Thank You Pamela Geller

[Trippy]

Of course you're right. I only meant no one should attempt to stop her in a legal sense. I believe people should be free to express their opinions without fear of legal reprisal.

Why not?
Why should an American individual of Palestinian descent not be free to express their opinion in opposition to a discriminatory, and frankly defamatory advertisement by pursuing it through the legal and judicial system. Is that not their right? Is that not why we have a legal and judicial system in the first place? To settle disputes between individuals or groups of individuals in a fair and consistent manner?

I strongly disagree with the idea of hiding behind the skirt of 'Freedom of Speech', either to enable this kind of thing, or to provide an excuse for taking no action. Frankly I find it sickening. Here's an idea that people need to get used to: Rights get abused and freedom of speech is not exempted from this..

The implication being that everyone should attempt to silence her, just not via the use of state power, or any other sort of violence.

I mostly agree with this. I agree that everyone should take a stance. I agree that violence should not be used. Part of me, inspite of what I said above agrees that the state should not be used. But on the other hand there is the aspect of why should an individual not be free to pursue the matter through the judicial system if they find the advert offensive?

No, I just mean she should have the right to speak her mind, and others should have the right to speak against her.

Rights are open to abuse. I've often said that when I was working in the mental health industry one of the things that shocked me was around rights. There were groups of service users who were cogent enough to understand that they had the right to talk when and where they wanted and that they also had the right to watch TV in peace without being interrupted by others talking. Where things fell over was where they lacked the awareness to recognize that those around them had rights as well. It's something that I have seen reflected in the world at large. There's also something about checks and balances and moderation in here, combined with some poor analogy relating to music, stereos and neighbours.

[Gustav]

I think it's what Geller is wrong about. A lot of the quotes they give - and I'm no Geller follower - are pretty whacky. I suppose people have the right to be Birthers or whatever they're called now, but it's ridiculous to my mind.

labored and disjointed
defensive and hollow ring

whats geoffpp up to, i wonder

/alarmed

[Balerion]

Why not?
Why should an American individual of Palestinian descent not be free to express their opinion in opposition to a discriminatory, and frankly defamatory advertisement by pursuing it through the legal and judicial system. Is that not their right? Is that not why we have a legal and judicial system in the first place? To settle disputes between individuals or groups of individuals in a fair and consistent manner?

What is "discriminatory advertising," exactly? As to fighting against defamation, of course they should. We have laws meant to protect people against such things.

I strongly disagree with the idea of hiding behind the skirt of 'Freedom of Speech', either to enable this kind of thing, or to provide an excuse for taking no action. Frankly I find it sickening. Here's an idea that people need to get used to: Rights get abused and freedom of speech is not exempted from this..

Well, thankfully you weren't a Framer. No one has the right to be protected from being offended. If someone believes that Jews are behind all of the world's ills, it's their right to say so. It has to be, or there's no point in having this protection at all. Once you limit speech based on what you find "disgusting" then you've opened the door to any arbitrary limitation of speech.

Rights are open to abuse. I've often said that when I was working in the mental health industry one of the things that shocked me was around rights. There were groups of service users who were cogent enough to understand that they had the right to talk when and where they wanted and that they also had the right to watch TV in peace without being interrupted by others talking. Where things fell over was where they lacked the awareness to recognize that those around them had rights as well. It's something that I have seen reflected in the world at large. There's also something about checks and balances and moderation in here, combined with some poor analogy relating to music, stereos and neighbours.

But those rights are not reconcilable. If I have the right to speak freely, and you have the right to not be offended by what you consider "hate speech," then I don't really have free speech after all. Thankfully, you don't have the right to silence me so you don't have to be offended. And that's how it should be. The kind of thing this lunatic has done with her right is unfortunate, but protecting her right to be offensive is a necessity.

[Trippy]

What is "discriminatory advertising," exactly?

On the one hand, it should be fairly self explanatory.

On the other hand, if you can't understand even that idea, then I am wasting my time here.

As to fighting against defamation, of course they should. We have laws meant to protect people against such things.

And yet here's what you said:

I only meant no one should attempt to stop her in a legal sense

Well, thankfully you weren't a Framer. No one has the right to be protected from being offended.

Strawman hypothesis.
I have the right to change the channel, change the radio station, not buy the magazine, CD, DVD and so on and so forth. That is why we have advertising standards laws in the first place, not to mention ratings and disclaimers. So people can make reasoned and informed choices about what they are exposed to because it is their right. In this case the MTA exercised their right to choose what to display on their property in accordance with guidelines they developed to balance these seemingly conflicting rights.

If someone believes that Jews are behind all of the world's ills, it's their right to say so. It has to be, or there's no point in having this protection at all. Once you limit speech based on what you find "disgusting" then you've opened the door to any arbitrary limitation of speech.

Baloney. This is a slippery slope fallacy, nothing more.

But those rights are not reconcilable.

Actually, they are, but it requires words like responsibility and discretion. It may even require a mutual agreement and arbitration by a third party, but they can, in fact be reconciled.

