• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CNN, MSNBC and NPR darling gets arrested

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
yllus said:
I don't believe Ms. Eltahawy considers herself a Muslim.
Click to expand...


http://newhumanist.org.uk/2491/its-about-egypt-not-islam


Article penned by her no less..


""There is no love lost between the Muslim Brotherhood and me. As a liberal, secular Muslim I oppose not only their goal of an Islamic state but their draft platform that circulated in 2007 in which they made it clear women and Christians could not become president of Eygpt. That shoots to pieces, as far as I’m concerned, their claims to be democratic.""


Apparently all it takes to remove her "liberalness" is someone exercising their democratic freedom of expression, then its back to alalalalalala for her.
 
monovillage said:
Fuck you, I watched it and the other woman was sprayed you lying sack of shit.

*edit* The first time at .23,34-37, 49. listed.
Click to expand...

The lady with the camera on a pole got in front. The lady wiped off the paint with her coat when shielding the ad. She is rubbing against the ad. She got not spray painted on deliberately. The reporter is clearly stopping and looking for openings to spray paint on. The other woman blocked her with the pole from the camera as well. I would find that offensive.
I now also understand why some fear your police. The officer could not give a charge to make the arrest. I understand that perhaps covering any surface owned by the city in a public place with spray paint is forbidden. I would use that as an officer since she spray painted the wall as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0jSSLleGiY&feature=player_embedded#t=47s

Perhaps the reporter should have just used a plastic paper ad (such as a huge sticker with text ) to cover the ad she found offensive. This would have caused a lot less commotion and made the other woman look like a total idiot ripping of the sticker and shouting.

But there is one thing that i should make clear.
Free speech is not the same as damaging another persons property (The wall and ad casing) !
EDIT :
IMHO Free speech is also not the same as deliberately hurting other people with any form of expression know to hurt other people.
Free speech goes hand in hand with decency, sympathy, common sense and respect.
 
Last edited:
I just watched this video and I've only read some replies from the first page, not the other 5...

but I will split this right down the middle:

Everyone in the video was an idiot.

Israel and Palestine are idiots.

The woman doing the spray painting... I suspect she got the end result she was hoping for. I suspect she wanted to be dragged off in handcuffs while filmed so she could make a big show of how the USA is a police state! Right... am I to believe she's never heard the term "vandalism" or isn't aware that it is illegal? And yes as others have said, she should absolutely have ceased all spraying once the lady stood there. Spraypaint does drift a lot on the air, and btw her spray paint was hilariously ineffective at covering the words.

Also if she's so fucking proud of Egypt and the middle east and Islamic culture etc etc etc, why is she living on the other side of the world in a country that has wildly divergent values and rules for women, etc? I will never understand this mentality of moving to the US from anywhere and then endlessly jacking off about the place you fled from.

As for the woman who covered the sign... it's pretty dumb to not just let this lady do what she's going to do, and wait for the cops. Now you have clothing ruined by spraypaint, you probably inhaled some fumes, and your expensive looking camera might've been harmed too. She's probably one of these nutty Jewish ladies who has way too much allegiance to her stupid religion/tribe/country whatever the fuck and expects endless amounts of American blood and treasure to be expended to keep the Jewish vanity country safe. Fuck both sides of that conflict, and may they all go to non-existant hell.

Now as for the cops, or subway guards or whatever they were... how fucking hard is it to say the word "vandalism" when she keeps asking what crime she's under arrest for? And/or "destruction of property" she got a lot of paint on the subway wall, and those posters are someone's property too. To just stand there glancing at the camera like a deer in headlights and never spitting out the obvious crime name(s) makes it look like she might have a point and maybe you are just arresting her for no reason. Of course anyone with two brain cells to rub together is going to realize that's not the case but seriously, just FORM THE WORD "VANDALISM" please.

As for some of the comments I saw on page 1... yes spray paint does tend to drift toxic fumes on the air, and paint on the air so that it would be very obvious that it would end up on that lady to some degree, and it should've been the most obvious thing in the world for her to STOP when that lady went there. However, others were right in pointing out that she was trying to avoid spraying the lady.

