HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Woman arrested for marrin...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:37 PM

Woman arrested for marring anti-jihad NY subway ad

Source: CBS News

NEW YORK An Egyptian-born U.S. columnist was arrested Tuesday for spray-painting an advertisement equating Muslim radicals with savages at a New York City subway station.

Mona Eltahawy, 45, of New York, was arrested on charges including criminal mischief and making graffiti, police said. Her arrest was captured on video by a New York Post camera crew and posted online.

Eltahawy is a women's rights defender and lecturer on the role of social media in the Arab world. She calls herself a liberal Muslim who's spoken publicly against violent Islamic groups. She's seen in the video spraying pink paint on the ad while another woman tries to block her.

"This is non-violent protest, see this America" Eltahawy said in the video as police officers were arresting her. "I'm an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57520541/woman-arrested-for-marring-anti-jihad-ny-subway-ad/



Question for lawyers here: if her spray painting was an act of performance art, then would that be protected by the First Amendment?

121 replies, 12617 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 121 replies Author Time Post
Reply Woman arrested for marring anti-jihad NY subway ad (Original post)
closeupready Sep 2012 OP
socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #1
LanternWaste Sep 2012 #13
socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #15
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #65
frylock Sep 2012 #102
no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #2
DLnyc Sep 2012 #42
no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #67
robinlynne Sep 2012 #115
Scuba Sep 2012 #3
Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2012 #7
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #11
Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2012 #38
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #48
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #100
frylock Sep 2012 #105
FrodosPet Sep 2012 #119
frylock Sep 2012 #104
SleeplessinSoCal Sep 2012 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #12
bupkus Sep 2012 #20
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #34
bupkus Sep 2012 #37
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #40
bupkus Sep 2012 #43
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #45
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #49
appal_jack Sep 2012 #5
bupkus Sep 2012 #6
Indydem Sep 2012 #9
bupkus Sep 2012 #16
oberliner Sep 2012 #17
bupkus Sep 2012 #25
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #51
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #54
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #58
azurnoir Sep 2012 #64
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #68
azurnoir Sep 2012 #90
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #76
azurnoir Sep 2012 #91
24601 Sep 2012 #117
azurnoir Sep 2012 #60
joeglow3 Sep 2012 #18
bupkus Sep 2012 #23
joeglow3 Sep 2012 #50
Missycim Sep 2012 #21
bupkus Sep 2012 #24
Missycim Sep 2012 #32
bupkus Sep 2012 #41
Missycim Sep 2012 #53
azurnoir Sep 2012 #57
Missycim Sep 2012 #62
azurnoir Sep 2012 #70
Missycim Sep 2012 #77
FrodosPet Sep 2012 #120
SlimJimmy Sep 2012 #55
Codeine Sep 2012 #113
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #81
snooper2 Sep 2012 #26
Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #29
closeupready Sep 2012 #33
bupkus Sep 2012 #44
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #47
frylock Sep 2012 #106
Kelvin Mace Sep 2012 #8
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #10
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #35
Kelvin Mace Sep 2012 #39
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #14
closeupready Sep 2012 #19
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #46
azurnoir Sep 2012 #59
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #71
closeupready Sep 2012 #61
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #69
closeupready Sep 2012 #72
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #79
closeupready Sep 2012 #83
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #86
closeupready Sep 2012 #96
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #98
azurnoir Sep 2012 #73
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #78
starroute Sep 2012 #22
closeupready Sep 2012 #28
Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #27
bupkus Sep 2012 #30
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #101
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #108
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #110
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #114
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #31
bluedigger Sep 2012 #36
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #52
bluedigger Sep 2012 #74
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #80
bluedigger Sep 2012 #109
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #112
mitchtv Sep 2012 #63
darkangel218 Sep 2012 #56
closeupready Sep 2012 #66
darkangel218 Sep 2012 #75
Duer 157099 Sep 2012 #85
countryjake Sep 2012 #82
closeupready Sep 2012 #84
countryjake Sep 2012 #87
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #88
countryjake Sep 2012 #93
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #95
countryjake Sep 2012 #97
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #99
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #103
countryjake Sep 2012 #107
Douglas Carpenter Sep 2012 #89
Behind the Aegis Sep 2012 #92
Shitty Mitty Sep 2012 #111
onenote Sep 2012 #94
riverwalker Sep 2012 #116
Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #118
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #121

Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:42 PM

1. She sure seemed to hate that poster though...

No matter how much you deny it -
the anger just comes out in all these inappropriate ways.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:02 PM

13. I've often found that what "seems" to be, and what actually is, are quite often two wholly separate

I've often found that what "seems" to be, and what actually is, are quite often two wholly separate things-- regardless of how many qualifiers I allow it.