If I have the right to speak freely, and you have the right to not be offended by what you consider "hate speech," then I don't really have free speech after all. Thankfully, you don't have the right to silence me so you don't have to be offended. And that's how it should be.

Strawman hypothesis. You're arguing rights, I'm arguing responsibilities. While you may have the right to say what you want. I have the right not to listen, to buy earplugs and to walk away. While you may be able to exercise your rights, those rights come with an implicit responsibility to recognize and respect the rights of others. You do not have the right to remove others of their rights - and this is the principle that MTA's policy would seem to be based upon.

It seems my point may have gone over your head, judging by your responses.

The kind of thing this lunatic has done with her right is unfortunate, but protecting her right to be offensive is a necessity.

And the skirt has now been hidden behind.

It's irresponsible. Is that the word you were looking for? That it's an irresponsible use of freedom of speech? Gosh. If only there was a word for that.l

[Trippy]

What is "discriminatory advertising," exactly?

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry adj
\dis-ˈkri-mə-nə-ˌtȯr-ē, -ˈkrim-nə-\
Definition of DISCRIMINATORY
1: discriminative 1
2: applying or favoring discrimination in treatment
— dis·crim·i·na·to·ri·ly \-ˌkri-mə-nə-ˈtȯr-ə-lē, -ˌkrim-nə-\ adverb

ad·ver·tis·ing noun
Definition of ADVERTISING
1: the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements
2: advertisements <the magazine contains much advertising>
3: the business of preparing advertisements for publication or broadcast

dis·crim·i·na·tion noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Definition of DISCRIMINATION
1a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

So then Discriminatory advertising would then be "the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements" where that something is "prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"

For example, a billboard that suggests that all middle eastern Arabs are Muslims, All middle eastern Muslims are Jihadists, and all middle eastern Jihadists are savages" and calls people to take action based on that view could probably be quite safely regarded as "Discriminatory advertising."

[Balerion]

On the one hand, it should be fairly self explanatory.

On the other hand, if you can't understand even that idea, then I am wasting my time here.

Should I take it to mean you can't properly define it, or that you simply misspoke earlier?

And yet here's what you said:

And? Who is she defaming?

Strawman hypothesis.
I have the right to change the channel, change the radio station, not buy the magazine, CD, DVD and so on and so forth. That is why we have advertising standards laws in the first place, not to mention ratings and disclaimers. So people can make reasoned and informed choices about what they are exposed to because it is their right. In this case the MTA exercised their right to choose what to display on their property in accordance with guidelines they developed to balance these seemingly conflicting rights.

What you don't have the right to do is have that billboard taken down simply because it offends your sensibilities. You can, of course, protest, and perhaps whoever is in charge will concede, but you have no legal ground to stand on--unless, of course, the ad violates some law. Hers did not.

Baloney. This is a slippery slope fallacy, nothing more.

Pro Tip #47: When out of argument, dismiss out of hand. Works part of the time, 100% of the time!

Actually, they are, but it requires words like responsibility and discretion. It may even require a mutual agreement and arbitration by a third party, but they can, in fact be reconciled.

If by "reconcile," you mean "value one person's rights over another, effectively stripping the loser of that right at all," then yes, I suppose they can "reconciled." But in any meaningful and accurate sense of the word, no, they cannot be reconciled. Giving two people conflicting rights means that either neither have the right, or only one does.

Strawman hypothesis. You're arguing rights, I'm arguing responsibilities. While you may have the right to say what you want. I have the right not to listen, to buy earplugs and to walk away. While you may be able to exercise your rights, those rights come with an implicit responsibility to recognize and respect the rights of others.

You mean a social responsibility? If so, then why did you say this:

I strongly disagree with the idea of hiding behind the skirt of 'Freedom of Speech', either to enable this kind of thing, or to provide an excuse for taking no action.

[...]

But on the other hand there is the aspect of why should an individual not be free to pursue the matter through the judicial system if they find the advert offensive?

Clearly you aren't only talking about social responsibility, you're lamenting that people don't have the right to take each other to court over having taken offense to something said or done by the other. But in the case of social responsibility, of course I have no problem if a company chooses not to use a racist advertisement. I would say they have a responsibility to their fellow man to avoid this. But the implications of limiting free speech to avoid offending someone are too ridiculous to even entertain the idea.

[quotre]You do not have the right to remove others of their rights [/quote]

Interesting, because you've proposed exactly that.

It seems my point may have gone over your head, judging by your responses.

If so, it's only because your point was so odious that I was bent over retching from the smell.

And the skirt has now been hidden behind.

It's less of a skirt, and more of a steel curtain protecting us against idiotic and--you love this word--irresponsible ideas such as the one you've presented here.

It's irresponsible. Is that the word you were looking for? That it's an irresponsible use of freedom of speech? Gosh. If only there was a word for that.l

Not irresponsible, because she, presumably, doesn't know any better. In her mind, she's doing the right thing, and not spreading the message would be irresponsible.

But in any case, it is her right to say those things.

