Discussion: Anti-Muslim Group To Use Winning Muhammad Cartoon In New Bus Ads

TPM Article Topics
21

She might not put the cartoon on her own door, but somebody could certainly undertake that project.

22

I vote sociopathic. Not unhinged, just evil.

2 Likes
23

I hope the DC transit authority resists. There must be a policy against running offensive ads.

This is clearly designed to provoke violence and there is plenty of evidence that violence will ensue.

If I were the transit authority, I wouldn’t run the ad until I had exhausted all appeals.

These people want a holy war and they won’t stop until they have provoked it.

1 Like
24

not just the buses. the Metro tunnels, as well. which are probably among the least secure places in this country.

this woman is a fucking menace who is going to get (more) people killed with her hate speech and hate baiting. like me, for one, since i have to ride the Metro every day.

3 Likes
25

Most recently, a federal judge ruled in April that the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority must run ads from Geller’s group. The ad depicts a man with a scarf across the face with the phrase, “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” which is attributed to “Hamas MTV.”

Meanwhile, atheist groups’ ads with anodyne phrases like like “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.” are regularly rejected from metropolitan bus system ads because they’re “too controversial” and “insulting to religion”. Good times.

5 Likes
26

never count on WMATA to do the right thing or make a wise decision. never.

1 Like
27

There is.

This ad’s opinion doesn’t represents WMATA.

Geller has likely run these ads before. At the time, it was about equating Islam to Nazism.

28

Although the American Freedom Defense Initiative has pushed for controversial ads on public transportation before, the previous ads did not include depictions of the prophet Muhammad, which is considered blasphemous in the Muslim faith.

The ads in question (if hers) had the Grand Mufti at the time (1940’s) in a sitdown with (I think) Hitler. They ran on the buses, as opposed to being put in train stations and those buses that carried those ads likely ran in predominantly black neighborhoods.

WMATA ran the usual disclaimer in 5 type print and left it at that.

They knew that even though they could have told Geller to shove it, the local Fox affliate would make such a stink over ‘freedom of speech’ that Metro execs would have looked like DeAngelo Hall trying to regain his bearings after being juked.

Those ads will likely run.

Metro in turn will give the usual excuse.

29

Who the hell is financing this? Is she independently wealthy? Someone must be backing her. I am trying to understand who has a financial interest in hate. Most hate groups don’t have the kind of cash that can buy ads on the NYC subway.

30

Even if her idea passes free speech and freedom of expression muster, does she really think it’s a good idea? Is it ethical? Is it moral? Does it achieve a positive, higher purpose? Does it make common sense? Geller has slipped into the bonds of self-righteousness, much like many others.

31

from Harretz

Again WMATA could grow some ‘stones’ and take this case to the federal courthouse. However if there is a fear that they could lose this case, it would get compounded by those ads being on buses a lot longer than they want them to be.

Also, there’s Fox 5 in regards to that ‘freedom of speech’ issue.

Nope…WMATA will likely accept those ads and run them promptly…all the while (at least money wise)…

32

In which, case, you’re kind of agreeing with Geller. Crazy extremists have basically exported their beliefs since you’re arguing that we should act in accordance with whatever will keep them from going on a rampage…

2 Likes
33

This kind of makes Geller’s point, doesn’t it? The reasonable person, fearing an outburst from the extremists, chooses to act in accordance with extremist demands.

2 Likes
34

I’ve seen a few of these ads on buses here in Philly. Not surprised to hear that she’s behind them. They look like something pasted together from newspaper cutouts by a sociopath–which probably isn’t too far off the mark.

1 Like
35

Pro Tip: Put your cartoons on billboards. Just as visible and just as offensive to Muslims, extremist and otherwise. Good thing is that many fewer people care if billboards get shot.

Unless what you are really trying to do is get more people killed?

3 Likes
36

Sadly, I think it’s worse than that … this woman will never be happy, because being happy means actually enjoying the human condition … and that’s not within the realms of her rather warped view of the world. If she weren’t so hateful and hate-filled, I’d actually pity the poor thing … as it is … not so much. In fact quite the opposite I am somewhat ashamed to say. If she wants to inspire hate, she’s doing it … but not against the Muslims.

1 Like
37

Let’s put it in a different context. In 1978 a bunch of neo-Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, home to a number of Holocaust survivors. The community moved to prevent them, but the ACLU supported their right to march. I would have too. Presumably you would as well—free speech, right? But now tell me whether you would have recommended that they should march there if they’d asked you. Yes or no? I would say no. Having the right to do a thing doesn’t always mean you ought to. In this case, Geller’s proposal is a textbook case of the crowded theater. We’re not talking about whether or not extremists from one worldview should kill people from another for doing something that’s legal in their society. I mean, I like to flatter myself that I’m not stupid and I understand that much. We’re asking what’s sensible and prudent in the real-world circumstances, not in a simplistically abstract consideration of right and wrong.

5 Likes
38

The two are not mutually exclusive with Ms. Geller.

1 Like
39

That’s a very reasonable question to ask.

1 Like
40

It’s the idea that there’s some pressing moral need that must be filled by doing this perfectly legal thing that is so overarching that it absolves the actor of all moral responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of his or her actions that I find both repugnant and logically unsupportable.

If you set off a chain of events that foreseeably leads to another doing harm to a third party, you and the party directly responsible for the harm are jointly and severally liable civilly, though possibly not criminally. And, more importantly, you are jointly liable morally.

5 Likes