Oh and who the fuck cares whether a person giving an opinion on this is part of the power structure of these forums or not? Reminds me of little teenage boys on online games who, whenever a girl is present, can discuss nothing other than the fact that a girl is present, must there really be stalker-obsessed mod-paparazzi or people who are constantly salivating for some opportunity to get a mod in trouble or something? STFU.

Oh and as for the billboard itself, yes I agree support the civilized man. However when the civilized man runs into a bear cave and starts whacking a den full of sleeping bears with a stick, and then you hear his screams coming from the cave mouth as he yells for you to get in there and help him because you're both civilized men who were out on a camping expedition together... yes, you do like to support the civilized man, but must you support the civilized man who is a fucktard and puts himself in an incredibly dangerous situation, and when helping him will likely only fuck you over too?
 
I see so many people pere are so eager to criticize Ms. Eltahawy. If there were a poster with caption "Protect out children from pedophiles" and below it showed a picture of the pope fondling a 10 year old boy, it wouldn't be long before some well meaninged catholic tried to deface it or teat it down. Would the outrage be similar?
 
HomerJS said:
I see so many people pere are so eager to criticize Ms. Eltahawy. If there were a poster with caption "Protect out children from pedophiles" and below it showed a picture of the pope fondling a 10 year old boy, it wouldn't be long before some well meaninged catholic tried to deface it or teat it down. Would the outrage be similar?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it'd be legal to show a 10 year old being fondled on a public advertisement.

For a proper comparison let's keep it like this ad was, just text.

But regardless, yea, I'd be equally pissed. Although I'll admit that I do have a tendency to have less patience for people who specifically choose to leave the Islamic world (which indicates they acknowledge it sucks, and FYI the reason it sucks is largely due to the ways of thinking that she's defending) and deliberately come to a place that is known for it's freedom of speech... and then fight against that basic freedom.
 
William Gaatjes said:
The lady with the camera on a pole got in front. The lady wiped off the paint with her coat when shielding the ad. She is rubbing against the ad. She got not spray painted on deliberately. The reporter is clearly stopping and looking for openings to spray paint on. The other woman blocked her with the pole from the camera as well. I would find that offensive.
I now also understand why some fear your police. The officer could not give a charge to make the arrest. I understand that perhaps covering any surface owned by the city in a public place with spray paint is forbidden. I would use that as an officer since she spray painted the wall as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0jSSLleGiY&feature=player_embedded#t=47s

Perhaps the reporter should have just used a plastic paper ad (such as a huge sticker with text ) to cover the ad she found offensive. This would have caused a lot less commotion and made the other woman look like a total idiot ripping of the sticker and shouting.

But there is one thing that i should make clear.
Free speech is not the same as damaging another persons property (The wall and ad casing) !
EDIT :
IMHO Free speech is also not the same as deliberately hurting other people with any form of expression know to hurt other people.
Free speech goes hand in hand with decency, sympathy, common sense and respect.
Click to expand...

There are always people that hate free speech, hate political speech and want to silence those they don't agree with, that's what the 1st Amendment is all about. Free political speech has nothing to do with decency, sympathy, common sense or any other loaded term you care to use, free speech can and will offend some people, deal with it.
You hate free speech because you want to control what other people are allowed to say.
 
Perknose said:
The quid pro quo for mods' identities being made public was that mods are protected from harassment or any mention of our dual mod status when posting on our personal accounts. ANY complaints about mods as moderators has but one appropriate and legal venue, Moderator Discussions. You are in violation of this.

Perknose
Forum Director
Click to expand...

Is this a joke of some sort? I never seen anyone allowed to act the way you have done on any forum.




No this is not a joke.



Moderators are allowed to post as regular members and have the same rights as regular members.

You may not refer to their moderator status in any way when they post as regular members.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Geosurface said:
I just watched this video and I've only read some replies from the first page, not the other 5...

but I will split this right down the middle:

Everyone in the video was an idiot.

Israel and Palestine are idiots.

The woman doing the spray painting... I suspect she got the end result she was hoping for. I suspect she wanted to be dragged off in handcuffs while filmed so she could make a big show of how the USA is a police state! Right... am I to believe she's never heard the term "vandalism" or isn't aware that it is illegal? And yes as others have said, she should absolutely have ceased all spraying once the lady stood there. Spraypaint does drift a lot on the air, and btw her spray paint was hilariously ineffective at covering the words.