[Balerion]

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry adj
\dis-ˈkri-mə-nə-ˌtȯr-ē, -ˈkrim-nə-\
Definition of DISCRIMINATORY
1: discriminative 1
2: applying or favoring discrimination in treatment
— dis·crim·i·na·to·ri·ly \-ˌkri-mə-nə-ˈtȯr-ə-lē, -ˌkrim-nə-\ adverb

ad·ver·tis·ing noun
Definition of ADVERTISING
1: the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements
2: advertisements <the magazine contains much advertising>
3: the business of preparing advertisements for publication or broadcast

dis·crim·i·na·tion noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Definition of DISCRIMINATION
1a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

So then Discriminatory advertising would then be "the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements" where that something is "prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"

For example, a billboard that suggests that all middle eastern Arabs are Muslims, All middle eastern Muslims are Jihadists, and all middle eastern Jihadists are savages" and calls people to take action based on that view could probably be quite safely regarded as "Discriminatory advertising."

Okay then. But that still isn't against the law.

[Trippy]

Should I take it to mean you can't properly define it, or that you simply misspoke earlier?

Take it to mean whatever you want. I'm quite convinced by now that you will anyway, regardless of anything I might actually have to say.

And? Who is she defaming?

Is this a serious question?

What you don't have the right to do is have that billboard taken down simply because it offends your sensibilities. You can, of course, protest, and perhaps whoever is in charge will concede, but you have no legal ground to stand on--unless, of course, the ad violates some law. Hers did not.

I have as much right to demand it be taken down as you do to demand it be put up in the first place. Ultimately, if we can not reconcile our differences then we must call in a neutral arbiter to make a binding judgement based on the facts presented to them, by the both of us, and trust that such a judgement will be within the statement and intent of the law.

Pro Tip #47: When out of argument, dismiss out of hand. Works part of the time, 100% of the time!

It's a slippery slope fallacy. There's nothing to address. Present me with cogent and reasonable content that isn't fallacious, and I will address it.

If by "reconcile," you mean "value one person's rights over another, effectively stripping the loser of that right at all," then yes, I suppose they can "reconciled." But in any meaningful and accurate sense of the word, no, they cannot be reconciled. Giving two people conflicting rights means that either neither have the right, or only one does.

There's a word. Starts with C...
What was it again?

Oh yeah...

com·pro·mise (kmpr-mz)
n.
1.
a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
b. The result of such a settlement.

In the allegory I gave, such a compromise that could be reached would be a mutual respect of the others right to watch TV in peace. Both parties have made a small sacrifice, and both parties have made a gain. In this instance, an acceptable compromise might be to reword the advertisement. See that's the point you're missing in all of this, or part of it anyway.

You mean a social responsibility? If so, then why did you say this:
...
Clearly you aren't only talking about social responsibility, you're lamenting that people don't have the right to take each other to court over having taken offense to something said or done by the other. But in the case of social responsibility, of course I have no problem if a company chooses not to use a racist advertisement. I would say they have a responsibility to their fellow man to avoid this. But the implications of limiting free speech to avoid offending someone are too ridiculous to even entertain the idea.

Strawman Hypothesis. Here's what I actually said:

Why should an American individual of Palestinian descent not be free to express their opinion in opposition to a discriminatory, and frankly defamatory advertisement by pursuing it through the legal and judicial system. Is that not their right? Is that not why we have a legal and judicial system in the first place? To settle disputes between individuals or groups of individuals in a fair and consistent manner?

You're generalizing my statements in a fashion that I have not. One can only assume you're doing this in order to perpetuate your ridiculous slippery slope argument. If you're going to address my argument, address what I have actually said. Apart from the allegory I gave I have specifically and explicitly addressed my posts in terms of advertising. Please do at least try and make more of an effort to keep up.

Interesting, because you've proposed exactly that.

Only if we accept your unyielding slippery slope strawman.

I've ignored the rest of your post because your descending into ad-hominem arguments and personal insults. I have no time for that.

[Balerion]

Take it to mean whatever you want. I'm quite convinced by now that you will anyway, regardless of anything I might actually have to say.

I can see you dropping those breadcrumbs as you walk...

Is this a serious question?

Of course it is. Either answer it or don't, but let's not pretend that I'm here to waste my own time.

I have as much right to demand it be taken down as you do to demand it be put up in the first place. Ultimately, if we can not reconcile our differences then we must call in a neutral arbiter to make a binding judgement based on the facts presented to them, by the both of us, and trust that such a judgement will be within the statement and intent of the law.

No, we must not. So long as my sign does not break any laws, I'm under no obligation to listen to your prattling whatsoever.

It's a slippery slope fallacy. There's nothing to address. Present me with cogent and reasonable content that isn't fallacious, and I will address it.

I already have. When matters of personal taste become the barometer for what should and shouldn't be allowed, then there is no longer an objective, guiding principal behind it. Instead, what is protected and what isn't will entirely depend on the individuals in charge at any given time.

There's a word. Starts with C...
What was it again?

Oh yeah...

com·pro·mise (kmpr-mz)
n.
1.
a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
b. The result of such a settlement.