But I'm not a clever guy, and have long since realized that what I infer is more often than not, predicated on my own biases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:07 PM

15. I am so ashamed...

so you are saying I am projecting my feelings on the woman in the post.

and since the Repukes are doing a lot of projecting you are actuall infering that I am a troll

Now wait a minute!
I ain't no stinking troll!!

Glad I got that off my chest!

Have a great day!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:27 PM

65. Anything to say about the haters who are responsible for that poster at all?

I share her hatred for bigotry and hatred.

The woman responsible for that poster, the anger of her debilitating hatred clearly visible for all to see in the inappropriate actions she has been paid to engage in, is a hero to Norway's Mass Murderer, the bigoted hater who killed so many innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:17 PM

102. she hated on a hateful poster..

oh, the fucking humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:42 PM

2. I think a reasonable argument can be made that if the action involves

defacing, marring, changing, blocking, etc. public property, it won't likely be ruled in a court of law as "performance art".

I would guess that if someone stood in front of the subway, holding a sign with a message, that could be performance art or dancing in front of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:37 PM

42. But if it's actually public property

wouldn't I have as much right to put my spray painted message up as the creeps who put up these ads have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLnyc (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:31 PM

67. Here's the rub: Somebody paid to put up that ad.

Your contribution would be getting the same visibility for free. So it really isn't public property in a sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLnyc (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:18 PM

115. no. here in LA occupiers were arrested for writing with chalk on the sidewalk. chalk!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:43 PM

3. Good on you, Mona!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:49 PM

7. I would have probably done the same --

The group behind them are free to pay money to have them posted, and others are equally free to express their opinions on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:58 PM

11. That is vandalism and is illegal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:32 PM

38. Sometimes vandalism is the correct response to hate speech --

I think placing one of these across the ad would be appropriate:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:50 PM

48. Correct response is not spray painting the speech of others including another person in the process

That is vandalism and A&B. Not free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:07 PM

100. I see this as an act of civil disobedience. Mona will pay her fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #100)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:19 PM

105. yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #100)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:30 PM

119. I hope the fine is HUGE!

And comes with a few hundred hours of scrubbing grafitti.

So do you think Repugs should get off scott free if they were to deface an Obama poster?

Should someone feel free to tag anything anywhere so long as it can be considered political?

The thing about civil disobedience, regardless of the merit, is that it entails consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:19 PM

104. whoop-dee-fucking-doo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:46 PM

4. This seems excessive. Defacing advertising in subway stations is common. Has been for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:59 PM

12. Still illegal vandalism

Note that she the media was there since she called them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)


Response to bupkus (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:29 PM

34. In *their* windows? Not by our standards no.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #34)


Response to bupkus (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:32 PM

40. You asked if spraypainting over "jew" signs in their own windows

 

would be considered illegal vandalism.

Going by US laws no that would not be. It's their property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #40)


Response to bupkus (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:42 PM

45. Right, which is why I clearly said by our standards

 

which is what we're discussing.

You think the current subway lady should be held to the legal standards of nazi germany?

The signs were Nazi property that were posted in Jewish shops. Go tell the Nazis you don't want their signs in your window and you're going to spray paint them.

I'll see you in Auschwitz, if you make it that far. Have a nice shower.


You realize this is a ludicrous redirect that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:51 PM

49. Surely you can make up better strawmen than that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:47 PM

5. The 1st Amendment does not protect property destruction.

The 1st Amendment does not protect property destruction. It's protected performance art if you destroy your own poster. Once you start destroying other people's stuff, the 1st Amendment is comparatively irrelevant.

Note, I don't support calling Palestinians 'savages,' I'm just relating how her case will be tried. She could try a 'necessity' defense, though most judges frown upon that...

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)


Response to bupkus (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:54 PM

9. Really?

Perhaps you've heard of the Constitution, and more specifically, the first amendment to that document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #9)


Response to bupkus (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:14 PM

17. What if the billboard called Israel savage and said Support Palestine?

Would that make any difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #17)


Response to bupkus (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:53 PM

51. Why not?

The MTA had to be sued into allowing the 6 Geller paid for signs. MTA would have to allow opposing signs on the same terms.

