Take THAT, evil-doers!
January 26, 2015 8:36 PM Subscribe
Islamophobic Bus Ads In San Francisco Are Being Defaced With Kamala Khan. From the article: "Well, this is just brilliant. Racist adverts promoting hatred against Muslims are currently being run on buses in San Francisco - but someone has started covering them up with anti-hatred messages from Marvel's première Muslim superhero, Ms. Marvel."
Wikipedia link to Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan), the latest edition to the Ms. Marvel story line. A few other links for your perusal.
Wikipedia link to Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan), the latest edition to the Ms. Marvel story line. A few other links for your perusal.
Have a link to the actual ads un-defaced? Have never seen them.
posted by xmutex at 8:51 PM on January 26, 2015
posted by xmutex at 8:51 PM on January 26, 2015
Pamela Geller at work again. Who is so angry about the status of women under sharia but is too dense to make the comparison to the similar status of women under halacha and conclude that most Muslim Americans, like most Jewish Americans, don't actually live their lives that way. I wonder where her ads about our sisters not being allowed to work, or get an education, or drive are in Munsey, NY?
posted by 1adam12 at 8:58 PM on January 26, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 8:58 PM on January 26, 2015 [27 favorites]
Thanks eyeballkid. I had a hard time finding the original ads.
posted by surazal at 9:00 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by surazal at 9:00 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Covering up that pic with Hitler, was that an Un-Godwin?
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:05 PM on January 26, 2015
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:05 PM on January 26, 2015
Like I'm kinda sorta shocked and outraged here that municipal departments would accept that kind of ad? Not fully getting it here. That's like a Muslim-targeted version of the Westboro people.
posted by xmutex at 9:06 PM on January 26, 2015 [34 favorites]
posted by xmutex at 9:06 PM on January 26, 2015 [34 favorites]
Does whoever paid for this ad REALLY want to end all aid to Egypt?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:06 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:06 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
The last round of those awful ads actually quoted Ayn Rand. Rage inducing to see those fucking things cruising around the city.
posted by brundlefly at 9:08 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by brundlefly at 9:08 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
We had some similar ones in Boston (after they won a free speech lawsuit against the MBTA), but at least those didn't go full-out Godwin.
Keep Calm: I am Persian like the cat.
posted by maryr at 9:08 PM on January 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Keep Calm: I am Persian like the cat.
posted by maryr at 9:08 PM on January 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oh, and by the way, I've only read the first four or so issues of Ms. Marvel, but what I've read is pretty great.
posted by brundlefly at 9:09 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by brundlefly at 9:09 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
You can buy ad space for hate speech on municipal buses? That is crazy.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:13 PM on January 26, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 9:13 PM on January 26, 2015 [14 favorites]
Yeah, what is the cutoff? Actual slurs?
posted by brundlefly at 9:18 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by brundlefly at 9:18 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
As I recall, it's been spun into a first-amendment issue. If the bus system were run by any private entity, then it could easily dictate what it does and doesn't want to publish on its walls; but when it's technically the government publishing things on the wall, it's harder to argue that people don't have the first amendment right to publish roughly whatever they want if the pay the asking price.
I personally am of the opinion that a municipality has the right to dictate a number of standards of decency and propriety. However, some judges have come to different conclusions.
posted by koeselitz at 9:21 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
I personally am of the opinion that a municipality has the right to dictate a number of standards of decency and propriety. However, some judges have come to different conclusions.
posted by koeselitz at 9:21 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh, I misremembered the Boston ads - T’s advertising agency took ads about Palestine down in less than a week, but now they are going back up (2013), Judge again refuses to force MBTA to run anti-Palestinian ad (2014).
For more information, ask adamg 'cause I clearly can't remember.
posted by maryr at 9:22 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
For more information, ask adamg 'cause I clearly can't remember.
posted by maryr at 9:22 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
So where is the line where shutting down speech is allowable? Can I deface anti-settlement placards when they get too anti-Jewish and contain allusions to Nazis? Or prevent PLO supporters from speaking if they refuse to condemn rocket attacks and bombs?
posted by hermanubis at 9:25 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by hermanubis at 9:25 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
hermanubis: Well, this was defacement; this wasn't the government shutting down any speech. And defacement is illegal, a violation of laws.
The thing is, some speech was defaced - if it were speech that we all liked, it would draw more attention to the speech that was attempting to be silenced. This defacement didn't silence this (hate) speech at all - it drew more attention to it (that there are apparent hate groups with enough funds to buy public transportation ads).
Now, more of the world knows about the speech this (hate) group paid for. They should be pretty happy about that.
Now, as far as the 'can i deface XYZ'. Yes, yes you can. With a political motive, a commercial motive (eg: illegal posters advertising things on public property), or a gang-tag. It's all illegal, and any of these things might result in criminal punishment.
This defacers had a political agenda, but would have probably faced consequences if they were caught.
Seems like the whole free speech thing (even with wonderful illegal defacement) is working out fine.
posted by el io at 9:40 PM on January 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
The thing is, some speech was defaced - if it were speech that we all liked, it would draw more attention to the speech that was attempting to be silenced. This defacement didn't silence this (hate) speech at all - it drew more attention to it (that there are apparent hate groups with enough funds to buy public transportation ads).
Now, more of the world knows about the speech this (hate) group paid for. They should be pretty happy about that.
Now, as far as the 'can i deface XYZ'. Yes, yes you can. With a political motive, a commercial motive (eg: illegal posters advertising things on public property), or a gang-tag. It's all illegal, and any of these things might result in criminal punishment.
This defacers had a political agenda, but would have probably faced consequences if they were caught.
Seems like the whole free speech thing (even with wonderful illegal defacement) is working out fine.
posted by el io at 9:40 PM on January 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
I personally am of the opinion that a municipality has the right to dictate a number of standards of decency and propriety.
I am personally of the opinion that, in general, a municipality should not publish anything, except maybe its own signage, on any of its property, to avoid bullshit like this. I'm about as First Amendmenty as it gets, and I think it would be ridiculous for someone to complain, on First Amendment grounds, that the municipality is refusing to sell ad space to anybody. So, perform your stated function, municipality, and don't accept money from anybody (least of all epistemically-impaired hatemongers) in exchange for displaying their shit. If it's a revenue issue, grow a proverbial pair and charge some damn taxes and fees.
That said, it looks like there are some standards:
Advertising on SFMTA property shall be consistent with the Agency's Strategic goals to:
1. Create a safer transportation experience for everyone.
2. Make transit, walking, bicycling, taxi, ride-sharing and car-sharing the preferred means of travel.
3. Improve the environment and quality of life in San Francisco.
4. Create a workplace that delivers outstanding service.
In keeping with its proprietary function as a provider of public transportation, the SFMTA does not intend by accepting advertising to convert its property into an open public forum for public discourse, debate or expressive activity. Rather, the SFMTA's fundamental purpose is to provide transportation services, and the SFMTA accepts advertising as a means of generating revenue to support its operations. In furtherance of this discreet and limited objective, the SFMTA retains control over the nature of advertisements accepted for posting on SFMTA property and maintains its advertising space as a limited public forum. As set forth in Section 2, this Policy prohibits advertisements that could detract from the SFMTA's goal of generating revenue or interfere with the safe and convenient delivery of SFMTA services to the public.
I don't see why the ads don't, at minimum, violate or reasonably threaten to violate 1. and 3., as well as running afoul of the "safety and convenience" clause, but I only looked at the policy for 30 seconds (I couldn't stomach the ads themselves for that long).
posted by busted_crayons at 9:43 PM on January 26, 2015 [32 favorites]
I am personally of the opinion that, in general, a municipality should not publish anything, except maybe its own signage, on any of its property, to avoid bullshit like this. I'm about as First Amendmenty as it gets, and I think it would be ridiculous for someone to complain, on First Amendment grounds, that the municipality is refusing to sell ad space to anybody. So, perform your stated function, municipality, and don't accept money from anybody (least of all epistemically-impaired hatemongers) in exchange for displaying their shit. If it's a revenue issue, grow a proverbial pair and charge some damn taxes and fees.