In the allegory I gave, such a compromise that could be reached would be a mutual respect of the others right to watch TV in peace. Both parties have made a small sacrifice, and both parties have made a gain. In this instance, an acceptable compromise might be to reword the advertisement. See that's the point you're missing in all of this, or part of it anyway.

So then neither's right is valued, as both had to effectively forfeit theirs in order to reach a settlement. Neither person is satisfied, and neither person's right was protected. All they achieved was the degradation of the original rights they believed they had. You're trying to appease everyone and in the process appeasing no one.

Of course, we should not forget that you do not have the right to watch TV in peace. You have the right to pursue that peace, but the outcome of that endeavor is not guaranteed.

Strawman Hypothesis. Here's what I actually said:

You said that as well, but you also said what I quoted in my previous post. As to this most recent quote, no, you aren't guaranteed a chance to dispute my billboard. Not everything is fit for a courtroom. Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out every day.

You're generalizing my statements in a fashion that I have not.

Generalizing? I'm quoting you directly!

One can only assume you're doing this in order to perpetuate your ridiculous slippery slope argument. If you're going to address my argument, address what I have actually said. Apart from the allegory I gave I have specifically and explicitly addressed my posts in terms of advertising. Please do at least try and make more of an effort to keep up.

Translation: I'm going to duck out of here because my argument has been totally dismantled.

Only if we accept your unyielding slippery slope strawman.

Now my slippery-slope fallacy is a strawman? Call it a fallacy all you like, but a strawman it is not.

I've ignored the rest of your post because your descending into ad-hominem arguments and personal insults. I have no time for that.

Right, except when you're the one doing it.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

[Trippy]

I can see you dropping those breadcrumbs as you walk...

How drole.

Of course it is. Either answer it or don't, but let's not pretend that I'm here to waste my own time.

I did. Apparently the answer went over your head though.

No, we must not. So long as my sign does not break any laws, I'm under no obligation to listen to your prattling whatsoever.

I'm fairly sure there are laws against defamatory and libelous advertising in the US aren't there? Certainly there are in the rest of the civilized world - including those parts of the civilized world that rate higher in terms of things like press freedom.

I already have. When matters of personal taste become the barometer for what should and shouldn't be allowed, then there is no longer an objective, guiding principal behind it. Instead, what is protected and what isn't will entirely depend on the individuals in charge at any given time.

And in an idealized situation, what governs who is in charge at any given time if not the will of the people?

So then neither's right is valued, as both had to effectively forfeit theirs in order to reach a settlement. Neither person is satisfied, and neither person's right was protected. All they achieved was the degradation of the original rights they believed they had. You're trying to appease everyone and in the process appeasing no one.

Bullocks. They are both encouraged to abide by that which they expect from the other. Nobody ever said compromises were perfect, but if people weren't hypocrites and liars we wouldn't be having this conversation.

*But then again your point is what? That people that choose to live in civilization, which requires the coexistence of a large group of people, should be outraged because they can't nececssarily get their own way all the time? Excuse me while I weep a moment...

**It occurs to me that it can only be considered lose-lose if both individuals value their right to speak during the others show more than the right to watch their own show in peace. If that were the case, I would expect a different compromise to be reached.

Of course, we should not forget that you do not have the right to watch TV in peace. You have the right to pursue that peace, but the outcome of that endeavor is not guaranteed.

This misses the point by a wide margin.

You said that as well, but you also said what I quoted in my previous post. As to this most recent quote, no, you aren't guaranteed a chance to dispute my billboard. Not everything is fit for a courtroom. Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out every day.

Generalizing? I'm quoting you directly!

You may have quoted me, that doesn't stop your argument being a generalization of what I said. It's generalizing it to an absurd extreme that presents it out of context.

Translation: I'm going to duck out of here because my argument has been totally dismantled.

No, but I am tiring of this personalization of the argument. It's both odious and tedious. In order to dismantle my argument, you would have to first address what I am actually saying.

Now my slippery-slope fallacy is a strawman? Call it a fallacy all you like, but a strawman it is not.

It is. The most I have done is advocate for the consideration of the rights of those around you when you decide to exercise yours, suggest that I consider the judgement to be in error, and that people should be free to use all legal means available to them, including the judicial system, in matters such as this.

But apparently that will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it (well, America at least anyway).

Right, except when you're the one doing it.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

:Roll:
How very drole.

[Balerion]

How drole.

I presume you mean "droll," in which case, very.

I did. Apparently the answer went over your head though.

So you're saying that the implication that the enemies of Israel are Jihadists is defamation? Do I have that right?

I'm fairly sure there are laws against defamatory and libelous advertising in the US aren't there? Certainly there are in the rest of the civilized world - including those parts of the civilized world that rate higher in terms of things like press freedom.

Of course. But as you might expect, the advertisement in question must actually be libelous to be in violation.

And in an idealized situation, what governs who is in charge at any given time if not the will of the people?

Sure, within the framework laid out by the founding members of society. What the Framers built was a house of bricks, with sound principals as its foundation. What you propose is a house of straw with no foundation whatsoever.