The solution to bad speech is more speech, not spray paint or assaulting people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #51)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:04 PM

54. Because there's a double standard in America, PP.

No, the MTA would not "have to" allow it. The MTA is a council of people, not a computer program, and I would very happily place any amount of money on a bet that they would absolutely never allow a sign condemning Jews or Israel in a similar fashion to these. Nor would they allow it for Christians, or even Atheists.

The difference is that in this country, it's acceptable to hate Muslims.

In this case? Spray paint is speech. It's a fucking poster, not someone's front door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:18 PM

58. You need to read up and get some facts...

The MTA was forced to allow the current posters by the courts. They opposed them. Given that precedent they would have to allow similar ones, even if they just replaced muslim with jew. It has nothing to do with what is more acceptable in the US, its free speech and its the law.

Spray painting something is not speech, its vandalism. It what Black Bloc does. In this case it may also have been A&B.

Watch the full video. Carlos has it up (http://www.carlosmiller.com) at his site. The vandal called the press and knew the results. Most likely they will have to pay restitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:27 PM

64. Black Bloc don't much like the occupy movement do you?

and yes I agree watch the video especially the ad that proceeds it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #64)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:32 PM

68. There are other places to watch the video...

Carlos is a member here and is doing a number of good things WRT to the 1st amendment. Its also the URL I remembered. I think the ads rotate, not unlike those here at DU

I supported Occupy with tech and money. I was at several encampments over time. What about you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #68)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:55 PM

90. yep I'll bet on that

I've seen quite a few defending 'free speech' lately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:53 PM

76. I know the facts, thanks

I just don't harbor any faith that "the rules" as established would be equally applied to all cases. After all, we're talking a city where other free speech is met with chemical weapons to the face and police batons to the neck.

If I were to see such a sign, I don't imagine I would clasp my hands and gaze in wonder at it as a monument to free speech. Sadly, since I'm not in Ms. Gellar's income bracket (apparently, bigotry pays well), I lack the resources to actually counter the hateful message being spread. I can't afford a campaign to put up my own signs countering hers, right? So what's the solution?

I would deface the things, too. Now, you might not agree with that - in your eyes, these things are a national treasure, it seems, but... yeah. it's posterboard and ink, fuck it, if they want to replace it I'll send 'em a fucking quarter, and do it again. Nothing like a fresh canvas.

As for the comparison to the black bloc, no. Sorry, not valid. The police - er, sorry, "black bloc" smash up places of business. There's a bit of difference between smashing display windows and merchandise, and spray-painting a sign. A difference to the tune of several thousand dollars or more, a difference of livelihoods being affected.

As for "assault and battery" I think Riley Freeman sums it up nicely.



Riley: Oh yes! The "victim!" At what point does personal responsibility become a factor in this equation?
Tom: I don't think that...
Riley: I see piss coming, I move.
Tom: Mmmhmm
Riley: She saw piss coming, she stayed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #76)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:56 PM

91. lol

I love the Boondocks both the show and the written strip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:18 PM

117. No, no, no...haven't we been lectured that companies, organizations, etc are not

people?

If the foo shits, wear it.

Seriously folks, popular speech doesn't need protection. The 1st Amendment protects the speech that otherwise would be squashed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:25 PM

60. No it would not at least IMO

neither is acceptable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:15 PM

18. There is a difference

I can support ideals. I can support committing illegal acts in support of those ideals and being willing to accept the consequences. I canNOT support changing free speech laws to fit an specific ideal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #18)


Response to bupkus (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:53 PM

50. Who gets to define "hate speech"?

Sorry, but the courts have ruled almost all (99.99%) of hate speech is free speech. You saying that does not change the fact.

If you get your way, I would hate to see what the right wing courts define hate speech as.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:19 PM

21. NO PROGRESSIVES ARE DEFENDING THE 1st

 

as we should, even if we DONT AGREE WITH THE PERSON'S point of view, GET IT?

You aren't allowed to silence (by destroying that sign that's what she is doing) others voices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #21)


Response to bupkus (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:28 PM

32. who gets to define what hate speech is?

