Free speech doesn't include destroying something paid for by someone else. I hope this arrogant ***** can't make bail.

Notice how when all else fails the word "racist" starts to fly.

I've learned a long time ago to never even begin to broach the subject of Israel with someone solidly on either side of the issue. There is literally no reasoning with them.

As for the racist comment, the ad is pretty blatantly implying some sort least culturalist view at the very least.

I suppose it'd be futile informing the woman that the reason she's being arrested is because she's vandelizing/destroying property that was legally paid for and presented. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt: She (or her parents) may have grown up where speech was constantly surpressed and she still hasn't fully grasped the idea of permitting disagreeable opinions to be expressed freely.

It's provacative, to be sure. I think the poster's creator buried the "defeat jihad" too far down and should've spent less time on the big Civilized vs. Savage block lettering. The presence of that poster was begging for a situation like this. It wasn't "if", but "when" something was going to happen there. In fact, this confrontation is tame (and even a little funny in a wierd slapstick comedy kind of way... it almost felt scriped) compared to what could play out between hotter heads.

But my hunch is this woman ain't so saintly when it comes to "hate" and "racism." Display a similar poster condemning the US or Israel, or supporting such-and-such Middle East dictator, using the same provocative language, and I guarantee she doesn't pull out the spraypaint.

The ad was provocative, sure.

So what? Prisons are full of people who let themselves be provoked.

And really she should have gotten a darker color if she wanted to cover up the ad anyways.

I fully support her right to protest even though I disagree with her premise...but...She is wrong that this was non violent protest. Destruction of property violates the principle of non aggression. She should be thankful that open expression of ideas is allowed in this country as opposed to the horrid place she left. The punishment she is going to receive will also be far less severe than what she would receive in her homeland for such a stunt.

What's up with the cops that they could not simply tell her what she was being charged with? This was pretty simple.

(09-27-2012 03:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And really she should have gotten a darker color if she wanted to cover up the ad anyways.

She wanted it to match her outfit.

(09-28-2012 08:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I fully support her right to protest even though I disagree with her premise...but...She is wrong that this was non violent protest. Destruction of property violates the principle of non aggression. She should be thankful that open expression of ideas is allowed in this country as opposed to the horrid place she left. The punishment she is going to receive will also be far less severe than what she would receive in her homeland for such a stunt.

What's up with the cops that they could not simply tell her what she was being charged with? This was pretty simple.

Yeah, I found that odd, 'destruction of property, ma'm' was really all that would be required there.