Bullocks. They are both encouraged to abide by that which they expect from the other. Nobody ever said compromises were perfect, but if people weren't hypocrites and liars we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Then their rights as originally stated do not really exist. If something is a "right," then one cannot be forced to concede it.

This misses the point by a wide margin.

Not at all. You have not made it clear that you can tell what actually constitutes a right and what does not. Quite the opposite, actually.

You may have quoted me, that doesn't stop your argument being a generalization of what I said. It's generalizing it to an absurd extreme that presents it out of context.

I addressed your points directly, there was no generalization. And your words were not presented out of context.

No, but I am tiring of this personalization of the argument. It's both odious and tedious.

Then why did you initiate and continue to persist in the personalizing of the argument? Or did you think I didn't notice all your repeated insistence that a point "went over my head" and simultaneous accusation that my misrepresentation of your argument was intentional?

In order to dismantle my argument, you would have to first address what I am actually saying.

Oh, please. Trippy, rise above this nonsense.

It is. The most I have done is advocate for the consideration of the rights of those around you when you decide to exercise yours, suggest that I consider the judgement to be in error, and that people should be free to use all legal means available to them, including the judicial system, in matters such as this.

So then your entire argument about rights being abused was a whopping non-sequitur?

But apparently that will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it (well, America at least anyway).

Speaking of strawmen...

:Roll:
How very drole.

Wow. None of that worked out for you, did it?

[Trippy]

I presume you mean "droll," in which case, very.

droll (drl)
adj. droll·er, droll·est
Amusingly odd or whimsically comical.
n. Archaic
A buffoon.
[French drôle, buffoon, droll, from Old French drolle, bon vivant, possibly from Middle Dutch drol, goblin.]
Make of my use of the french spelling of the word in an english context what you will (give or take my unwillingness or inability to use special characters), I really don't care.

So you're saying that the implication that the enemies of Israel are Jihadists is defamation? Do I have that right?

No, you do not have that right.

I'm saying that the characterization of palestinians as savages (and Jihadists) is defamatory.

Of course. But as you might expect, the advertisement in question must actually be libelous to be in violation.

Sure, within the framework laid out by the founding members of society. What the Framers built was a house of bricks, with sound principals as its foundation. What you propose is a house of straw with no foundation whatsoever.

You're the one playing with straw, remember?

Then their rights as originally stated do not really exist. If something is a "right," then one cannot be forced to concede it.

No, you're conflating a right with the ability to exercise the right. Just because you have a right does not mean that it's always a good idea to exercise, or that you should exercise it at every opportunity.

Not at all. You have not made it clear that you can tell what actually constitutes a right and what does not. Quite the opposite, actually.

Yes. I'm afraid it misses the mark by a wide margin.

I addressed your points directly, there was no generalization. And your words were not presented out of context.

No. You addressed a generalization of what I said.

Then why did you initiate and continue to persist in the personalizing of the argument?

I initiated nothing.

Or did you think I didn't notice all your repeated insistence that a point "went over my head"...

This is nothing more than an attempt at blame shifting. It will not work.

...and simultaneous accusation that my misrepresentation of your argument was intentional?

Are you suggesting you un-intentionaly misrepresented my argument?

Oh, please. Trippy, rise above this nonsense.

Hello Mr Pot. I've got Mr Kettle on the phone, he seems to think that you've had something to say about skin tone?

So then your entire argument about rights being abused was a whopping non-sequitur?

Have another read of what I said. Specifically this bit:
"...advocate for the consideration of the rights of those around you when you decide to exercise yours..."
I consider it to be covered under the topic of consideration.

[GeoffP]

labored and disjointed
defensive and hollow ring

whats geoffpp up to, i wonder

/alarmed

What's that? A confused screed? Oh, Gus, you shouldn't have.

[Balerion]

droll (drl)
adj. droll·er, droll·est
Amusingly odd or whimsically comical.
n. Archaic
A buffoon.
[French drôle, buffoon, droll, from Old French drolle, bon vivant, possibly from Middle Dutch drol, goblin.]
Make of my use of the french spelling of the word in an english context what you will (give or take my unwillingness or inability to use special characters), I really don't care.

Uh-huh. How fortunate that your misspelling just so happened to bear a resemblance to the spelling in French.

No, you do not have that right.

Ah, so you've changed your mind. Because earlier, you called the advertisement "frankly, defamatory." Well, good, I'm glad you've come around to your senses. Maybe next time let a brother know?

I'm saying that the characterization of palestinians as savages (and Jihadists) is defamatory.

No, it isn't. It is incorrect as a general statement, but it is not defamation.

You're the one playing with straw, remember?

Fantastic non-sequitur. Care to return to the argument at hand?

No, you're conflating a right with the ability to exercise the right. Just because you have a right does not mean that it's always a good idea to exercise, or that you should exercise it at every opportunity.