 

you? me? or a fundie? or a court?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #32)


Response to bupkus (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:56 PM

53. THat is your right

 

and its others to PROTEST IT. NOT SILENCE IT. I dont agree with the signs but I don't believe in censorship either. Some see that Islamic movie as hate speech, I am sure there are some anti Christian movies out there that Christians view as hate speech but they both have to get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:15 PM

57. But this is not abouut a movie it is about a known hate group that was allowed to put ba sign

IMO that is no different than the KKK or the American Nazi Party being allowed to do the same, would you support that too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:26 PM

62. I have no idea if they are a hate group or not

 

what was the name of the group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #62)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:35 PM

70. The names of the associated groups are at the bottom of the sign

?4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:57 PM

77. I agree they aren't a very good group lol

 

On second thought I'd be against them posting that message, but if they where to march or speak I couldn't in good conscience have someone censor their speech. Heck everyone has a right to spew what they want as long as they don't call for violence against others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:46 PM

120. So if an atheist were to put up a sign that said,

"Religion is a fairy tale and all its followers are fools"

...then a religious person should have the right to spray paint over it? Or the courts should be able to call that hate speech and ban it? After all, that is a broad brush insult to their religion, correct?

The challenge: Write a constitutional amendment repealing the First Amendment in such a way that it would only allow progressive speech and be unchallengeable in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:06 PM

55. Actually, hate speech is indeed free speech. Whether we agree with that speech is another

matter. Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:15 PM

113. Hate speech most certainly is free speech. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:25 PM

81. Well, they just silenced the spray painter. Since EVERYTHING is 'speech' now,

anti-hate-speech spray-painting seems like 'speech' to me. You may not agree with her pov, or her method of speaking, but if we are going to agree to protect the most vile hate speech, then we should be willing to protect speech that opposes it.

You are asking that we approve of money being spent on defacing our cities with hate speech, but that we oppose of someone defacing THE HATE SPEECH. This makes no sense to me. Either you believe in everyone's right to speak by whatever means they choose, or you don't.

Imho, the spray painter was engaged in speech covered by the 1st Amendment. She was expressing her opposition to this vile bigotry. Seems like a fair trade to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:24 PM

26. why are you on the wrong side of every issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:27 PM

29. LOL... destroying someone else's property is not covered under the 1st Amendment...

 

Try again.

Instead of being a vandal, put up your own goddamn ads to counter the bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:29 PM

33. Keith Haring was a vandal? Who knew?

I thought he was an artist...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #29)


Response to bupkus (Reply #44)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:48 PM

47. Umbrage if free, take all you want, but the vandal's actions were illegal

After watching the video, it looks like the vandal also committed A&B on the person who stood between her and the poster. Depending on NY law and precedent, it may even be a felony. Her actions are no better than those of the Black Bloc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:21 PM

106. these people aren't progressives by any stretch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:52 PM

8. Who sold the ad space? The Transit Authority?

If so, then that should be some people's head on a platter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:57 PM

10. MTA fought it in court and lost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:30 PM

35. The Transit Authority was forced to place them there by a judge

It was ruled it would violate free speech to reject them, and I demand to know how a judge can claim that. Seems to me it's a matter of advertising, not free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:32 PM

39. :face plam:

Che fatica essere uomi!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:03 PM

14. During this there was also an altercation with a supporter of the poster

Depending on the source. Eltahawy sprayed paint on that person as well. No assault charge for that (yet)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:17 PM

19. If the poster supporter started the altercation, self-defense

claims are permissible, are they not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:43 PM

46. I watched the video

Spray painting someone is felony A&B in many jurisdictions. She stood between the vandal and the poster. The vandal sprayed anyway. Not sure how much hit the supporter. The supporter later used her monopole to push the vandal back. Without a complaint, nothing will happen. The vandal is an idiot and behaved like Black Bloc members. No sympathy from me.

Checkout www.carlosmiller.com for the video. He is also a member of DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #46)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:22 PM

59. well let's take a gander at it but folks don't miss the anti-Obama ad that is attached to Calos's

work, perhaps he had no choice in the adverts on his site

http://www.pixiq.com/article/reporter-arrested-in-confrontation-with-photographer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #59)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:40 PM

71. I think they rotate like those here at DU

The couple that I saw were not political. Carlos and PIXIQ are also separating very shortly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #46)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:25 PM

61. I watched the video, and being 100% honest,

1) Eltahawy broke the law in defacing the ad; and

2) I agree with her that Geller's ads are abominable.

