Do Anti-Palestinian Fliers Deserve The Outrage? (Updated)

The picture appearing in at least one of the posters being referred to are below, but first the story:

University of Maryland Palestinian students and supporters were confronted with malevolent opposition Tuesday in the form of posters bearing vivid anti-Palestine propaganda that students said made them feel threatened, though it did not stop Palestinian Solidarity Week from continuing Wednesday night.

University officials and University Police are conducting ongoing investigations into the incident, though they do not know who is responsible for making the posters. The event prompted a campuswide e-mail from university President Dan Mote yesterday in which he encouraged an "open dialogue" that promotes tolerance.

One such flier depicted a woman, wearing a traditional Muslim burqa and holding an AK-47 in one hand and a bomb-toting baby in the other. "What did she teach her child today?" was written above the picture.

This poster and others like it were found after Tuesday's "What would MLK Say About Gaza?" event, which was hosted by several student organizations.

"We were expecting some disagreement, but we never expected Islamophobic messages," said senior government and politics and Spanish major Sana Javed, who is also a member of the Muslim Students' Association. "We don't know where it's coming from, so we can't really point any fingers. It could get worse. I'm really appalled."

...Senior dietetics major Gisica Abdallah was at Tuesday's event - which was held in Jimenez Hall - when her friends brought the posters to her attention. She initially dismissed them as a one-time thing, but when she got to McKeldin Library, she noticed signs covering the outside and lobby of the building.

"They were everywhere," Abdallah said. "The hatred that was portrayed, that was the most hurtful thing."

...The fliers, which were in violation of the university's policy on free speech, are also being condemned by some Jewish student organizations as well as the university's Hillel chapter, who is sending out messages condemning the fliers.

"There's such a thing as free speech," Clement said. "But when you post things anonymously and make others feel threatened, that's not free speech."

The first thing that is striking about the story, besides the fact that the paper jumps and calls this malevolent is that the paper also misleads its readers:

One such flier depicted a woman, wearing a traditional Muslim burqa and holding an AK-47 in one hand and a bomb-toting baby in the other.

The fact is that this was not a depiction--it was an actual photo, taken by the Palestinian Arabs themselves. If the students have a problem with that, they may want to try talking to the people who actually take the photos, not the ones putting them into fliers. Obviously, the Palestinians themselves have no problem with these pictures and actually encourage them.

It is besides the point to compare these pictures with what passed for protest during Israel Apartheid Week, the issue is the pictures themselves. Fliers with pictures that are hand-drawn have a tendency to be more emotional and more hateful. If actual pictures are being used, such as the one of the mother and her child--what exactly is the point these students are trying to make?

Of course, the main point is whether there is an issue of Free Speech here at all. The police who were called in decided it was a straightforward issue of Free Speech--though the incident will be reported to the FBI as a hate incident because a group felt offended.

Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy is a lawyer and addressed the issue:

1. If the signs were in violation of a valid and content-neutral posting policy (e.g., that one can't post signs on building walls), they might indeed be properly punished, and removed.

2. Likewise, if there was a policy banning anonymous postings on university bulletin boards, it might be constitutional. The government may not ban anonymous speech generally, but it's possible — though not fully settled — that the university may indeed restrict anonymous posting on property that it voluntarily opens up for student access. This wouldn't make the posters illegal (unless they were seen as some sort of trespass, which I doubt), but perhaps it might justify the removal.

3. But if those aren't the rationales, and the university views the posters as unprotected — and is willing to countenance their removal by students — because of the message they express, then the university may do so only if the speech really falls within the narrow First Amendment exception for threats. Judging by the newspaper account, and by the police department's conclusion, there seems to be no evidence of that here. If any of you can point me to the actual posters involved, I'd love to analyze them (and link to them so readers can make the judgment for themselves).

Of course, there's the now customary quote about the "difference between free speech and hate speech":

"There is a difference between free speech and hate speech," said government and politics and Spanish language and literature major Sana Javed, who helped to organize Palestinian Solidarity Week. "They were an irrelevant commentary on Islam, but we were talking about politics."

No, there is no such difference under First Amendment law. Nor does First Amendment law draw a distinction between "commentary on Islam" (or Christianity or Judaism or atheism or whatever else) and "talking about politics," since much commentary on religion is commentary on politics.

I have not been able to find the actual fliers, and the picture below of the mother with a rifle holding her son holding a bomb is not an exact match, insofar as the text "What did she teach her child today?" is missing--but the picture is the same. If the other pictures are the same, there should be a real question as to how this is hateful: angry yes, sarcastic too--but not hateful. That picture is critical, nothing more--it does not advocate any action whatsoever and does not use any epithets of any kind. The question "What did she teach her child today?" is not abusive.

The onus should be on those complaining to explain exactly why this is hateful or hurtful.

Come to think of it--the onus should be shared by the University as well for investing as much time and attention to it as it has. Better to teach teach these kids that Free Speech covers simple sarcasm and cynicism.

Another point: Is the picture described in the article and appearing below--and the other pictures as well--really anti-Palestinian? These days, the most vicious attacks and provocative pictures--many proposing the elimination of the state of Israel--are described as merely anti-Israel. Do the fliers approach that level? From the article--and I assume that the most 'hateful' is the one described--that appears not to be the case.

Anyway, here are some pictures that someone emailed to me. Originally I thought they were pictures of the fliers themselves (at least the middle 7), but that is unlikely since the heading does not match the one in the article:
So: are these hateful?

If only the Anti-Israel material distributed at universities were this mild.

UPDATE: Soccer Dad pointed me to a comment to the University newspaper that has another important angle:

What is the problem? Those posters show nothing that you will not see coming from Hamas. Go to youtube and MEMRI and hear from the mouth of the beast, including their kiddie TV shows with Jew-killing rabbits.
Since when telling the truth is 'Islamophobic?'...

If Hamas can show off this kind of stuff on videos, why not make posters of it?

Would these students argue that YouTube should remove it?

Sorry I asked...

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Free Speech.