That said, it looks like there are some standards:
Advertising on SFMTA property shall be consistent with the Agency's Strategic goals to:
1. Create a safer transportation experience for everyone.
2. Make transit, walking, bicycling, taxi, ride-sharing and car-sharing the preferred means of travel.
3. Improve the environment and quality of life in San Francisco.
4. Create a workplace that delivers outstanding service.
In keeping with its proprietary function as a provider of public transportation, the SFMTA does not intend by accepting advertising to convert its property into an open public forum for public discourse, debate or expressive activity. Rather, the SFMTA's fundamental purpose is to provide transportation services, and the SFMTA accepts advertising as a means of generating revenue to support its operations. In furtherance of this discreet and limited objective, the SFMTA retains control over the nature of advertisements accepted for posting on SFMTA property and maintains its advertising space as a limited public forum. As set forth in Section 2, this Policy prohibits advertisements that could detract from the SFMTA's goal of generating revenue or interfere with the safe and convenient delivery of SFMTA services to the public.
I don't see why the ads don't, at minimum, violate or reasonably threaten to violate 1. and 3., as well as running afoul of the "safety and convenience" clause, but I only looked at the policy for 30 seconds (I couldn't stomach the ads themselves for that long).
posted by busted_crayons at 9:43 PM on January 26, 2015 [32 favorites]
So where is the line where shutting down speech is allowable?
Incitement to violence appears to be a bright line.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:54 PM on January 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
Incitement to violence appears to be a bright line.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:54 PM on January 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
Pamela Geller already pulled this shit in New York.
posted by phaedon at 10:00 PM on January 26, 2015
posted by phaedon at 10:00 PM on January 26, 2015
I'm with busted crayons: the solution is public transportation should not sell advertisements. I'm also against the imposition of additional fees for usage (hell, I'm for free ridership), but additional taxes are reasonable if that's what you need to run your public transportation.
I find all adverts in public transportation to be unsettling. I'm very much a captive audience, and I've seen some seemingly shady commercial ads on public transportation (maybe those lawyers were good ones, maybe that trade school is actually a good one, maybe not).
The thing is, if the government allows some speech in a venue, they've opened up to a ton of speech that various folks might not want. Satanists erecting (hilarious) statues next to copies of the ten commandments is a good example.
But if the government isn't content neutral, and they start deciding what is 'good speech' and 'bad speech', they'll inevitably be making a ton of judgement calls a lot of us will be really unhappy with (allowing a stone copy of the ten commandments in a public place, for example).
posted by el io at 10:01 PM on January 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
I find all adverts in public transportation to be unsettling. I'm very much a captive audience, and I've seen some seemingly shady commercial ads on public transportation (maybe those lawyers were good ones, maybe that trade school is actually a good one, maybe not).
The thing is, if the government allows some speech in a venue, they've opened up to a ton of speech that various folks might not want. Satanists erecting (hilarious) statues next to copies of the ten commandments is a good example.
But if the government isn't content neutral, and they start deciding what is 'good speech' and 'bad speech', they'll inevitably be making a ton of judgement calls a lot of us will be really unhappy with (allowing a stone copy of the ten commandments in a public place, for example).
posted by el io at 10:01 PM on January 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
"Free speech isn't a license to spread hate." I need that laptop sticker.
posted by quiet earth at 10:09 PM on January 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by quiet earth at 10:09 PM on January 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Is Islamophobia a form of racism, beyond mere (so to speak) prejudice? I'd say so, and this incarnation of Ms. Marvel appears to agree with me.
posted by quiet earth at 10:12 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by quiet earth at 10:12 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wait, Ms. Marvel is Muslim? I had no idea.
How did that happen? Don't get me wrong, I'm really thrilled with that, but that's a US comics publisher doing something right, and historically, you bet against that.
Oh, and remember: 1) The 1st Amendment prohibits *Congress*, that is, the US Congress, from inhibiting the freedom of speech, and #2) Freedom of speech is not the freedom of the consequences of speech.
Having said that, this is pretty awesome, but also yeah, that's defacement of public property. Awesome defacement, but defacement none the less. However, given what's being defaced, if I was the prosecutor, I'd make sure to "screw up" that case badly so it couldn't be prosecuted.
posted by eriko at 10:17 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
How did that happen? Don't get me wrong, I'm really thrilled with that, but that's a US comics publisher doing something right, and historically, you bet against that.
Oh, and remember: 1) The 1st Amendment prohibits *Congress*, that is, the US Congress, from inhibiting the freedom of speech, and #2) Freedom of speech is not the freedom of the consequences of speech.
Having said that, this is pretty awesome, but also yeah, that's defacement of public property. Awesome defacement, but defacement none the less. However, given what's being defaced, if I was the prosecutor, I'd make sure to "screw up" that case badly so it couldn't be prosecuted.
posted by eriko at 10:17 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
eriko: Ms. Marvel #1 has gone into more re-printings than, like...anything Marvel has put out in years. It's new and it's incredibly good, and it has also been a runaway success. Kamala is fucking awesome.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:20 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:20 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
Also, as far as "how did that happen?" Well, the former Ms. Marvel (Carol Danvers) is now CAPTAIN Marvel (as it always should have been!), and Ms. Marvel is a new title. I can't tell you for sure, but Marvel has made a genuine effort to get better about diversity and inclusion in the last couple of years. Not everything has been successful, and some things seem more like short-term stunts than long-term changes...but yeah. Kamala doesn't look like she's going anywhere.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:21 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:21 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
the solution is public transportation should not sell advertisements
This is where I am, pretty much, but they if must, I don't think the solution to ads people object to is defacement, as adorable as this particular defacement was, and it's certainly not governmental editorializing by donating the proceeds from ads they particularly don't like to charities that they are choosing. Just because I happen to be on the side of the government and SF public opinion on this issue doesn't mean I always will be, or that it's a good idea for some bureaucrat to decide what is and isn't worthy of actually funding SFMTA, or that the ads I'm sharing space with for the putative purpose of funding transit are actually being misappropriated by who knows whom to who knows what end. The bit about "donating" the cost of the ad bothers me more than some random crazy bigot having to pay for the privilege of putting up a bunch of ads that I'm pretty sure isn't going to change one damn mind in the entire Bay Area.
Is Islamophobia a form of racism, beyond mere (so to speak) prejudice?
I think conflation of Islam with Arabs and vice versa is incredibly racist, but otherwise the insistence that Islamophobia is racist is itself pretty racist. People of all races follow Islam. But, really, who cares whether it's racism or xenophobia or whatever else that's motivating it? It doesn't matter what taxonomy we care to assign any given form of bigotry or oppression, what matters is the effect it has on those who are subject to it. Is racism somehow "worse" than homophobia? Misogyny? Transphobia? Classism? I mean, what exactly is "mere" prejudice?
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 10:22 PM on January 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
This is where I am, pretty much, but they if must, I don't think the solution to ads people object to is defacement, as adorable as this particular defacement was, and it's certainly not governmental editorializing by donating the proceeds from ads they particularly don't like to charities that they are choosing. Just because I happen to be on the side of the government and SF public opinion on this issue doesn't mean I always will be, or that it's a good idea for some bureaucrat to decide what is and isn't worthy of actually funding SFMTA, or that the ads I'm sharing space with for the putative purpose of funding transit are actually being misappropriated by who knows whom to who knows what end. The bit about "donating" the cost of the ad bothers me more than some random crazy bigot having to pay for the privilege of putting up a bunch of ads that I'm pretty sure isn't going to change one damn mind in the entire Bay Area.
Is Islamophobia a form of racism, beyond mere (so to speak) prejudice?
I think conflation of Islam with Arabs and vice versa is incredibly racist, but otherwise the insistence that Islamophobia is racist is itself pretty racist. People of all races follow Islam. But, really, who cares whether it's racism or xenophobia or whatever else that's motivating it? It doesn't matter what taxonomy we care to assign any given form of bigotry or oppression, what matters is the effect it has on those who are subject to it. Is racism somehow "worse" than homophobia? Misogyny? Transphobia? Classism? I mean, what exactly is "mere" prejudice?
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 10:22 PM on January 26, 2015 [10 favorites]
Good answer, The Master and Margarita Mix. I don't mean to say that prejudice is less harmful than racism, per se. I was referencing an old discussion with a friend who walked out on me after I refused to agree that Islamophobia is "only" a prejudice and not also racism. But that's neither here nor there, and I don't want to derail the discussion.
posted by quiet earth at 10:32 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by quiet earth at 10:32 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a sick fucking wheatpaste job and whoever did it rules... but ugh, similar gross ads happened in seattle. It made the news, but no one really did anything about it. It prompted a big shitstorm and the end result was "no political ads on buses" which... awesome?