Eltahawy has also apparently been a guest on Bill Maher and has appeared as a panelist during round table discussions about current events in the arab world, and current events impacting musilms, such as banning of the veil in France.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #61)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:34 PM

69. Do you think that she spay painted the counter protestor as well?

Its changes petty vandalism into A&B

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:40 PM

72. Assault and battery, no.

If that's what you are asking (if Eltahawy committed that), no, I do not think so.

Aside from equipment/clothing replacement costs from damage which results from the paint, the videographer was not physically harmed. Mitigating arguments against Eltahawy is the fact that the videographer FIRST saw Eltahawy spray painting, and THEN put herself in between the poster and Eltahawy, and did so despite the fact that Eltahawy WARNED her against putting herself there prior to the videographer intervening.

Having said that, I am not a lawyer and I do not know what is legally required in order to show a jury that A&B, as defined in statutes, was committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:20 PM

79. I do not agree with the part about a perp not being responsible for their actions if warning

is given. Think about it on a bigger scale than this event and you can see why. For example "Its his own fault he got killed. I told him I was going to shoot the other guy, he did not get out of the way so its his fault that I shot him, not mine".

I would be much more sympathetic to the vandal if they had just done it and moved on, and not made it a preplanned media event. Once the counter demonstrator showed up, some defacement had been done and the point made. The vandal was a way too ego driven for me on this one.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:26 PM

83. Culpability is shared.

Further, "Pamela" was evidently not physically harmed.

Finally, it puzzles me that a protester's personality is a pivotal consideration for you in whether you sympathize with the message, and/or how much you sympathize. Doesn't seem rational, and in light of your pen name here, it's really weird.

On a separate issue, did you comment on Rachel Corrie's death, and if so, would you revise it now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:44 PM

86. Not at all, I question the vandal's motives because of the set up with the media

If someone hit all the posters (all 6 I think) with COEXIST bumper stickers and moved on, I would be much more sympathetic. I have supported monkey wrenching in the past, and at times still do.

Note that injury is not required for A&B to have occurred. If someone attacks me, I fend off the blows and with one punch break their jaw. They committed a felony, not me.



I have commented in the past on Rachel Corrie's death. I do not consider them analogous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:30 PM

96. If I stare at you, that is not A&B. If I touch your shoulder in

order to get your attention to ask for directions, that is not A&B.

Even if the law technically states that it is, could you find a jury willing to brand someone a felon?

Seriously doubt that, and prosecutors would be wasting how much taxpayer money on a foolish witch hunt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #96)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:43 PM

98. Prosecutors waste all sorts of time and public funds on bogus prosecutions

It sill requires at complaint. Be interesting to see if one is coming.

As a practical matter if the counter protestor had been sprayed on the face or head, its a easy call. If they got some overspray on their coat, not so much. It would go to intent.

IMO the vandal set it up as a media event and played to them The counter protestor knew about media or saw them ahead of time and played to them as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:44 PM

73. I think that Gellers employee (according to Miller)

assaulted Eltahawy with her (the employees) camera making Eltahawy response self defense, if you really wish to go there, funny that you seem to miss that part

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #73)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:12 PM

78. I commented on it earlier...though it may have been elsewhere now that I think about it

If she was indeed sprayed, its could reasonably be self defense (moving her attacker beyond the effective range of the spray can). It could have been ground for more substantive defensive action which fortunately did not occur.

No word if Carlos's assumption is correct about an employer/employee relationship. He was harsh about it. Legally, I am not sure that it matters.

I might not be so down on the vandal if they had just done it and not intentionally made a self aggrandizing media circus over it. Drama queens come in all political stripes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:21 PM

22. She's an activist and a very dedicated one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Eltahawy

Eltahawy is active in the Progressive Muslim Union, and has been a strong critic of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood. Her work has appeared in the Washington Post, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and the Miami Herald among others.

Eltahawy is a frequent guest analyst on U.S. radio and television news shows. She also speaks publicly at universities, panel discussions and interfaith gatherings on human rights and reform in the Islamic world, feminism and Egyptian Muslim-Christian relations in addition to her other concerns. From 2002 to 2004, she was managing editor of the Arabic-language version of Women's eNews, an independent, non-profit news website that covers women's issues from around the world.