No, you're talking about requiring arbitrators to decide how much of a person's right they must be forced to concede to appease another, and juxtaposed this against the backdrop of what you consider to be defamatory advertising, so let's not pretend you aren't trying to say that there should be some legal mechanism meant to prevent people from fully exercising their rights as they see fit. That's exactly what you're saying. You've said it explicitly.

Yes. I'm afraid it misses the mark by a wide margin.

Stock Response 342-1. Try again, Trippy.

No. You addressed a generalization of what I said.

No, I addressed exactly what you said, as well as what you've implied.

I initiated nothing.

Pff.

On the other hand, if you can't understand even that idea, then I am wasting my time here.

[...]

It seems my point may have gone over your head, judging by your responses.

Now I'm starting to wonder if your avatar is actually your creed, or merely a warning for those you converse with...

This is nothing more than an attempt at blame shifting. It will not work.

It's evident on the page, Trip. You set the tone of the conversation, then complained when you got some of it in return.

Are you suggesting you un-intentionaly misrepresented my argument?

Sorry, I should have put quotes around "misrepresentation." Obviously I haven't misrepresented anything.

Hello Mr Pot. I've got Mr Kettle on the phone, he seems to think that you've had something to say about skin tone?

I'm addressing your argument, and you're evading. There is no pot-meet-kettle dynamic in play here.

Have another read of what I said. Specifically this bit:
"...advocate for the consideration of the rights of those around you when you decide to exercise yours..."
I consider it to be covered under the topic of consideration.

While fair, you have not limited yourself to this benign injunction. You have also misused the term "rights" and applied them to things such as watching television in peace, and went so far as to call for third-party arbitration when said "rights" contradict each other.

[quadraphonics]

No, it isn't. It is incorrect as a general statement, but it is not defamation.

You should probably come out and state a definition of "defamation" if you're going to argue this line. Typically, the legal definitions of "defamation" bear a strong relationship to the question of correctness. If you are asserting that the statement was factually incorrect, then the prima facie basis for a claim of defamation seems to be in place.

Supposing you're serious about making an actual point, that is, and not simply hectoring Trippy with naked assertions and other bad-faith tactics. Which, the latter seems to be the case.

[Balerion]

You should probably come out and state a definition of "defamation" if you're going to argue this line. Typically, the legal definitions of "defamation" bear a strong relationship to the question of correctness. If you are asserting that the statement was factually incorrect, then the prima facie basis for a claim of defamation seems to be in place.

Supposing you're serious about making an actual point, that is, and not simply hectoring Trippy with naked assertions and other bad-faith tactics. Which, the latter seems to be the case.

For something to be called "defamation," it must have done harm. What proof does Trippy have that the sign has done harm? How could you prove actual malice? How do you know she doesn't really believe that the enemies of Israel are savage Jihadists based on information available to her? Certainly there are enough outlets portraying Palestinians as such; how is it her fault, legally, if she believes one over another? What if she says it was intended to be an insult?

It's not defamation.

[quadraphonics]

For something to be called "defamation," it must have done harm. What proof does Trippy have that the sign has done harm?

What proof do you have that it has not? I don't see where that question has been addressed by either of you, so if that render's Trippy's assertion of defamation inadequate, then it likewise renders your assertions of no defamation inadequate.

The burden of establishing such might well be on the accuser in a court of law, but this is not a court of law and you are anyway pursuing a claim of fact (rather than a procedural ruling of "not guilty"), which is a distinct question.

How could you prove actual malice?

Defamation charges do not generally require proof of malice. Generally, you only have to show that the statement is factually incorrect, that it caused harm, and that the author did not perform due diligence in evaluating the factual basis of the statement. The malice part only applies to public figures, who are accorded lesser defamation protections than apply in general.

How do you know she doesn't really believe that the enemies of Israel are savage Jihadists based on information available to her? Certainly there are enough outlets portraying Palestinians as such; how is it her fault, legally, if she believes one over another?

Again, the question would be whether she did a reasonable job vetting her factual claims.

That said, the issue really seems to be that the statement in question is not a matter of fact in the first place, but simply an opinion. Non-falsifiable claims are not subject to defamation considerations, because they cannot be statements of fact.

What if she says it was intended to be an insult?

That would go to malice. If you are referring to the "mere vulgar abuse" defense to defamation charges, she would have to establish that her claims were not intended to be taken seriously or believed, which does not seem credible for an act of political speech consisting of an ad campaign.

It's not defamation.

Again, you have not provided a positive argument supporting that conclusion. You have simply suggested possible areas that a defamation claim would need to address.

I also notice that you seem to have edited out your initial assertion that a Federal court agrees with you. Perhaps this is because you noticed that the issue of defamation was not actually dealt with directly in the ruling in question (which was on the constitutionality of the MTA's guidelines and policies). The only statements I can find that bear on that question in the ruling are ones that imply that the statement in question is mere political opinion without any legitimate factual content (which you contend above is not the case). Likewise, there remain the possibilities of appeal and separate defamation lawsuits regardless of this particular ruling.

Which raises another possible consideration: would an MTA guideline banning material that appears on its face to be defamatory be constitutional to begin with?

[Balerion]

What proof do you have that it has not? I don't see where that question has been addressed by either of you, so if that render's Trippy's assertion of defamation inadequate, then it likewise renders your assertions of no defamation inadequate.

The burden of establishing such might well be on the accuser in a court of law, but this is not a court of law and you are anyway pursuing a claim of fact (rather than a procedural ruling of "not guilty"), which is a distinct question.

But we're talking about legal definitions, and it isn't on me to prove that it hasn't done harm. I'm not even saying it doesn't. I'm saying good luck proving it. And no, it is not a distinct question. If you want to talk about the moral implications of her advertisement, then sure, that's an entirely different discussion, but we're talking about legal defamation.

Defamation charges do not generally require proof of malice. Generally, you only have to show that the statement is factually incorrect, that it caused harm, and that the author did not perform due diligence in evaluating the factual basis of the statement. The malice part only applies to public figures, who are accorded lesser defamation protections than apply in general.

It also applies to matters of public interest, and I don't believe I'm being too liberal by including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in that category. But even without that caveat, it would be very hard to meet the other criteria. Even the factual incorrectness part would be difficult, no? She could charge that she was only referring to, as the poster said, "enemies of Israel." It was Trippy who drew the conclusion that she was corralling all Palestinians as savages and Jihadists. And in all likelihood, that's probably what she meant--but do you glean that simply from the sign, or from knowledge of her politics in general?

Again, the question would be whether she did a reasonable job vetting her factual claims.

One of the questions would be that, yes.

That said, the issue really seems to be that the statement in question is not a matter of fact in the first place, but simply an opinion. Non-falsifiable claims are not subject to defamation considerations, because they cannot be statements of fact.

I haven't been able to find the actual opinion of the judge, only some snarky article clippings misleadingly stating that "The judge agrees with her." But that could be one defense, sure. If it's her opinion, rather than a factual statement, then it's not defamation.

That would go to malice.

No it would not. Malice is the intention of harm. An insult would fall under the "mere vulgar abuse" defense.

Again, you have not provided a positive argument supporting that conclusion. You have simply suggested possible areas that a defamation claim would need to address.

No, I have also suggested that it is impossible to meet these criteria in this case, and therefore the ad is not defamatory.

I also notice that you seem to have edited out your initial assertion that a Federal court agrees with you. Perhaps this is because you noticed that the issue of defamation was not actually dealt with directly in the ruling in question (which was on the constitutionality of the MTA's guidelines and policies). The only statements I can find that bear on that question in the ruling are ones that imply that the statement in question is mere political opinion without any legitimate factual content (which you contend above is not the case). Likewise, there remain the possibilities of appeal and separate defamation lawsuits regardless of this particular ruling.

I changed it because I suddenly realized that I'm not altogether sure how freedom of speech and defamation laws coexist. That is to say, the judge said plainly that it is a political ad and its message must be protected--does that not suggest that he has ruled out its potential as a defamatory ad? I'm not sure, so I took that out.

Which raises another possible consideration: would an MTA guideline banning material that appears on its face to be defamatory be constitutional to begin with?

Is that not what was just addressed?

[Trippy]

Ah, so you've changed your mind. Because earlier, you called the advertisement "frankly, defamatory." Well, good, I'm glad you've come around to your senses. Maybe next time let a brother know?

I've changed nothing, this is just disingenuine, presenting a portion of a statement out of context. And you know it's out of context, because this response:

No, it isn't. It is incorrect as a general statement, but it is not defamation.

Indicates that you recognized I misplaced a quote tag.

So what your saying is that you don't think that characterizing Palestinians as "Lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings" and/or "lacking complex or advanced culture" isn't "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression"?

Fantastic non-sequitur. Care to return to the argument at hand?

What argument? The only thing of substance you presented in the portion that I made that response to has already been dealt with, or is already being discussed.

No, you're talking about requiring arbitrators to decide how much of a person's right they must be forced to concede to appease another, and juxtaposed this against the backdrop of what you consider to be defamatory advertising, so let's not pretend you aren't trying to say that there should be some legal mechanism meant to prevent people from fully exercising their rights as they see fit. That's exactly what you're saying. You've said it explicitly.

Again with the mischaracterizations of my statements. Do you deliberately make a habit of this? What I suggested was that where two people attempt to exercise their rights and those rights are contradictory of each other, they should seek a resolution. I pointed to a compromise as one form of resolution to that conflict of rights, to make the point that they're not neccessarily irreconcilable. I then went on to suggest that should they fail to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties, then they should seek arbitration by a third party.

Attempting to exercise their rights simultaneously leads to a conflict. They should seek to reconcil that conflict.

What would you rather they do? Pistols at dawn?

No, I addressed exactly what you said, as well as what you've implied.

Baloney.
Here's what I said that sparked off this thread of the conversation:

Why should an American individual of Palestinian descent not be free to express their opinion in opposition to a discriminatory, and frankly defamatory advertisement by pursuing it through the legal and judicial system. Is that not their right? Is that not why we have a legal and judicial system in the first place? To settle disputes between individuals or groups of individuals in a fair and consistent manner?