It still felt, somehow, like the shitty people won though. Especially since there's the whole black hole of "well ads saying come to planned parenthood for abortions are political since abortions are a political issue zomg!" seemed to happen, since all that disappeared too.(and seriously, whoever either wimped out on that one, brought up that point, or silently made that call deserves to go in to one of those big commercial rotisserie chicken machines).
If i had to make the call, i'd say that no ads are allowed except ones for public services or free events in public spaces(IE the symphony performances that anyone can attend free) that people may not know about. Fill the spaces with art and poetry, which we already get a little bit of.
"Free speech isn't a license to spread hate." I need that laptop sticker.
Stickerguy.com will do 250 nice big bumper sticker sized ones in simple b&w bold white text on black for $35. If a few people here were willing to chip in a few bucks, it wouldn't be that hard to do them up and mail them around to everyone.
It's actually a pretty awesome sticker idea. I'd slap one on my machine. I can make a mefiprojects post if people are really interested. On that note too, i'm still annoyed that there's no site where i can just order like one or two sheets of 15/30 stickers for like $5-10. you always have to order a fuckton. ugh.
posted by emptythought at 10:34 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
It still felt, somehow, like the shitty people won though. Especially since there's the whole black hole of "well ads saying come to planned parenthood for abortions are political since abortions are a political issue zomg!" seemed to happen, since all that disappeared too.(and seriously, whoever either wimped out on that one, brought up that point, or silently made that call deserves to go in to one of those big commercial rotisserie chicken machines).
If i had to make the call, i'd say that no ads are allowed except ones for public services or free events in public spaces(IE the symphony performances that anyone can attend free) that people may not know about. Fill the spaces with art and poetry, which we already get a little bit of.
"Free speech isn't a license to spread hate." I need that laptop sticker.
Stickerguy.com will do 250 nice big bumper sticker sized ones in simple b&w bold white text on black for $35. If a few people here were willing to chip in a few bucks, it wouldn't be that hard to do them up and mail them around to everyone.
It's actually a pretty awesome sticker idea. I'd slap one on my machine. I can make a mefiprojects post if people are really interested. On that note too, i'm still annoyed that there's no site where i can just order like one or two sheets of 15/30 stickers for like $5-10. you always have to order a fuckton. ugh.
posted by emptythought at 10:34 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
> "Free speech isn't a license to spread hate." I need that laptop sticker.
Actually, it is, as objectionable as that may be.
To contrast, Germany's basic law prohibits discussion of anti-constitutional topics; there's a government run Index of Harmful Materials, and while possession of Mein Kampf isn't in itself a crime, it is if it can be proven to "promote hatred or war". People have gone to jail simply for espouting their beliefs. As horrible as those particular beliefs may be, that's worse!
No, it's better to have the moon landing hoaxers and Holocaust deniers out in the open and ridiculed than criminalized.
If the cost of that is having to tolerate some horrible material on the side of buses, then so be it.
(Personally, the racist advertising crosses the line for what's acceptable and if Kink.com wanted to campaign to allow explicit pornography advertisement on buses to show the absurdity of there being no standard for decency, I would support them.)
posted by fragmede at 10:34 PM on January 26, 2015 [15 favorites]
Actually, it is, as objectionable as that may be.
To contrast, Germany's basic law prohibits discussion of anti-constitutional topics; there's a government run Index of Harmful Materials, and while possession of Mein Kampf isn't in itself a crime, it is if it can be proven to "promote hatred or war". People have gone to jail simply for espouting their beliefs. As horrible as those particular beliefs may be, that's worse!
No, it's better to have the moon landing hoaxers and Holocaust deniers out in the open and ridiculed than criminalized.
If the cost of that is having to tolerate some horrible material on the side of buses, then so be it.
(Personally, the racist advertising crosses the line for what's acceptable and if Kink.com wanted to campaign to allow explicit pornography advertisement on buses to show the absurdity of there being no standard for decency, I would support them.)
posted by fragmede at 10:34 PM on January 26, 2015 [15 favorites]
Also, as far as "how did that happen?" Well, the former Ms. Marvel (Carol Danvers) is now CAPTAIN Marvel (as it always should have been!)
Tchai.
There's only one true Captain Marvel and her name is Monica Rambeau.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:34 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
Tchai.
There's only one true Captain Marvel and her name is Monica Rambeau.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:34 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I've seen people argue that anti-Semitism isn't a form of racism, because
I'd say that Islamophobia (like anti-Semitism) is functionally similar to racism, but that there's no real point in fighting for the right to use that specific term. If someone pulled that on me I'd say,
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:38 PM on January 26, 2015 [13 favorites]
Jews aren't a race. The thing is,
raceis not a scientific definition; it's a socially constructed idea and it's not so long ago that Jews were deemed to be a distinct race for legal purposes in the USA. The people who were trying to pull the
Jews are not a racething were never social justice warriors intent on having the best possible definitions: they were bigots trying to score rhetorical points.
I'd say that Islamophobia (like anti-Semitism) is functionally similar to racism, but that there's no real point in fighting for the right to use that specific term. If someone pulled that on me I'd say,
OK, would you object to the termbigotry?
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:38 PM on January 26, 2015 [13 favorites]
While Monica was indeed MY first Captain Marvel and still and always one of my favorite comic book people ever...I kinda feel like Carol's the one who should have the name. Origin stuffs and all.
Although I gotta say, the dynamic between Monica and Carol is one of the best freakin' things about the Captain Marvel comic.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:40 PM on January 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Although I gotta say, the dynamic between Monica and Carol is one of the best freakin' things about the Captain Marvel comic.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:40 PM on January 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
Good answer, The Master and Margarita Mix. I don't mean to say that prejudice is less harmful than racism, per se. I was referencing an old discussion with a friend who walked out on me after I refused to agree that Islamophobia is "only" a prejudice and not also racism. But that's neither here nor there, and I don't want to derail the discussion.
Well, it's certainly a form of institutionalized, societally propagated prejudice. I think people who get bogged down in "is or isn't this racism?", like your friend, are essentially reacting to what they take as an accusation. It's kind of unfortunate that pointing it out is a cognitive kill-switch for a lot of people, but it is: ironically, the degree to which it's "universally" agreed that racism is bad kind of lets people take offense and then stop taking responsibility when it's pointed out.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 10:45 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, it's certainly a form of institutionalized, societally propagated prejudice. I think people who get bogged down in "is or isn't this racism?", like your friend, are essentially reacting to what they take as an accusation. It's kind of unfortunate that pointing it out is a cognitive kill-switch for a lot of people, but it is: ironically, the degree to which it's "universally" agreed that racism is bad kind of lets people take offense and then stop taking responsibility when it's pointed out.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 10:45 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think conflation of Islam with Arabs and vice versa is incredibly racist, but otherwise the insistence that Islamophobia is racist is itself pretty racist.
That's a fine sentiment in the abstract, but given that people suggest racial profiling as way to prevent terrorism I think we'd be foolish to throw out racism as a motivation.
posted by brundlefly at 10:50 PM on January 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
That's a fine sentiment in the abstract, but given that people suggest racial profiling as way to prevent terrorism I think we'd be foolish to throw out racism as a motivation.
posted by brundlefly at 10:50 PM on January 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'd say that Islamophobia (like anti-Semitism) is functionally similar to racism,
Isn't all prejudice functionally similar?
posted by Thing at 10:51 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Isn't all prejudice functionally similar?
posted by Thing at 10:51 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Regarding free speech, I defer to China Miéville.
"When human rights lawyer David Enright asks for the book to be sold as an adult work, while explicitly, repeatedly, stressing that he does not advocate banning it, nonetheless, cometh the resentment-spewing dissemblers in the comments insisting that he is supporting ‘censorship’. This is a degree of point-missing so great it is hard to believe it is not performative.
"(Indeed, an astoundingly small proportion of arguments ‘for free speech’ & ‘against censorship’ or ‘banning’ are, in fact, about free speech, censorship or banning. It is depressing to have to point out, yet again, that there is a distinction between having the legal right to say something & having the moral right not to be held accountable for what you say. Being asked to apologise for saying something unconscionable is not the same as being stripped of the legal right to say it. It’s really not very fucking complicated. Cry Free Speech in such contexts, you are demanding the right to speak any bilge you wish without apology or fear of comeback. You are demanding not legal rights but an end to debate about & criticism of what you say. When did bigotry get so needy? This assertive & idiotic failure to understand that juridical permissibility backed up by the state is not the horizon of politics or morality is absurdly resilient.)"