The Economist in 2009 credited Eltahawy with coining the phrase "the opium of the Arabs", referring to "an intoxicating way for {Arab leaders} to forget their own failings or at least blame them on {Israel}. Arab leaders have long practice of using Israel as a pretext for maintaining states of emergency at home and putting off reform."

On 24 November 2011, she tweeted (@monaeltahawy) "beaten arrested in interior ministry" amid renewed protests in Tahrir Square. She was held in custody for 12 hours and accused those who held her of physical and sexual assault. Her left arm and right hand were fractured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:26 PM

28. Fascinating. I wonder even if she

participates here on DU at all...? Obviously, there's life beyond DU, lol, but thanks for posting that info, I had never heard of her before this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:26 PM

27. Good. That's vandalism. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #27)


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:15 PM

101. Good God, this place is silly. It was an act of civil disobedience.

Done in front of cameras to make a point.

She will pay her fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:37 PM

108. It will most likely include restitution to the very people she was hating on.

Ironic don't you think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #108)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:00 PM

110. Yeah, 50 cents to replace that poster is gonna make Pam Geller's day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #110)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:25 PM

114. It would, even if it is just symbolic. I really see both sides as drama queens at this point

I really see both sides as drama queens at this point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:28 PM

31. I doubt it

 

that seems like destruction of property.

If she wanted to destroy her own property in protest that would be fine. You don't get to ruin other people's stuff because you're mad.

Fortunately in the US she will be given a trail and human rights and won't simply be stoned out of hand for acting out of place in public as a mere woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:31 PM

36. I support Eltahawy's act of Civil Disobedience.

When law fails, conscience must triumph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:55 PM

52. Including what looks like assaulting a counter protestor with paint?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:45 PM

74. That isn't what I see.

I do see her attempting to avoid the counter protester, who puts herself in harm's way voluntarily, and failing. The only assault I see is the counter protester using her monopod as a weapon. It's too bad there probably won't be a jury trial as both attorneys could make an interesting case, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #74)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:22 PM

80. Spray painting people, even if they get in your way while you are doing something illegal, is also

illegal. However, without a complaint nothing will come of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #80)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

109. Then she must be satisfied with the actions taken.

The whole point is to provide a just remedy to the aggrieved party, isn't it? If she is content to let it lie, then so should we be. She can always sue in small claims court for damages to her clothing/equipment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #109)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:08 PM

112. But more dramatic for both sides if there is a criminal complaint

At this point I see both sides as drama queens looking for coverage. It will be interesting to see if a criminal complaint gets filed. Even if nothing comes of it, it would have PR value, gain for both sides.

Normally in a vandalism charge there are restitution fees to the property owner. That would be ironic in this case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:27 PM

63. I might have done it too

but without media and confrontations , and I would have gotten half a dozen done without being arrested. It is however, civil disobedience, vandalism, and it you get caught, you pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:09 PM

56. I thought the OP read she was marrying the ad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #56)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:27 PM

66. As long as the ad consents, what's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #66)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:48 PM

75. Aparently the ad didnt consent so she's in jail now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #56)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:33 PM

85. I knew I wasn't the only one n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:26 PM

82. Brava Mona!

Blasting hatred and bigotry!

The thuggery of Geller's gang has vowed to replace every single one of their despicable signs, as fast as they are marked for what they truly represent...Racism. Those asshats have been kept very busy this week, as their hateful "free" speech is "marred" with righteous free speech:








Ms. Eltahawy knows too well the risks that accompany civil-disobedience, from her experiences last year in supporting the Arab Spring Revolutions.

Condemn oppression in all of its forms. Wherever we see it!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:30 PM

84. I'm wondering now if the "fighting words" doctrine

applies to Eltahawy's civil disobedience here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #84)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:45 PM

87. Probably not, but it doesn't matter, anyway...

as I said in my previous post, Mona knows the consequences of such a protest in this country, just as she knows the risk of standing up to hate elsewhere in the world. I commend her action in that subway tunnel.

I also noticed further up this thread that you said you'd never heard of Ms. Eltahawy before today. Here is one good example of her recent writings:

Why Do They Hate Us?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/why_do_they_hate_us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #87)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:47 PM

88. I am sure she know how to throw a media event...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #88)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:06 PM

93. Whatever it takes to expose the Islamophobia!

And if it takes yet another "media event" to shine the light on Geller's insidious promotion of such disgusting blatant racism, I would much rather it be executed with angry pink spray paint than the violent outrage we've seen as a result of Geller and her cohorts' antics.