You addressed it as such:

Clearly you aren't only talking about social responsibility, you're lamenting that people don't have the right to take each other to court over having taken offense to something said or done by the other. But in the case of social responsibility, of course I have no problem if a company chooses not to use a racist advertisement. I would say they have a responsibility to their fellow man to avoid this. But the implications of limiting free speech to avoid offending someone are too ridiculous to even entertain the idea.

.

Let's break it down shall we?

This part:
"you're lamenting that people don't have the right to take each other to court over having taken offense to something said or done by the other."
Is a false generalization of what I said. I was specifically and explicitly addressing the situation where an individual considers an advertisement published by a company defamatory. Not the situation where some jerk down the road calls me an asshole, which is what you've generalized it to.

This bit:
"of course I have no problem if a company chooses not to use a racist advertisement."
This is exactly what happened (as I understand it anyway). The MTA chose not to run the advert because they considered it to be in breach of their standards of decency. Geller took the decision to the court, stating that the MTA's decision was in breach of her first amendment rights, and the judge found in her favour. I have my own suspicions about the judges motivations, but I'm going to keep them to myself for the time being.

The closest I've come to saying this:
"But the implications of limiting free speech to avoid offending someone are too ridiculous to even entertain the idea."
Is the suggestion that hateful speech should not be left unopposed, and that people should not simply shrug, state "They're just exercising their first amendment rights" and walk away - which is something that happens regularly. I have simply said, in this regard, that if you are free to make an outrageous statement, then I have to be equally free to express my outrage including pursuing it through the Judicial system if I consider your statement to be in breach of any ethical guidelines or laws that exist. From this you construct the strawman that I want to silence free speech, when that's not actually the case. That's not something you can reasonably infer from that statement. The most that should be infered from the statement is that I consider that each case should be tested against the law and against the merits of that case.

Pff.

Now I'm starting to wonder if your avatar is actually your creed, or merely a warning for those you converse with...

It's evident on the page, Trip. You set the tone of the conversation, then complained when you got some of it in return.

No. What's evident is that you're all upset because I suggested that something went over your head and you seem to think that's the same thing as calling you an idiot. Stupidity is not the only reason things can go over peoples heads. Things can go over peoples head because of cultural differences, differences in backgrounds, dozens of reasons.

Your taking offense at the mere suggestion that a point may have gone over your head is as unreasonable and unwarranted as your response.

I would have said, for example, that a post of Quad's recently went over Fraggle Rockers head, but that has nothing to do with my opinion of the intellects of either party, but rather, the differences in the way either parties interpret things such as sarcasm and parody.

I'm addressing your argument, and you're evading. There is no pot-meet-kettle dynamic in play here.

No. You keep injecting personal commentary into your posts, and wandering off on strawman and slippery slope tangents.

While fair, you have not limited yourself to this benign injunction. You have also misused the term "rights" and applied them to things such as watching television in peace, and went so far as to call for third-party arbitration when said "rights" contradict each other.

Again, you're mischarcterizing my post.
Here's what I originally said:
"I've often said that when I was working in the mental health industry one of the things that shocked me was around rights. There were groups of service users who were cogent enough to understand that they had the right to talk when and where they wanted and that they also had the right to watch TV in peace without being interrupted by others talking. Where things fell over was where they lacked the awareness to recognize that those around them had rights as well."
You subsequently stated this:
"Of course, we should not forget that you do not have the right to watch TV in peace. You have the right to pursue that peace, but the outcome of that endeavor is not guaranteed."
To which I replied with:
"This misses the point by a wide margin."
You responded with:
"Not at all. You have not made it clear that you can tell what actually constitutes a right and what does not. Quite the opposite, actually."
To which I replied with this:
"Yes. I'm afraid it misses the mark by a wide margin."
The point you have missed, or one of them at least, is that this allegory, offered by way of an analogy does not relay what I consider rights, but deals with what the service users considered their rights to be, and their failure to apply that same standard to others. The commentary that I have made is that I have observed the same trend in a broader sense in society - in that where an individual considers themselves to have a right, they often appear to fail to transfer that right to those around them. Whether or not I consider the ability to watch TV in peace a right or a privelege is not something I have addressed either directly or implicitly. The only thing I have said that might be considered to even come close to addressing that is to point out that I believe you are conflating the rights with the ability to exercise those rights.

Even with this statement:
"In the allegory I gave, such a compromise that could be reached would be a mutual respect of the others right to watch TV in peace.."
Because the statement does not exist in a vacuum, it explicitly references the allegory, it still does not convey whether or not I consider it to be a right, it's simply couched in the same terms as the original allegory, which in turn is relaying the arguments of the service users in question.

Like I said, you missed the point, and you missed it by a wide margin.

[Balerion]

Lies and mischaracterization. I put up with enough of this from Jan and Wynn and the like. To the ignore list with you!

EDIT: Whaaat? You're a moderator?!

Ugh.

I suppose it figures. In any event, we're done here.