Link
posted by quiet earth at 11:04 PM on January 26, 2015 [39 favorites]
"When human rights lawyer David Enright asks for the book to be sold as an adult work, while explicitly, repeatedly, stressing that he does not advocate banning it, nonetheless, cometh the resentment-spewing dissemblers in the comments insisting that he is supporting ‘censorship’. This is a degree of point-missing so great it is hard to believe it is not performative.
"(Indeed, an astoundingly small proportion of arguments ‘for free speech’ & ‘against censorship’ or ‘banning’ are, in fact, about free speech, censorship or banning. It is depressing to have to point out, yet again, that there is a distinction between having the legal right to say something & having the moral right not to be held accountable for what you say. Being asked to apologise for saying something unconscionable is not the same as being stripped of the legal right to say it. It’s really not very fucking complicated. Cry Free Speech in such contexts, you are demanding the right to speak any bilge you wish without apology or fear of comeback. You are demanding not legal rights but an end to debate about & criticism of what you say. When did bigotry get so needy? This assertive & idiotic failure to understand that juridical permissibility backed up by the state is not the horizon of politics or morality is absurdly resilient.)"
Link
posted by quiet earth at 11:04 PM on January 26, 2015 [39 favorites]
The first amendment may guarantee free speech, but it also guarantees freedom of religion. Posting anti-religious messages on government property is pretty clearly government interference in the establishment of religion.
If you want to invoke the first amendment, at least read the damn thing first.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:09 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you want to invoke the first amendment, at least read the damn thing first.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:09 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Would you say that sexism is functionally similar to racism? There's certainly some overlap, but classic patriarchal behavior is more about possessiveness and control than creating a feared "other".
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:11 PM on January 26, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:11 PM on January 26, 2015
Did anyone else find it ironic that a poster promoting hate has the tagline "Stop The Hate"?
posted by el io at 11:36 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by el io at 11:36 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Did anyone else find it ironic that a poster promoting hate has the tagline "Stop The Hate"?
Everyone wants to see themselves as the good guys. Even bigots.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:52 PM on January 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
Everyone wants to see themselves as the good guys. Even bigots.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:52 PM on January 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
Did anyone else find it ironic that a poster promoting hate has the tagline "Stop The Hate"?
Ironic? No. Depressingly predictable and un-self-aware? Yes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:29 AM on January 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
Ironic? No. Depressingly predictable and un-self-aware? Yes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:29 AM on January 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
A small qualification: I expect I'm alone here in saying I should have preferred this done without the irrelevant 'superhero'. There must be effective symbols that are a little less lightweight, a little less 'Western culture', and not so heavily commercial?
posted by Segundus at 1:33 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Segundus at 1:33 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Given that the lion's share of public space has been given over to whoever can afford to pay for it, I think I'm broadly in favor of not just this defacement but actually just defacement as a practice in general. This is due to how speaking through defacing something is a relatively democratically available mode of speech compared to speaking through paying for advertisements.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:51 AM on January 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:51 AM on January 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
Would ads that are anti-Christian or anti-Jewish be allowed on Muni buses? How about ads attacking the LGBT community in San Francisco? I'd like to see what would happen in reaction. I don't buy, for one effing second, that such ads would be allowed. There would be a major outcry, and a media frenzy. Political leaders would denounce such ads. It just wouldn't happen. America is patently racist/bigoted against Muslims, and a double-standard is clearly applied to discriminate against Muslims both within the US and outside. Just take a look at Gitmo and American foreign policy in the Middle East and its unconditional support for Israel.
posted by Azaadistani at 1:52 AM on January 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Azaadistani at 1:52 AM on January 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
Segundus: the superhero is entirely relevant here.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:59 AM on January 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:59 AM on January 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
The Master and Margarita Mix : I think conflation of Islam with Arabs and vice versa is incredibly racist, but otherwise the insistence that Islamophobia is racist is itself pretty racist.
Joe in Australia : I'd say that Islamophobia (like anti-Semitism) is functionally similar to racism, but that there's no real point in fighting for the right to use that specific term. If someone pulled that on me I'd say, "OK, would you object to the term "bigotry"?"
One reason people (such as me) try to draw a line between racism and Islamophobia is because of the conflation of Islam with Arabs. As a matter of fact, I would welcome the term "bigotry" with open arms when referring to Islamophobia. Calling it "racist" in the case of Islam brings up a lot of historical problems that are directly related to colonialism. I've been reading John Ruedy's "Modern Algeria", on realizing how little pre-1970s Algeria is ever discussed (whether in France or anywhere else). Colonialist France's government policy was to conflate Islam with extremism in order to discredit it (in favor of laicity acting as a very thin veil indeed for Catholicism), and part of that was limiting Coranic schools and imams to the point where mainly extremist imams with simplistic views of Islam remained in Algeria. People serious about learning Islam had to go to Morocco and Tunisia. Sufism – esoteric, tolerant; if you know Rumi, you've heard of it – was stamped out with a vengeance; many proponents of it simply left Algeria.
So, when Islam is equated with Arabs, people who know/have lived through/are living the effects of colonialist history tend to get uncomfortable, yes. Historically, Islam=Arabs has been used, overtly, shamelessly, as a tool to subjugate Maghrebi (North African) populations. We're seeing this in France now: societal hatred against Islam is not much being targeted at Muslim Blacks or whites, or Muslim people of Indian, Pakistani, Malay, etc. origins (you must keep in mind there are not only immigrants, but people born and raised in France whose parents are from India, Pakistan, etc.)... no, it's notably against Maghrebi-presenting people with little regard, if any, to their religion. Meaning, no one asks Maghrebi-presenting people whether they're actually Muslim in order to target them as Muslims. THAT is racist. "Islamophobia" is a bigoted veil for ignorance that does immense amounts of damage; damage which is not only racist.
As an example of how this still plays out, a few days ago there was a TV show which invited a wide array of French people. At one point, the presenter noted that the man present, who had suffered Islamophobic attacks, was a "Muslim married to a Frenchwoman" ("un musulman marié à une Française"). One of the women took him to task, saying that he was a French Muslim married to a Frenchwoman who may not be Muslim, may not be Catholic... It turned out that the "Muslim" man was a Maghrebi-presenting Frenchman, born and raised French. The "Frenchwoman" was white and Catholic.
We need Kamala here in France too.
posted by fraula at 2:32 AM on January 27, 2015 [25 favorites]
Joe in Australia : I'd say that Islamophobia (like anti-Semitism) is functionally similar to racism, but that there's no real point in fighting for the right to use that specific term. If someone pulled that on me I'd say, "OK, would you object to the term "bigotry"?"
One reason people (such as me) try to draw a line between racism and Islamophobia is because of the conflation of Islam with Arabs. As a matter of fact, I would welcome the term "bigotry" with open arms when referring to Islamophobia. Calling it "racist" in the case of Islam brings up a lot of historical problems that are directly related to colonialism. I've been reading John Ruedy's "Modern Algeria", on realizing how little pre-1970s Algeria is ever discussed (whether in France or anywhere else). Colonialist France's government policy was to conflate Islam with extremism in order to discredit it (in favor of laicity acting as a very thin veil indeed for Catholicism), and part of that was limiting Coranic schools and imams to the point where mainly extremist imams with simplistic views of Islam remained in Algeria. People serious about learning Islam had to go to Morocco and Tunisia. Sufism – esoteric, tolerant; if you know Rumi, you've heard of it – was stamped out with a vengeance; many proponents of it simply left Algeria.
So, when Islam is equated with Arabs, people who know/have lived through/are living the effects of colonialist history tend to get uncomfortable, yes. Historically, Islam=Arabs has been used, overtly, shamelessly, as a tool to subjugate Maghrebi (North African) populations. We're seeing this in France now: societal hatred against Islam is not much being targeted at Muslim Blacks or whites, or Muslim people of Indian, Pakistani, Malay, etc. origins (you must keep in mind there are not only immigrants, but people born and raised in France whose parents are from India, Pakistan, etc.)... no, it's notably against Maghrebi-presenting people with little regard, if any, to their religion. Meaning, no one asks Maghrebi-presenting people whether they're actually Muslim in order to target them as Muslims. THAT is racist. "Islamophobia" is a bigoted veil for ignorance that does immense amounts of damage; damage which is not only racist.
