Wouldn't You Deface A Racist Ad?

If you haven't seen this video, take a look at Mona Eltahawy spray hot pink graffiti over a racist subway ad in New York City. Mona is an Egyptian-American journalist with a long and steady record defending the dignity of women, Muslims and countless others. Earlier this year, her feature article in Foreign Policy magazine, Why Do They Hate Us? ignited a global conversation about the treatment (and mistreatment) of women across the Muslim world.

Watching this video evoked a couple of things for me. The first being a gut-wrench reaction towards the apparent racism (which Mona thankfully attempted to bury in graffiti). These subway ads, paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) insinuate that Muslim and Arab people are savages--a message that's beyond offensive and disgusting.

But the second, and more important reaction is how "anti-other" hate can overlap with free speech.

I learned about this video during a recent trip to Seattle, where I've spent the past few days working with Christian and secular advocates in the Washington United for Marriage campaign. We are working to Approve Referendum 74, which ensures lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have the right to marry. Like many Muslims in America, LGBT people are so often exposed to the same type of prejudice and homophobia that's exasperated by the actions of religious extremist. I think about the Westboro Baptist Church in particular who have mastered this type of "hate free speech." They picket funerals with neon signs that read "God Hates Fags." Any family or friend of an American veteran or LGBT person whose funeral has been picketed by this group, knows the horror they can inflict.

I could imagine walking through the subways of New York City seeing these racist ads, and Mona's actions seem to strike at the very real and raw reaction we should all have towards hate. If "God Hates Fags" were on those same subway ads, wouldn't LGBT and straight allies be provoked to deface or glitter bomb those? What about ads degrading women or inciting racism towards black Americans?

In response to the controversy, the Metropolitan Transit Authority just ruled to prohibit advertisements that it "reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace." And, California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law a similar protection for Californians against the Westboro provocations.

When you see homophobia, sexism, or racism promoted through a vehicle of free speech, how would you respond?

 

Follow Joseph Ward III on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JosephWardIII

Comments

[TheSharperWon]

12:07 PM on 10/17/2012

Oh, I almost forgot, to answer your question Joseph Ward III, "Wouldn't You Deface a Racist Ad?" NO I would not becauase folks are "FREE" to think what they choose to think and I am CIVILIZED enough to know that. Emotions can't overide being civil to ignore another's truth or lack of truth on a given subject. Mona proved the point of the ad, she was not CIVIL enough to get over it, making her UNCIVILIZED!!!

[TheSharperWon]

11:59 AM on 10/17/2012

Wake up people, Mona is the hateful one. People poke fun of Jesus, depict Him in wicked ways and the Christians can take it, HE is still Lord. Will will not bow to their blasphemy laws. There are a lot of things I don't like, but people have a right to their opinion and I can't go around spray painting things I don't agree with! She has no right! Don't drink the Kool Aid folks, before we know it Sharia law will be at our front door. Her hate is intolerant of folk's right to stand against something they don't believe in. She actually proved the point of the sign by not being able to simply walk away, say that's not true and becoming emotional enough to react with a can of paint!

[BCEXHAX]

06:50 PM on 10/03/2012

Jihadi isn't a race, vandalism should not be called freedom of expression.

[Osbaldiston]

03:00 PM on 10/02/2012

If Muslims declare that they will react violently to something. If they demonstrate that they will behave violently in response to something, that thing can now be treated as inciting and provoking violence. Muslim violence, once again, becomes the determinant of what can and cannot be said in this country.

[Doug64]

04:17 PM on 10/03/2012

Absolutely right, the Metropolitan Transit Authority has just handed control of the limits on offensive speech for its ads to those that express themselves through violence, and Mona Eltahawy has demonstrated that she is one journalist that doesn't believe in freedom of speech, after all.

[Alexandra MacArthur]

11:47 AM on 10/02/2012

The ad uses the same language, the "civilized vs. savage" dichotomy that was used to kill millions of Native Americans, enslave Africans, and invade and ravage many other countries (Vietnam, Philippines, Mexico, just to name a few). It insinuates that certain groups have the right to rule over others, and as any one knows, the result of that has been anything but civilized.

[Sister2012ooo]

10:13 AM on 10/02/2012

The ads are neither homophobic, sexist OR racist, as much as this article would suggest such. So the question the author posed at the end of the article is a moot point.

[Sister2012ooo]

10:07 AM on 10/02/2012

Since when is vandalism, free speech? Since when is jihad a good thing to be defending? Remember Dan Pearl. And get sensible.

[Coco112]

06:15 AM on 10/02/2012

I think a better word would be bigotry instead of racism

[michelesda]

05:35 AM on 10/02/2012

The sign in a public place was expressing free speech, but so was the woman with the spray can. In deciding to ban all provocative advertizing on their property, the MTA undoubtably has made the right call. On the other hand, IMO, "the very real and raw reaction we should all have towards hate" is the wrong attitude, and is part of the problem, not the solution. "Hating hate" doesn't work. Reacting emotionally to an expression of an idea is childish, and something we should all hope to have evolved beyond. When you react emotionally to any idea, you energize it. Any time you react emotionally either way to hate, hate wins. The grown up way to drain an emotionally provocative expression of its power, other than to simply ignore it, is to react with thought, not emotion. If enough of us would only learn how to do that, we might be surprised to see how much hate in the world would just dry up and disappear.

[Alexandra MacArthur]

11:53 AM on 10/02/2012

The lines are blurry with that, and I agree hating things like this is not good for us. I'm forever searching for ways in which to protest these things without cultivating the same hate they incite in the first place. Not easy to do.

On the other hand, just thinking about something doesn't provide a solution. Think about how we have changed as people. Did just using "thought not emotion" get rid of segregation? Nope. Activism did that.

[michelesda]

02:13 PM on 10/02/2012

Activism is always necessary to get change, but thoughtful discussion of the issues is the best way to lay the groundwork for it. Winning often calls for strategy. Action based on thought is always bound to be the least harmful and most effective; action based on emotion not so much.

[glanton]

09:01 PM on 10/02/2012

Vandalism is "free speech"?

[michelesda]

12:41 AM on 10/03/2012

Vandalism is always deplorable, something that should never happen, but of course it does. Although I myself would never care to be seen as condoning vandalism, it seems necessary to say that whenever I or anybody else might put up a provocative statement in a public place, we need to do so with the expectation that at some point it is inevitably going to be vandalized by some party who disagrees radically with us, and that our only realistic hope is that our message will be up there long enough before that occurs to have been seen by enough eyes to make our efforts worthwhile.

[22Keys]

03:46 AM on 10/02/2012

Where to begin. The ad does not mention race/skin color. It mentions culture/ideology. Apparently, criticizing the latter is now being viewed as "racist." This underhanded journalistic tactic is becoming (very) tiresome. It is becoming tiresome because this sordid tactic of orchestrated confusion appears to be working on minds of many readers. I find it very amusing that you would mention the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church. While their protests are despicable, I don't recall them ever calling for homosexual blood to be spilled. I wish I could say the same about many judicial systems in the developing world. Western liberal masochism is becoming quite a spectacle, requiring ever more impressive mental backflips.

[Andveter]

10:43 AM on 10/02/2012

Okay replace racist with bigoted... satisfied now? Westboro didn't demand blood spilled? Point being? Both Israel and Mosleem competitors demand blood spilled the feeling for them is mutual, but first off where do you get the spilling of blood from in this article... Also race IS refered to an Israeli is a native to Israel the great majority of Israelis are Jewish. Jewish is both an ethnicity AND a ideology. So... Yes it does mention race... It can't be said that Israel does not equal Jew very well because Israelis are very strict about keeping their nation as non-Jew free as they can. Either you get caught up in their laws or you get in and the xenophobic orthodox Jews make you as uncomfortable as possible at every turn until you leave.

[Abnormal Wrench]

10:36 PM on 10/01/2012

This is a tough issue IMO. I think it is wrong to try to censor other people's free speech, even when I find it abhorrent. However, I am fine with demonstrations, even if they break laws limiting demonstrations. I find graffiti to be a very tough problem because depending on the issue and how it is used, it can cross both of those lines independently.

I would side on the right of the ad before I would side on the acceptance of the graffiti. The more mature answer to the issue is to place an ad in the same venue countering the negative ad.

[kushyluv]

07:30 PM on 10/01/2012

So I guess in addition to not saying anything insulting about Islam, now we can not even criticize Jihad. Should we all set up a fund now to build a memorial to the jihadists who attacked US on 9-11. Because if Jihad is good how were their actions wrong?

[PandaUnbound]

01:17 AM on 10/02/2012

They tried to do that at the 93 crash site.

[been2there]

06:58 PM on 10/01/2012

I have been, and will continue to speak up! I hope I get a chance to help blockade WB.

[Json]

04:39 PM on 10/01/2012

"These subway ads, paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) insinuate that Muslim and Arab people are savages--a message that's beyond offensive and disgusting. "

Looks like Geller laid a trap and you just walked right into.
The ad is very careful not to condemn all Muslims. It condemns Jihad. So the ad should only offend you if you are pro-jihad, or if you think all muslims support jihad and therefore the ad is attacking all muslims.
I don't think the ad is particularly helpful for any kind of constructive conversation, but I don't think the answer is vandalism.

[PandaUnbound]

01:22 AM on 10/02/2012

Why do liberals lie about what they disagree with?

Here's the ad: "“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

[CMB1969]

03:43 PM on 10/01/2012

What would I do? I would shake my head & roll my eyes, walk on to catch my train, and live my life in a way that contradicts the message in such ads. They paid for the ad space & hence it is private property being used to express their free speech--a thick skin is the price we pay to live in a free society.