Also if she's so fucking proud of Egypt and the middle east and Islamic culture etc etc etc, why is she living on the other side of the world in a country that has wildly divergent values and rules for women, etc? I will never understand this mentality of moving to the US from anywhere and then endlessly jacking off about the place you fled from.

As for the woman who covered the sign... it's pretty dumb to not just let this lady do what she's going to do, and wait for the cops. Now you have clothing ruined by spraypaint, you probably inhaled some fumes, and your expensive looking camera might've been harmed too. She's probably one of these nutty Jewish ladies who has way too much allegiance to her stupid religion/tribe/country whatever the fuck and expects endless amounts of American blood and treasure to be expended to keep the Jewish vanity country safe. Fuck both sides of that conflict, and may they all go to non-existant hell.

Now as for the cops, or subway guards or whatever they were... how fucking hard is it to say the word "vandalism" when she keeps asking what crime she's under arrest for? And/or "destruction of property" she got a lot of paint on the subway wall, and those posters are someone's property too. To just stand there glancing at the camera like a deer in headlights and never spitting out the obvious crime name(s) makes it look like she might have a point and maybe you are just arresting her for no reason. Of course anyone with two brain cells to rub together is going to realize that's not the case but seriously, just FORM THE WORD "VANDALISM" please.

As for some of the comments I saw on page 1... yes spray paint does tend to drift toxic fumes on the air, and paint on the air so that it would be very obvious that it would end up on that lady to some degree, and it should've been the most obvious thing in the world for her to STOP when that lady went there. However, others were right in pointing out that she was trying to avoid spraying the lady.

Oh and who the fuck cares whether a person giving an opinion on this is part of the power structure of these forums or not? Reminds me of little teenage boys on online games who, whenever a girl is present, can discuss nothing other than the fact that a girl is present, must there really be stalker-obsessed mod-paparazzi or people who are constantly salivating for some opportunity to get a mod in trouble or something? STFU.

Oh and as for the billboard itself, yes I agree support the civilized man. However when the civilized man runs into a bear cave and starts whacking a den full of sleeping bears with a stick, and then you hear his screams coming from the cave mouth as he yells for you to get in there and help him because you're both civilized men who were out on a camping expedition together... yes, you do like to support the civilized man, but must you support the civilized man who is a fucktard and puts himself in an incredibly dangerous situation, and when helping him will likely only fuck you over too?
Click to expand...

This ad was introduced after an anti-Israel ad had been posted. The NYTA refused to allow the pro-Israel ad up after the anti-Israel had had been posted. It went to court and won. The woman Mona didn't like the ruling and started the whole vigilante action of defacing and destroying the ad they didn't like.
Free political speech can't be denied to one side in an exchange, but allowed to the other. Since the NYTA allows political ads to be run they have to allow all of them, they can't pick and choose depending on which side they support.
 
HomerJS said:
I see so many people pere are so eager to criticize Ms. Eltahawy. If there were a poster with caption "Protect out children from pedophiles" and below it showed a picture of the pope fondling a 10 year old boy, it wouldn't be long before some well meaninged catholic tried to deface it or teat it down. Would the outrage be similar?
Click to expand...

What you seem to be saying is that if an ad is offensive to some and they're willing to break the law to remove it, then the ad should be banned?
 
monovillage said:
There are always people that hate free speech, hate political speech and want to silence those they don't agree with, that's what the 1st Amendment is all about. Free political speech has nothing to do with decency, sympathy, common sense or any other loaded term you care to use, free speech can and will offend some people, deal with it.
You hate free speech because you want to control what other people are allowed to say.
Click to expand...

You fail to acknowledge the spray paint did not make the sign unreadable.

Vandalism sure, attempt to stop free speech not found.
 
lotus you honestly don't think she hoped and expected that paint to cover the words fully and effectively?

the paint performed poorly, but I think her desire was to block it out completely. This didn't happen because of the paint's performance but more importantly because she was stopped. Given more time, even with that crappy paint, she would've covered it.
 
lotus503 said:
You fail to acknowledge the spray paint did not make the sign unreadable.

