a holy war for well… as long as Americans have known about the term. For example, look at the classic Dune from the mid 60s.
Of course. In English dictionaries. I believe Bob was making the point that any discussion using the term should include the definition that moderate muslims would prefer–because there are more of them. It’s the only way to fight the likes of Geller.
The ad is in American metro stations. This is called “communication.” Jeesh.
That doesn’t make sense. We fight Geller with truth, not with lies. In this context, Jihad is being used to invoke the ideas of terrorism and holy war. It wouldn’t make sense to discuss alternate meanings of Jihad.
The problem with the ad is that it suggests that palestinians are all savages that want Jihad. The ad creates a false dichotomy: Either you support Israel, or you support terrorism. There is no room to support a two state solution. There is no room to support a one-state solution without apartheid. There is no room to claim it’d be improper for Israel to nuke Iran. All those things are against Israel, so they must be with the savage terrorists.
None of which, even if I agree with you, makes it unprotected speech.
The ad doesn’t mention Palestinians, nor is that a fair interpretation. I’d say it means Iran, if it means anyone specific.
None of which, even if I agree with you, makes it unprotected speech.
I agree 100%. The vandalism was illegal and unethical, and the attempts at government censorship were also illegal and unethical. I should have noted that before I argued with one part of your post.
The ad doesn’t mention Palestinians, nor is that a fair interpretation. I’d say it means Iran, if it means anyone specific.
It’s all muslims, but palestinians are those most directly affected. What’s wrong with my characterization of the ad? It’s clearly saying that the people that are in conflict with Israel are savages. The Palestinians are the main group in conflict with Israel, and this poster came in shortly after Romney’s remarks blaming the meager economic ability of Palestine on the Palestinians innate inabilities.
I thought so.
I read it to say that those who want to wipe Israel off the face of the map are savages. Those who oppose Israel are not savages.
Which is the political cover. Of course, the official position is that all palestinians want to wipe Israel off the face of the map.
Gosh, I think lots of ethics issues are debatable. But this seems pretty simple: the sponsor of the ad is within his rights under the law. But having a right doesn’t make it right.
I see the ad as a vile slur against Muslims. I find it hard to understand disagreement with this.
Bob, question: Would you still see the ad as you see it, if the last sentence said instead, “Defeat the anti-Israel jihad?”
It’s still making the false equivalence that Jews are civilized and anyone opposed to Israel is a savage.
No, I wouldn’t see it as vile anti-Muslim, although I’d have some quarrel with its statement of the issue.
I disagree with the ad, because it takes the idea of “jihad”, an idea that’s been pretty much pulled right out of the 7th century and used to cause the deaths of many, many people, and makes it a political issue. More than that, it forces you to make a choice: either you’re “with Israel”, whatever that might mean, or you’re pro-terrorism. By “support Israel” does the ad mean support Israeli government policy towards Palestinians? There are many Palestinians who have suffered and still suffer as a result of the Israeli government’s policies. And there are plenty of Israelis who are opposed to their government’s policies in that regard. Are they anti-Israeli? And let’s not forget that there are plenty of Palestinian Christians who bear the brunt of these policies as well, so it’s not just an issue with Islam, as much as some people would like to say it is.
But I believe in free speech, so I think they should be allowed to buy that ad space. Free and open public debate is at the heart of what America stands for.
I just want to add this – I’m tired of this idea that we have to take a side. The only acceptable side is the side of justice and peace. Israelis and Palestinians should be able to live and work freely in the same land and have pride in their lives. I’m just sick of all the political BS and people being forced into situations they have no control over, no matter where they’re from.
For those arguing definitions. I’d think what the founder of Islam considered jihad to be is what jihad is…and as a firm practitioner of warfare to advance his religion, I’d say Mohammad would agree with the violent definition before the “internal struggle” definition.