As an example of how this still plays out, a few days ago there was a TV show which invited a wide array of French people. At one point, the presenter noted that the man present, who had suffered Islamophobic attacks, was a "Muslim married to a Frenchwoman" ("un musulman marié à une Française"). One of the women took him to task, saying that he was a French Muslim married to a Frenchwoman who may not be Muslim, may not be Catholic... It turned out that the "Muslim" man was a Maghrebi-presenting Frenchman, born and raised French. The "Frenchwoman" was white and Catholic.
We need Kamala here in France too.
posted by fraula at 2:32 AM on January 27, 2015 [25 favorites]
One reason people (such as me) try to draw a line between racism and Islamophobia is because of the conflation of Islam with Arabs.
Fair enough. One question, though: what is the good of pointing out to an Islamophobic bigot that they're attacking someone based on their Maghreb appearance, and don't actually know what their religion is? We don't need to be in the business of refining prejudicial attacks.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:52 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fair enough. One question, though: what is the good of pointing out to an Islamophobic bigot that they're attacking someone based on their Maghreb appearance, and don't actually know what their religion is? We don't need to be in the business of refining prejudicial attacks.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:52 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Incitement to violence appears to be a bright line.
It's a pretty fuzzy line, and it's pretty far from this ad under thr Brandenburg test, which require an intent to incite imminent lawless action. This ad is nowhere near that test.
posted by jpe at 4:52 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's a pretty fuzzy line, and it's pretty far from this ad under thr Brandenburg test, which require an intent to incite imminent lawless action. This ad is nowhere near that test.
posted by jpe at 4:52 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
There is a significant financial benefit to ads on public transit vehicles. "Most ads on Muni are innocuous or even informative. Advertising contracts on Muni vehicles and transit shelters provide an important funding source for the system—to the tune of more than $19 million this year {2014} alone."
posted by Carol Anne at 5:15 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Carol Anne at 5:15 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is awesome, and using Kamala Khan's image to do it? YES PLEASE.
posted by Kitteh at 5:24 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 5:24 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Did anyone else find it ironic that a poster promoting hate has the tagline "Stop The Hate"?
I believe the relevant term is "plausible deniability." Adding that phrase appears to allow them to get through the review process for ads on the buses, even though the entire ad is clearly hate speech. (And appears to be in clear violation of their stated criteria for selecting ads, which raises the question of who is making that decision and how they could possibly have given these ads the ok.)
"Free speech isn't a license to spread hate." I need that laptop sticker.
It is though, really. There are people here, where I live, who have plastered their cars with awful stuff equating Obama and Hitler and worse, and although it's not my favorite thing to see I completely support their right to be offensive and hateful in that way. I just don't like the idea of a municipality condoning that hate speech by accepting the ads. Similarly, I have a personal right to say awful things, but if I type them here the moderators of this privately-owned website will remove them without in any way infringing on my free speech rights.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:40 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I believe the relevant term is "plausible deniability." Adding that phrase appears to allow them to get through the review process for ads on the buses, even though the entire ad is clearly hate speech. (And appears to be in clear violation of their stated criteria for selecting ads, which raises the question of who is making that decision and how they could possibly have given these ads the ok.)
"Free speech isn't a license to spread hate." I need that laptop sticker.
It is though, really. There are people here, where I live, who have plastered their cars with awful stuff equating Obama and Hitler and worse, and although it's not my favorite thing to see I completely support their right to be offensive and hateful in that way. I just don't like the idea of a municipality condoning that hate speech by accepting the ads. Similarly, I have a personal right to say awful things, but if I type them here the moderators of this privately-owned website will remove them without in any way infringing on my free speech rights.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:40 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think Glenn Greenwald has some good rule-of-thumbs for ism definitions:
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:44 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Perhaps the most repellent claim Harris made to me was that Islamophobia is fictitious and non-existent, "a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia". How anyone can observe post-9/11 political discourse in the west and believe this is truly mystifying. The meaning of "Islamophobia" is every bit as clear as "anti-semitism" or "racism" or "sexism" and all sorts of familiar, related concepts. It signifies (1) irrational condemnations of all members of a group or the group itself based on the bad acts of specific individuals in that group; (2) a disproportionate fixation on that group for sins committed at least to an equal extent by many other groups, especially one's own; and/or (3) sweeping claims about the members of that group unjustified by their actual individual acts and beliefs.(Although I do take fraula's point about the historical significance of the conflation of Islamophobia and racism.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:44 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Incitement to violence appears to be a bright line.
But the original ad isn't an incitement to violence! - its an incitement to stop US Aid to particular countries based on religious belief. Which is actually a much more "non-violent" approach than the USA usually uses when someone disagree's with them.
posted by mary8nne at 5:56 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
But the original ad isn't an incitement to violence! - its an incitement to stop US Aid to particular countries based on religious belief. Which is actually a much more "non-violent" approach than the USA usually uses when someone disagree's with them.
posted by mary8nne at 5:56 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
it's a socially constructed idea and it's not so long ago that Jews were deemed to be a distinct race for legal purposes in the USA.I agree with the rest of your comment, Joe in Australia, but this isn't right. Jews in the US have always been deemed white for legal purposes, unless there was some other reason to categorize them as something else. (That is to say, a person of obvious African or East Asian descent would not be categorized as white just because he or she was Jewish, but the overwhelming majority of American Jews have always been classified as legally white.) Race is socially constructed, and Jews have often been constructed as a race, but in the US Jews have not been deemed a race for legal purposes, although we may have been racialized in ways that mattered for non-legal purposes.
Anyway, in the US, race and religion are both protected classes, so I don't think that it's entirely relevant whether people hate Muslims because of race or because of religion. I actually think it's a complex combination of both, but it doesn't matter so much here, because racism and religious bigotry are basically treated the same way legally.
And yeah, Pamela Geller is the worst, and this is awesome.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:12 AM on January 27, 2015
I'm also against the imposition of additional fees for usage
Ha, I hemmed and hawed about that for a while; it's a derail but, especially given SFMTA's stated mission, the fees I had in mind involved parking meters, not public transport.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:14 AM on January 27, 2015
Ha, I hemmed and hawed about that for a while; it's a derail but, especially given SFMTA's stated mission, the fees I had in mind involved parking meters, not public transport.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:14 AM on January 27, 2015
The number one movie in America right now.
posted by Artw at 6:15 AM on January 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:15 AM on January 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Given that the lion's share of public space has been given over to whoever can afford to pay for it, I think I'm broadly in favor of not just this defacement but actually just defacement as a practice in general. This is due to how speaking through defacing something is a relatively democratically available mode of speech compared to speaking through paying for advertisements.
Yes, as far as defacing the world goes, the people who sold the ad space started it.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:18 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yes, as far as defacing the world goes, the people who sold the ad space started it.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:18 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yay, Comic Sans used appropriately!
posted by hmo at 6:21 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by hmo at 6:21 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
On the one hand, a non-Muslim Indian friend was targeted for harassment after 9/11. On the other hand, a majority of Muslims in the United States are African-American or South Asian in ethnicity, with growing number of Hispanic people adopting Islam as well. So "looks Muslim" is a big old fallacy.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:23 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:23 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'd say that Islamophobia (like anti-Semitism) is functionally similar to racism, but that there's no real point in fighting for the right to use that specific term. If someone pulled that on me I'd say, OK, would you object to the term bigotry?
Similarly, I think we would all be happy to decry anti-Catholic propaganda, even though Catholicism is not and never has been a "race".
As for where the line is drawn: it's a hard job to balance free speech and not allowing hate speech. But in this case, they could have rejected the ad as being factually deceptive (similar to an ad claiming cleaning prowess the product doesn't have). It makes reference to the "leader of the Muslim world", which is patently not possible. The Muslim world hasn't had one leader since the 600s.
posted by jb at 6:32 AM on January 27, 2015
Similarly, I think we would all be happy to decry anti-Catholic propaganda, even though Catholicism is not and never has been a "race".
As for where the line is drawn: it's a hard job to balance free speech and not allowing hate speech. But in this case, they could have rejected the ad as being factually deceptive (similar to an ad claiming cleaning prowess the product doesn't have). It makes reference to the "leader of the Muslim world", which is patently not possible. The Muslim world hasn't had one leader since the 600s.
posted by jb at 6:32 AM on January 27, 2015
i'm still annoyed that there's no site where i can just order like one or two sheets of 15/30 stickers for like $5-10. you always have to order a fuckton. ugh.