BRAVA MONA ELTAHAWY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #93)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:19 PM

95. Making it a media event the way she did, leads me question to her motives

Its not like Gellar and these posters were hidden in any way. MTA tried to turn it down and were forced by the court to accept them.

Its not racism, though it is arguably hate.

Gellar was not associated with that stupid video, which is what I assume you are referring to as antics.

The vandal may also be open to charges of A&B. Not clear if that will happen, a complaint is needed first.

Personally a large COEXIST sticker across the bottom would have been about the perfect monkey wrench for those posters, no media needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #95)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:41 PM

97. "the vandal" ?????????

Really? Oh yes, let us all talk about questioning motives!

What in the world do you mean by that?

Am I to assume that you are posting in this thread in support of those SIOA-FDI signs? Are you excusing Geller's own vicious attacks on Muslims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #97)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:59 PM

99. Yes...what was done was vandalism

What in the world do you mean by that?

A person who commits vandalism is called a vandal, regardless of motive.

Am I to assume that you are posting in this thread in support of those SIOA-FDI signs? Are you excusing Geller's own vicious attacks on Muslims?

You should assume nothing of the kind. Because it was a staged media event I am doubting the motives of the vandal, a person you hailed.

I can see/understand/and times support money wrenching, which is also a kind of vandalism. Some COEXIST stickers across the bottom two line would have been cool. You posted those kind of pictures previously, assuming they were not photoshopped cut and pastes.

The posters are noxious and are not helpful in any way. MTA was forced by the court to allow them. There are 10 (not 6 as I posted earlier) which cost $6K for 30 days. Its free speech and those rights mean enough to me that while I disagree with it, I will tolerate it. I also believe that the solution to bad speech is more speech, not self aggrandizing media events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #99)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:18 PM

103. Yes, it was vandalism. Much more importantly, it was an act of civil disobediance.

Of course it was a staged media event. That's how you get attention.

Mona will pay her fine.

And I hope you get over that attack of the vapors you've been suffering throughout this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #99)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:24 PM

107. Only spots I know of who slime Mona with nasty terms like...

"self-aggrandizing" or question her motives by branding her a "spineless media whore" are sites like Geller's own devices, such as AtlasShrugs, which is why I asked why in the world you would be here doubting the motives of the woman. What exactly do you think her motives might be?

I believe that her intention was quite clear.

And I will continue to hail anyone in this country who stands up to bigotry, racism, and hate groups like the ones who hung these despicable signs.

The SIOA-FDI are designated hate-groups and those signs are most assuredly racist. Condemning racism is honorable, don't ya think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:49 PM

89. if someone was defacing hateful anti-Semitic ads posted in nyc subway stations - I wonder how many

people here would be denouncing that as vandalism and calling for protecting the free speech of anti-Semites who are involved in a hateful intimidation campaign against Jews in New York City. I wonder if all this concern about free speech rights would be the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #89)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:06 PM

92. I wonder how many DU'ers would be telling others to "Have a nice shower."

As for you question, the hypocrisy would be the same and you know it! It is NO different than when a poster here brags about vandalizing a right-wing sign, but all of the cry and gnash their teeth when someone does the same thing to one of their signs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #92)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:03 PM

111. War doesn't have rules

And we're at war with the right-wing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:17 PM

94. If she created the work she defaced it would be protected performance art

What she did is not protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:46 PM

116. video here

Mona Eltahawy is not just "Woman arrested" she is a heroine to many around the world who believe in freedom and justice. Not long ago she had both arms broken by Egyptian military police. Here is the video confrontation that led to recent arrest.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/video_exclusive_woman_defaces_anti_3xZ5mGVAGc1b6KUMFKGseK

Her Blog:
http://www.monaeltahawy.com/blog/

Twitter:
@monaeltahawy
https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:57 PM

118. Why resort to vandalism? There are so many legal ways to protest the ads.

She could buy her own ads. Organize a protest. Hold up a sign that states her thoughts. Hand out flyers that explain her objections. Start up a group of like-minded people to protest against them. Why resort to spraying paint around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #118)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:57 AM

121. It was set up as a media event

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread