Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LeftishBrit

(41,190 posts)
131. Exactly
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:08 PM
Mar 2015

And it wouldn't be acceptable to put out such ads about Germans, or Italians, or Japanese -so why is it OK about Muslims/ Palestinians?

appalling that they're forced to carry hate messages. cali Mar 2015 #1
The First Amendment certainly protects some very distasteful speech (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #2
DC Metro got slapped down when it tried to bar pro-marijuana reform ads. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2015 #4
Someone should put up one with Bibi and Bush. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #3
Could we mix in some porno with that? daredtowork Mar 2015 #34
Perhaps Bush painting a nude Bibi. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #60
That should hit the limits of free speech somehow daredtowork Mar 2015 #5
You're certainly welcome to place ads that refer to Jew-hating in the New Testament, Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #6
I Have No Problem RobinA Mar 2015 #109
How is this in anyway comparable to those examples? NuclearDem Mar 2015 #10
I think its closest to the "fire" one daredtowork Mar 2015 #20
Actually, I think you're vastly misinformed about the 1st Amendment, and you're also dragging out a Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #35
I get your drift - and you are saying this is "KKK giving march down mainstreet" daredtowork Mar 2015 #41
Again, I don't think you really understand the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #52
I remember when the KKK wanted to march in Skokie & the ACLU argued for them. Demit Mar 2015 #57
roving american mobs? snooper2 Mar 2015 #119
yep, happened after 9/11 daredtowork Mar 2015 #120
more like putting up a photo of catholics with hitler + some ND-Dem Mar 2015 #29
I'm wondering how much effort leftynyc Mar 2015 #106
you haven't seen the anti-catholic threads here? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #128
You're making my point leftynyc Mar 2015 #140
i disagree with both points. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #141
Let me know when you've leftynyc Mar 2015 #142
I didn't realize that the criteria of 'truth' was 'longevity at DU'. But no problem, now I know. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #143
It is actually pretty close to hanging a noose. nt redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #102
Progressive icons like William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan onenote Mar 2015 #32
I think it's more difficult than that to determine the limits of free speech daredtowork Mar 2015 #33
you have the 1st Amendment right to 'deliberate' about it all you want. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #36
You STILL can't scream fire in a crowded theater daredtowork Mar 2015 #39
Saying something offensive - even REALLY offensive - is not screaming fire in a crowded theater Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #53
You must have stopped following the First Amendment sometime in the 1920s I guess onenote Mar 2015 #58
My view is not that narrow - I'm outraged over how easy it is for corps to get away with SLAPP cases daredtowork Mar 2015 #61
Basically it's shorthand for "any speech I dont like" Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #69
As I said, I leave it up to a Judge daredtowork Mar 2015 #70
I think if you're actually interested in the subject, you might consider actually reading some of Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #73
One of my favorite books is the ALA's Freedom of Information Manual daredtowork Mar 2015 #77
Again, it's not a reading list. It's SCOTUS decisions specifically pertaining to "incitement". Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #78
I do think it COULD be incitement daredtowork Mar 2015 #81
There's no privacy being violated when someone says "all frimhatzes are big stinky warbnozzles" Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #83
The privacy law doesn't have to be the specific "other law" in this case. nt daredtowork Mar 2015 #86
so every time someone says the word shit should it be left to a judge onenote Mar 2015 #107
Nope, where did I say that? nt daredtowork Mar 2015 #111
You seem to think that decided questions of law should still be brought for a judge every time. onenote Mar 2015 #112
For heaven's sake daredtowork Mar 2015 #114
And I'm simply pointing out onenote Mar 2015 #117
Westboro Baptist is a great comparison daredtowork Mar 2015 #118
No shit. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #37
Well people on both sides of the aisle take turns squealing about free speech daredtowork Mar 2015 #40
What other rights? Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #54
If your speech directly endangers my life and limb, then that's a limit. daredtowork Mar 2015 #62
Brandenburg v. Ohio onenote Mar 2015 #64
What I think hardly matters daredtowork Mar 2015 #71
If you read those decisions, they were written by judges. On the supreme court. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #75
You're the one not listening daredtowork Mar 2015 #90
Okay, then, serious answer? Talk to a lawyer. Or talk to several lawyers. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #91
I take it seriously, too daredtowork Mar 2015 #104
Brandenburg v. Ohio. Also Street v. New York (1969) Cohen v. California (71) Gooding v. Wilson (74) Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #68
I'm not a lawyer daredtowork Mar 2015 #72
Wow, you've really got the keywords down, huh. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #74
Coached by who? daredtowork Mar 2015 #80
A noose in the workplace could be a direct threat of bodily harm, for one. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #82
Yes, I wasn't sure arrests were involved once I thought about it daredtowork Mar 2015 #85
I think the answer is, pretty clearly, only a direct threat constitutes an actual direct threat. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #92
The swastika isn't a weapon daredtowork Mar 2015 #94
A picture of a noose isn't a weapon, either. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #96
Not to knock all your examples daredtowork Mar 2015 #97
Well we're gonna have to disagree. But I suggest you take it up with experts in the law. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #99
It's not disagreement daredtowork Mar 2015 #103
There is no chance this Supreme Court is going to expand what constitutes incitement onenote Mar 2015 #108
Burning the Quran is a one time act daredtowork Mar 2015 #113
i doubt it. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #48
We should ask them directly Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #55
The same level of Jew hating is found in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," for KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #76
Is that the legal standard we are going for now? Oktober Mar 2015 #87
And it sounds suspiciously like you've been reading my other comments daredtowork Mar 2015 #88
So... Two things... Oktober Mar 2015 #89
It's even scarier that guys like you are constantly projecting on to everyone else daredtowork Mar 2015 #93
Lots of words... Oktober Mar 2015 #98
And you go on and on with it daredtowork Mar 2015 #100
Atheist ads are still out, though. Right? Iggo Mar 2015 #7
Wrong. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #9
is 'human events' now an accepted reference at DU? figures. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #12
I'm not familiar with that site, just picked it at random from the Google results. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #14
i tried googling for the article and photo using various search terms but couldn't ND-Dem Mar 2015 #16
When I google the phrase atheist ads "dc metro" it's the 6th result (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #17
interesting. I don't get any 'human events' results on the front page (haven't looked at ND-Dem Mar 2015 #18
Here you go... Princess Turandot Mar 2015 #43
i don't think you got the point ND-Dem Mar 2015 #50
I googled it and it the showed as 4th article down. Inkfreak Mar 2015 #59
Didn't show up 4th, or 6th, or even on the front page when I googled it. And it's ND-Dem Mar 2015 #129
Member since January 2015... Inkfreak Mar 2015 #138
Is that a Philly bus, from this year? Or a D.C. bus, from 2009? Iggo Mar 2015 #15
Well, I suppose someone could always do a "Jews killed our savior" bus ad. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2015 #8
If 'inflammatory' is the standard, then the ad should not go up. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #38
The worst part about this story is the ad is true. Archae Mar 2015 #11
and officials of various faith groups, ethnicities, and nationalities cooperated with the ND-Dem Mar 2015 #13
Yes, they did. Archae Mar 2015 #19
Is that 'hatred' in the Koran? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #26
It's hatred period. Archae Mar 2015 #30
in the torah too; they're all 3 variations on the same texts and they all share the ND-Dem Mar 2015 #51
The Koran itself JonLP24 Mar 2015 #42
So he was, but so, sadly, were lots of leaders of that time LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #45
The point of the ad is to incite anti-Muslim feeling, period. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #130
Exactly LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #131
I'd like to see some group try getting hate ads for other groups on. It would be ND-Dem Mar 2015 #133
Actually, UKIP do try it regularly with 'immigrants' LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #134
the point of this ad is similar to those who bring up USS Liberty JI7 Mar 2015 #46
The only point I can see to these ads is to claim that Islam = hatred of Jews. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #49
Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #21
What's wrong with the judge's name? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #22
…obviously Jewish... PCIntern Mar 2015 #23
Mitchell Goldberg Dr. Strange Mar 2015 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author NuclearDem Mar 2015 #25
Blatant display of anti-Semitism only hidden by one vote. Pretty pathetic. tritsofme Mar 2015 #135
Please explain how your reference to the judge's last name isn't an geek tragedy Mar 2015 #27
Jewish judges should be restricted on what they can rule on? former9thward Mar 2015 #28
Great hide. Thanks jury! (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #31
Wow. So the buses can be ORDERED to accept blatant hate-messages? LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #44
thanks for that. geller sounds like a peach. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #47
Yeah, I figured it was Geller - or someone like her War Horse Mar 2015 #56
City busses should stay clear of politics or anything controversial Reter Mar 2015 #63
So we should do away with all public fora an only allow speech on private property? onenote Mar 2015 #65
Maybe they should display this photo next to it. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #66
+100. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #67
Squaring the circle: Israel is operating its own system of apartheid in KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #84
That's pretty dumb MFrohike Mar 2015 #79
I look forward to seeing the ads featuring hitler and shamir. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #95
Both of his parents and two of his sisters were killed in the Holocaust. tritsofme Mar 2015 #136
Maybe; but apparently Lehi was looking to ally with the fascists ND-Dem Mar 2015 #137
I don't see how the 1st Ammendment necessary implies that people need to be provided with a platform redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #101
The status of advertising on publicly owned buses under the public forum doctrine is contentious onenote Mar 2015 #115
Interesting. I was thinking it was more complicated than "this is free speech". redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #122
I'll answer the only part that is easy to answer onenote Mar 2015 #123
Thanks. redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #124
Whether its the OU incident, the Logan Act, charging Ernst with an Article 88 violation onenote Mar 2015 #125
Here's another one: redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #127
I can't imagine any claim for damages onenote Mar 2015 #132
well, that is one way to put an open target hopemountain Mar 2015 #105
That argument is called "heckler's veto" and it's generally been rejected. Jim Lane Mar 2015 #110
thank you for sharing this argument hopemountain Mar 2015 #139
The judge's reasoning is that the government can't play favorites Jim Lane Mar 2015 #144
We found an elegant solution when those popped up in SF KamaAina Mar 2015 #116
I can see this being "discrimination at the work place" against Muslim bus drivers and therefore redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #121
PHILLY AREA: VERIZON's new "ONE AMERICA" TV channel RJMacReady Mar 2015 #126
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Philly buses ordered to a...»Reply #131