Most of the expense is in getting the press rolling, so you probably could order 20 but you wouldn't save any money.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:39 AM on January 27, 2015
Most of the expense is in getting the press rolling, so you probably could order 20 but you wouldn't save any money.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:39 AM on January 27, 2015
But the original ad isn't an incitement to violence! - its an incitement to stop US Aid to particular countries based on religious belief.
It actually is. It says: "Islamic Jew-Hatred: Its in the Quran". If that isn't an attempt to paint all muslims has hateful and potentially violent people then I don't know what is. It also has a picture of Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, and calls the latter the leader of the Muslim world. Which he wasn't, he was the spiritual leader of Jerusalem. But whatevs.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:50 AM on January 27, 2015
It actually is. It says: "Islamic Jew-Hatred: Its in the Quran". If that isn't an attempt to paint all muslims has hateful and potentially violent people then I don't know what is. It also has a picture of Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, and calls the latter the leader of the Muslim world. Which he wasn't, he was the spiritual leader of Jerusalem. But whatevs.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:50 AM on January 27, 2015
So, I'm kinda surprised those original ads were allowed on the bus.
Is SF's bus system a municipal service? If so, they probably can't refuse advertising very easily. At least not without the possibility of having to explain themselves in court.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:55 AM on January 27, 2015
Is SF's bus system a municipal service? If so, they probably can't refuse advertising very easily. At least not without the possibility of having to explain themselves in court.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:55 AM on January 27, 2015
Oh, and remember: 1) The 1st Amendment prohibits *Congress*, that is, the US Congress, from inhibiting the freedom of speech
So that this doesn't spread, no such distinction exists in Constitutional Law, the first amendment applies to states, municipalities, and state actors. It in no way applies specifically just to the U.S. Congress and please don't leave here thinking that it does. Thank you.
(further reading)
posted by Navelgazer at 7:03 AM on January 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
So that this doesn't spread, no such distinction exists in Constitutional Law, the first amendment applies to states, municipalities, and state actors. It in no way applies specifically just to the U.S. Congress and please don't leave here thinking that it does. Thank you.
(further reading)
posted by Navelgazer at 7:03 AM on January 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
The bus system being forced to accept the ads seems like a no-brainer under US constitutional law. I don't mean this to be a dick, but seeing people who in other contexts would know better try to reason their way out of MUNI being viewpoint-neutral in which ads it accepts is sort of disheartening. I mean, of course free expression applies to assholes. Hell, *mostly* it applies to assholes whose expression we'd like to silence.
I personally am of the opinion that a municipality has the right to dictate a number of standards of decency and propriety.
So the government of, say, Oklahoma City can sell ads on its buses but only to evangelical churches and anti-abortion dickwads by creating "standards" that they judge only those ads to satisfy?
In keeping with its proprietary function as a provider of public transportation, the SFMTA does not intend by accepting advertising to convert its property into an open public forum for public discourse, debate or expressive activity.
Saying that you don't intend to create a limited open forum doesn't mean you didn't create one. Lots of conservative dickheads didn't mean to create a limited open forum either when they distributed conservative religious pamphlets in their schools or put conservative religious iconography on their government property, and their intent matters not one whit either.
Oh, and remember: 1) The 1st Amendment prohibits *Congress*, that is, the US Congress, from inhibiting the freedom of speech
Since the 14th Amendment, that was extended to the states and all their critters.
Would ads that are anti-Christian or anti-Jewish be allowed on Muni buses? How about ads attacking the LGBT community in San Francisco?
Yes, a court would almost certainly force the buses to accept them.
I'd like to see what would happen in reaction. I don't buy, for one effing second, that such ads would be allowed.
Probably the only way to stop them would be to close the entire advertising program, which seems unlikely.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:13 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I personally am of the opinion that a municipality has the right to dictate a number of standards of decency and propriety.
So the government of, say, Oklahoma City can sell ads on its buses but only to evangelical churches and anti-abortion dickwads by creating "standards" that they judge only those ads to satisfy?
In keeping with its proprietary function as a provider of public transportation, the SFMTA does not intend by accepting advertising to convert its property into an open public forum for public discourse, debate or expressive activity.
Saying that you don't intend to create a limited open forum doesn't mean you didn't create one. Lots of conservative dickheads didn't mean to create a limited open forum either when they distributed conservative religious pamphlets in their schools or put conservative religious iconography on their government property, and their intent matters not one whit either.
Oh, and remember: 1) The 1st Amendment prohibits *Congress*, that is, the US Congress, from inhibiting the freedom of speech
Since the 14th Amendment, that was extended to the states and all their critters.
Would ads that are anti-Christian or anti-Jewish be allowed on Muni buses? How about ads attacking the LGBT community in San Francisco?
Yes, a court would almost certainly force the buses to accept them.
I'd like to see what would happen in reaction. I don't buy, for one effing second, that such ads would be allowed.
Probably the only way to stop them would be to close the entire advertising program, which seems unlikely.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:13 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Or they could just say that they don't accept political advertising.
posted by jb at 7:23 AM on January 27, 2015
posted by jb at 7:23 AM on January 27, 2015
The bus system being forced to accept the ads seems like a no-brainer under US constitutional law.
I don't know, it's a kind of weird thing with a lot of these public-private partnerships. I agree though that government run spaces should not take paid advertising.
posted by corb at 7:32 AM on January 27, 2015
I don't know, it's a kind of weird thing with a lot of these public-private partnerships. I agree though that government run spaces should not take paid advertising.
posted by corb at 7:32 AM on January 27, 2015
Yay, Comic Sans used appropriately!
There is no appropriate use of Comic Sans, sorry.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:43 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
There is no appropriate use of Comic Sans, sorry.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:43 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know, it's a kind of weird thing with a lot of these public-private partnerships. I agree though that government run spaces should not take paid advertising.
posted by corb
They just raised MTA fares again in NYC this past week - I hate these ads, and most ads generally, but public transit probably needs all the funding it can...
posted by rosswald at 7:49 AM on January 27, 2015
posted by corb
They just raised MTA fares again in NYC this past week - I hate these ads, and most ads generally, but public transit probably needs all the funding it can...
posted by rosswald at 7:49 AM on January 27, 2015
Or they could just say that they don't accept political advertising.
Yeah, they could maybe limit it to purely commercial ads, but that would also mean having to drop PSAs and ads from or benefiting nonprofits.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:52 AM on January 27, 2015
Yeah, they could maybe limit it to purely commercial ads, but that would also mean having to drop PSAs and ads from or benefiting nonprofits.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:52 AM on January 27, 2015
It is though, really. There are people here, where I live, who have plastered their cars with awful stuff equating Obama and Hitler and worse, and although it's not my favorite thing to see I completely support their right to be offensive and hateful in that way.
Yes, and that is one thing, but they're not doing it on the side of a bus. I don't recall arguing for censorship of individuals. Perhaps we're reading different things into that "not a license to spread hate" statement.
posted by quiet earth at 8:07 AM on January 27, 2015
Yes, and that is one thing, but they're not doing it on the side of a bus. I don't recall arguing for censorship of individuals. Perhaps we're reading different things into that "not a license to spread hate" statement.
posted by quiet earth at 8:07 AM on January 27, 2015
A decent summary of public forum law applied to public transit ads.
Or they could just say that they don't accept political advertising.
Yeah, they could maybe limit it to purely commercial ads, but that would also mean having to drop PSAs and ads from or benefiting nonprofits.
Apparently it's an open question whether a municipality could constitutionally refuse all political ads (while allowing other ads). I remember this as one of the more difficult areas in my First Amendment class. (Another tough one is church property.)
posted by grobstein at 8:44 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Or they could just say that they don't accept political advertising.
Yeah, they could maybe limit it to purely commercial ads, but that would also mean having to drop PSAs and ads from or benefiting nonprofits.
Apparently it's an open question whether a municipality could constitutionally refuse all political ads (while allowing other ads). I remember this as one of the more difficult areas in my First Amendment class. (Another tough one is church property.)
posted by grobstein at 8:44 AM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Would you say that sexism is functionally similar to racism? There's certainly some overlap, but classic patriarchal behavior is more about possessiveness and control than creating a feared "other".
Well, no, in that case I wouldn't say sexism is functionally similar to racism. But I question what entirely "functionally similar" is meaning here. The definition of racism I understand wouldn't include anti-religious prejudice, so there's clearly a functional difference. Although, as fraula points out, there is often conflation between being a Muslim and being an Arab or having a given appearance, that isn't strictly needed. It would be better to think of something as Islamophobic and racist, rather than Islamophobia is racism. I think it is good to be careful, and even though two things often appear together they're not the same thing.
posted by Thing at 9:12 AM on January 27, 2015
Well, no, in that case I wouldn't say sexism is functionally similar to racism. But I question what entirely "functionally similar" is meaning here. The definition of racism I understand wouldn't include anti-religious prejudice, so there's clearly a functional difference. Although, as fraula points out, there is often conflation between being a Muslim and being an Arab or having a given appearance, that isn't strictly needed. It would be better to think of something as Islamophobic and racist, rather than Islamophobia is racism. I think it is good to be careful, and even though two things often appear together they're not the same thing.
posted by Thing at 9:12 AM on January 27, 2015
There is a significant financial benefit to ads on public transit vehicles. "Most ads on Muni are innocuous or even informative. Advertising contracts on Muni vehicles and transit shelters provide an important funding source for the system—to the tune of more than $19 million this year {2014} alone."
Advertising is one of those weird things in transit financing; people often think it's bigger than it is. $19 million sounds a lot, but it's about 2% of the SFMTA operating budget. (Farebox revenue is about 10x as much as advertising revenue.) Of course, it's still money that comes from outside sources, which is nice politically.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:40 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Advertising is one of those weird things in transit financing; people often think it's bigger than it is. $19 million sounds a lot, but it's about 2% of the SFMTA operating budget. (Farebox revenue is about 10x as much as advertising revenue.) Of course, it's still money that comes from outside sources, which is nice politically.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:40 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
the superhero is entirely relevant here.
But only because the superhero in question is a Muslim? What fraction of these ads' day-to-day viewers recognize her and know her story? Don't you think more people would 'get' the Ghostbusters (symbol) paired with "Calling All Bigotry Busters" and maybe the Hulk with "Stamp Out Racism"?
Anyway, this campaign is a great response to something that shouldn't be allowed on government-owned property.
posted by achrise at 9:51 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
But only because the superhero in question is a Muslim? What fraction of these ads' day-to-day viewers recognize her and know her story? Don't you think more people would 'get' the Ghostbusters (symbol) paired with "Calling All Bigotry Busters" and maybe the Hulk with "Stamp Out Racism"?
Anyway, this campaign is a great response to something that shouldn't be allowed on government-owned property.
posted by achrise at 9:51 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I felt my heart lift with giddy excitement when I saw a bus with one of the altered ads on it last weekend. Without getting into the whole ethical and political debate of free speech, defacing public property, etc (although count me as one of the people who was baffled that MUNI had to accept the original ad), commuting is a wretched enough experience to begin with without having to swallow hate speech as I step onto the bus. (I'm also offended nearly to the point of despair by wraparound ads that cover the windows, so I might be a little sensitive here.)
posted by sunset in snow country at 9:53 AM on January 27, 2015
posted by sunset in snow country at 9:53 AM on January 27, 2015
"Yeah, they could maybe limit it to purely commercial ads, but that would also mean having to drop PSAs and ads from or benefiting nonprofits."
This gets problematic as well. For example, most cities would obviously not allow cigerrette advertising on public transport if they had a choice. Same with ads for booze, I would imagine.
But then what about coke ads? Is that something that the government should be foisting on the public? What about McDonalds advertisements? Both of those things have a negative effect on public health.
How about ads for violent (and or sexist) movies?
(can you tell I used to buy AdBusters religiously?)
posted by el io at 10:09 AM on January 27, 2015
This gets problematic as well. For example, most cities would obviously not allow cigerrette advertising on public transport if they had a choice. Same with ads for booze, I would imagine.
But then what about coke ads? Is that something that the government should be foisting on the public? What about McDonalds advertisements? Both of those things have a negative effect on public health.
How about ads for violent (and or sexist) movies?
(can you tell I used to buy AdBusters religiously?)
posted by el io at 10:09 AM on January 27, 2015
What fraction of these ads' day-to-day viewers recognize her and know her story?
Gotta start somewhere.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:24 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Gotta start somewhere.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:24 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I should have preferred this done without the irrelevant 'superhero'. There must be effective symbols that are a little less lightweight, a little less 'Western culture', and not so heavily commercial?
I think part of the point is that Muslims are not weird Others that you can slander however you like. Like the rest of us they are sometimes lightweight and immersed in Western culture and commercialism, without forfeiting our right not to be targeted with this kind of hate.
And I'd guess some Muslims probably agree with you that this deserves a response less frivolous than a superhero cartoon.
But I think it helps create social norms when rejection of this crap comes from lots of sides, including stuff related to Western pop culture.
posted by straight at 11:02 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think part of the point is that Muslims are not weird Others that you can slander however you like. Like the rest of us they are sometimes lightweight and immersed in Western culture and commercialism, without forfeiting our right not to be targeted with this kind of hate.
And I'd guess some Muslims probably agree with you that this deserves a response less frivolous than a superhero cartoon.
But I think it helps create social norms when rejection of this crap comes from lots of sides, including stuff related to Western pop culture.
posted by straight at 11:02 AM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
For a while, there were some ads on the BART subways for 9/11 truthers. Also, there are still quite a lot of banners on Market, where there are some restrictions. There's a lot of agendas that get to put advertisements around here, with political lies.
posted by halifix at 11:15 AM on January 27, 2015
posted by halifix at 11:15 AM on January 27, 2015
Jews in the US have always been deemed white for legal purposes, unless there was some other reason to categorize them as something else.
Racism is complicated, and even if Jews were deemed to be "white" they were also (sometimes) deemed to be a different sort of "white". See:
Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987)
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:00 PM on January 27, 2015
Racism is complicated, and even if Jews were deemed to be "white" they were also (sometimes) deemed to be a different sort of "white". See:
Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987)
Held: [...] 2. Jews can state a 1982 claim of racial discrimination since they were among the peoples considered to be distinct races and hence within the protection of the statute at the time it was passed. They are not foreclosed from stating a cause of action simply because the defendants are also part of what today is considered the Caucasian race.The precedent, interestingly, applies to Jews and Arabs, although I don't suppose that it would include bigotry against non-Arab Muslims.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:00 PM on January 27, 2015
To clarify, the municipality saying "We no longer sell ads of any kind" would not possibly run afoul of the First Amendment, right? The FA certainly does not require anybody to aid in everybody's expression; it just precludes active curtailing and favouritism.
So this is purely an issue of the public not being willing to pay, one way or another, to guarantee that there isn't hate speech all over the transit system, right? Otherwise, they'd demand that the municipality generate revenue the democratic way -- taxation -- and obviate the need for the ads. So, at least in the opinion of whoever is in charge, the people of SF would rather save some particular amount of money than take an action guaranteed to eliminate effectively city-sanctioned hate speech from the buses.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:07 PM on January 27, 2015
So this is purely an issue of the public not being willing to pay, one way or another, to guarantee that there isn't hate speech all over the transit system, right? Otherwise, they'd demand that the municipality generate revenue the democratic way -- taxation -- and obviate the need for the ads. So, at least in the opinion of whoever is in charge, the people of SF would rather save some particular amount of money than take an action guaranteed to eliminate effectively city-sanctioned hate speech from the buses.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:07 PM on January 27, 2015
I think conflation of Islam with Arabs and vice versa is incredibly racist, but otherwise the insistence that Islamophobia is racist is itself pretty racist. People of all races follow Islam.
Aren't most Muslims actually Indonesian?
posted by Jacqueline at 4:08 PM on January 27, 2015
Aren't most Muslims actually Indonesian?
posted by Jacqueline at 4:08 PM on January 27, 2015
No, but 62.1% of the world's Muslim population lives in "South & South-east Asia" according to Wikipedia. That's mostly because the four countries with the largest Muslim populations are there: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; which together account for around 700M of the world's 1.6B Muslims.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:32 PM on January 27, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:32 PM on January 27, 2015
@ArbitraryAndCapricious I don't want to derail this thread into one about Judaism in America, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "legally white"? When my grandfather and his brothers were born less than 100 years ago, their birth certificates stated their race as "Jewish", which seems like a legal distinction.