Vandalism sure, attempt to stop free speech not found.
Click to expand...

8 of the 10 ads were vandalized. This was the only criminal caught in the act. The fact that the NYTA allowed other political ads to be posted, but had to be forced to let this one be posted by the courts was an attempt to stifle free speech. Hypocrisy found.
 
I agree that they should've been allowed to post it, but just for the sake of argument... if they can't pick and choose which political ads to post and which not to, does that mean that if someone started a campaign to lower the age of consent to 6 and paid for posters in the subway they'd have to take their money and put them up?

Or a campaign to legalize murder?

Surely there must be limits.

Maybe they shouldn't allow political posters at all.
 
monovillage said:
8 of the 10 ads were vandalized. This was the only criminal caught in the act. The fact that the NYTA allowed other political ads to be posted, but had to be forced to let this one be posted by the courts was an attempt to stifle free speech. Hypocrisy found.
Click to expand...

No it's illegally protesting the message of the signs via vandalism. Spray painting them where they are still legible leaves the message intact.

Ripping them down would be stifling free speech.
 
The other woman should have gotten the police, and not put herself in front, and not put her hands on the woman spraying.

In this case, the woman assaulted Mona, and not the other way around.
 
thraashman said:
So you'd agree if a person who disliked guns dove out into a gun range running in front of the bullets and got shot that it would be the fault of the gun owners because they shot after the person was standing in the way and they they "repeatedly shot him with deadly bullets"? Or do you just want to go ahead and admit that you're wrong and have been intentionally misleading in this thread?
Click to expand...

One rule of the range is not firing if anyone is down range.


Spray paint and guns are not a fair comparison though.
 
monovillage said:
You are being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm just calling you out on your own intellectual dishonesty. Which was demonstrated from your OP until now.

I'm willing to call this what it is.
Illegal vandalism to protest the signs.

Desire to squash free speech not found.

I also notice your lack of proof Mona painted the signs and they were unreadable. You would prefer to infer it exists, just like your OP dishonestly infers she tried to assault her with paint on purpose.
 
lotus503 said:
Actually I'm just calling you out on your own intellectual dishonesty. Which was demonstrated from your OP until now.

I'm willing to call this what it is.
Illegal vandalism to protest the signs.

Desire to squash free speech not found.

I also notice your lack of proof Mona painted the signs and they were unreadable. You would prefer to infer it exists, just like your OP dishonestly infers she tried to assault her with paint on purpose.
Click to expand...

You are a liar. By painting the signs Mona changes the message they are intended to give. If I was allowed to paint a mustache, goatee and horns on political pictures of Obama they would completely change the meaning and intent of the sign even if they don't block the view of the sign.
Your intellectual dishonesty is obvious.
 
monovillage said:
You are a liar. By painting the signs Mona changes the message they are intended to give. If I was allowed to paint a mustache, goatee and horns on political pictures of Obama they would completely change the meaning and intent of the sign even if they don't block the view of the sign.
Your intellectual dishonesty is obvious.
Click to expand...

Lol and you will keep doubling down on dumb. Her spray painting the signs pink to allow the signs to be readable demonstrates her desire to leave them legible. Otherwise a nice black would have been used.

It was an illegal protest, that's the sum total. Your desire to infer she was electing to remove speech from the sign owners is false. She was intending to use the sign to illegally protest it's message not remove its message.

We already know you are an intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

Who will use dishonesty to force your viewpoint. That's proven
 
lotus what gave you the impression that, if she had not been stopped, she wouldn't have covered the sign completely with pink paint to the point of total illegibility?

Please explain how you got this impression.

Are you also aware that the color pink can cover things? It can.
 
Geosurface said:
lotus what gave you the impression that, if she had not been stopped, she wouldn't have covered the sign completely with pink paint to the point of total illegibility?

Please explain how you got this impression.

Are you also aware that the color pink can cover things? It can.
Click to expand...

She stated this specifically that's how.

She heard about the signs and planned on doing this specifically, the pink paint was chosen as to not cover the signs.

I spent some time reading her twitter where she outlines exactly her intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top