Functionally, they had to live in segregated Jewish neighborhoods, but I'm not sure if they were legally required to. (I say functionally because they needed to be close to the factory work was and they benefited from having communities where they could pray together and keep kosher and because they weren't welcome in Polish and Irish neighborhoods, but again, I'm not sure if there were legal restriction against living elsewhere or just intimidation)
posted by elr at 5:52 PM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Functionally, they had to live in segregated Jewish neighborhoods, but I'm not sure if they were legally required to. (I say functionally because they needed to be close to the factory work was and they benefited from having communities where they could pray together and keep kosher and because they weren't welcome in Polish and Irish neighborhoods, but again, I'm not sure if there were legal restriction against living elsewhere or just intimidation)
posted by elr at 5:52 PM on January 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
eir, if the title is any indication, this book should help you out: How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:03 PM on January 27, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:03 PM on January 27, 2015
I reckon there are Islamophobes who aren't racist (Bill Maher comes to mind, and maybe Richard Dawkins), but if you look at people who have led hate-based Islamophobic attacks (or maybe just toss slurs around on twitter*), they're looking at skin color, clothes and facial hair, which is why Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians, and Atheists have all been victims of attacks.
Academically, maybe Islamophobia isn't racism, but it often is.
*Feel free to look at @yesyoureracist on twitter if you've got the stomach for a lot of ugly, disgusting language (and horrible grammar), and a lot of people who do think Islam is a race
posted by elr at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2015
Academically, maybe Islamophobia isn't racism, but it often is.
*Feel free to look at @yesyoureracist on twitter if you've got the stomach for a lot of ugly, disgusting language (and horrible grammar), and a lot of people who do think Islam is a race
posted by elr at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2015
"The adverts were purchased by the American branch of the Freedom Defence Initiative"
Seriously? Are they trying to sound like a Marvel universe Homeland Security-esque supposedly-good-but-actually-totalitarian-and-bad government agency?
Seriously? Are they trying to sound like a Marvel universe Homeland Security-esque supposedly-good-but-actually-totalitarian-and-bad government agency?
In issue #244 of SuperTeam X, the Freedom Defence Initiative activate their "superhuman control protocol" causing nanobots to attack all superhumans in the USA.posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:57 AM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm also against the imposition of additional fees for usage (hell, I'm for free ridership)Related:
Group Urges Swedes To Evade Subway Fares, And Even Insures Against Fines
The members of this group believe that public transportation should be paid for by taxes, with free tickets. The idea may not be so far-fetched. Nearby Tallinn, Estonia, recently went that route, and a handful of other cities in Europe and the U.S. have experimented with the same thing.posted by blueberry at 6:51 AM on January 28, 2015
allow all advertising including overt hate speech, and decriminalize defacement. Problem solved.
posted by ergomatic at 9:34 AM on January 28, 2015
posted by ergomatic at 9:34 AM on January 28, 2015
I take the old fashioned perspective that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech. Thus, if the comic book fans disliked what they saw on the bus, they were, and are ,perfectly free to rent their own space on the bus and put up their own competing POV (rather than squatting on someone else's bought and paid for real estate). That's the American way, no? Problem, such as it is, solved.
Apparently these people do not think like that. It is not enough for them that they are permitted to answer speech with speech, they feel entitled, even privileged, to prevent others from speaking at all.
Which is, besides being remarkably arrogant, a real slap in the face of the San Francisco public. My way or the highway, fellow citizens. You are too stupid or potentially evil to be allowed exposure to this vile, mind-warping stuff. Trust me. I know.
This is the same mindset that gave us the guys who shot up the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Nobody killed in this case, which is nice.
But what is interesting is the reaction among us spectators and commentators. Not a lot of calls for Je Suis Pamela Geller marches. The instinct seems instead to be to declare how much one is offended by the original message rather than how much one is offended by this trashing of the hard won Enlightenment tradition of open and free discussion of ideas.
Of course, you may disagree. If so, your turn to discuss now.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:51 AM on January 28, 2015
Apparently these people do not think like that. It is not enough for them that they are permitted to answer speech with speech, they feel entitled, even privileged, to prevent others from speaking at all.
Which is, besides being remarkably arrogant, a real slap in the face of the San Francisco public. My way or the highway, fellow citizens. You are too stupid or potentially evil to be allowed exposure to this vile, mind-warping stuff. Trust me. I know.
This is the same mindset that gave us the guys who shot up the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Nobody killed in this case, which is nice.
But what is interesting is the reaction among us spectators and commentators. Not a lot of calls for Je Suis Pamela Geller marches. The instinct seems instead to be to declare how much one is offended by the original message rather than how much one is offended by this trashing of the hard won Enlightenment tradition of open and free discussion of ideas.
Of course, you may disagree. If so, your turn to discuss now.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:51 AM on January 28, 2015
I think comparing a form of non-violent protest that was part of the American Revolution (and possibly has antecedents in antiquity) to terrorism demonstrates a remarkable lack of something. I'm not sure what.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:32 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 12:32 PM on January 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Comparing this to terrorism is stupid. There are lots of reasons to criticise it: it's vandalism; it's silencing an unpopular viewpoint; it's an unhealthy precedent. What it isn't, is murder.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:37 PM on January 28, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:37 PM on January 28, 2015
I think the obvious explanation is that IndigoJones was on vacation in some very remote place for much of the past month, and he either missed the fact that people were killed at the Charlie Hebdo offices or somehow got the impression that Pamela Geller had been murdered. Because otherwise the comparison is a bit obscene.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:52 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:52 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
When my grandfather and his brothers were born less than 100 years ago, their birth certificates stated their race as "Jewish", which seems like a legal distinction.I'd actually love to see a picture of that if you have one. I don't think it's typical: I've never seen an American document on which someone's race was listed as Jewish. So, for instance, ever census in American history has included a question on race, and most of them have supplied the possible races. Jewish has never been one of the possibilities. Jews have always been listed as white.
I composed a whole long answer to this, but I realized it probably was a derail. Suffice it to say: people have definitely talked about a Jewish race at various times in American history, but it's been a cultural category, not a legal one. Legally, Jews were white. They could become naturalized citizens at a time when only "free white persons" could be naturalized, and Jewish immigrants were spared a whole host of discriminatory laws against "aliens ineligible for citizenship," which in practice meant immigrants from East and South Asia. (For instance, "aliens ineligible for citizenship" couldn't own land in California and a bunch of other Western states in the first half of the 20th century, and for a time, an American woman who married an "alien ineligible for citizenship" had her American citizenship taken away.) Jews weren't subject to anti-miscegenation laws or legally-mandated residential segregation, and in the segregated South they sat in the front of the bus and went to white schools. It's nice that in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that laws against racial harassment protected Jews, but that doesn't change the fact that for most of American history, race was a way to give or deny people the rights of citizenship, and Jews were on the side of that divide that was racially entitled to citizenship because they were white.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:58 AM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've never seen an American document on which someone's race was listed as Jewish
That's why I said above that
None the less, and additionally, if you look at old passenger lists ("LIST OR MANIFEST OF ALIEN PASSENGERS FOR THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION OFFICER AT PORT OF ARRIVAL") you will see that the column marked "Race or People" very often lists passengers as "Hebrew", as distinct from "German" or "Polish". There are almost certainly other examples, but my link is too slow for me to hunt them down.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2015
That's why I said above that
even if Jews were deemed to be. I linked to a US Supreme Court ruling that Jews were considered a separate race at the time 42 U.S.C. 1982 (the Civil Rights Act of 1866) was passed. I suppose that means that Jews continue to be considered to be a distinct race today for at least some purposes.whitethey were also (sometimes) deemed to be a different sort ofwhite
None the less, and additionally, if you look at old passenger lists ("LIST OR MANIFEST OF ALIEN PASSENGERS FOR THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION OFFICER AT PORT OF ARRIVAL") you will see that the column marked "Race or People" very often lists passengers as "Hebrew", as distinct from "German" or "Polish". There are almost certainly other examples, but my link is too slow for me to hunt them down.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2015
Je Suis Pamela Geller
Nous sommes heureux que nous ne sommes pas Geller, parce qu'elle est grotesque.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:09 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nous sommes heureux que nous ne sommes pas Geller, parce qu'elle est grotesque.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:09 PM on January 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seriously? Are they trying to sound like a Marvel universe Homeland Security-esque supposedly-good-but-actually-totalitarian-and-bad government agency?
Nextwave: Agents of F.D.I.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:29 PM on January 29, 2015
Nextwave: Agents of F.D.I.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:29 PM on January 29, 2015
« Older These old photographs are in color. The world was... | A ring around the sun Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by anitanita at 8:43 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]