There have been many videos of people tearing down posters of people kidnapped by Hamas, from Palestinians to Jewish students to an NYU SBA president to a dentist to a Broadway producer.
This is Anna Epstein. Anna is a student at Boston University and is seen here ripping down posters of kidnapped and missing Israelis. While fellow Jews are being beheaded, raped, and kidnapped by Hamas, Anna believes this is merely propaganda.
Like us, you’re probably wondering… pic.twitter.com/sohITW7d9F
— CAMERA on Campus (@CAMERAonCampus) October 23, 2023
Some have argued that the posters were illegally posted or that they sully the neighborhood, but this excuse is nonsensical when there are a wide swathe of posters and the only ones being torn down are the “kidnapped” posters. The alternative argument is that while the placing of posters is free speech, so too is their tearing down, speech of those who oppose the posters.
In some respects, this is akin to the argument that shouting down a speaker so that he can’t be heard or can’t continue with his speech is merely the free speech of the protesters, and it’s not their fault that their free speech is more effective at disrupting an invited speaker than the speaker’s speech. In many universities, this silencing of speech is addressed by rules prohibiting the disruption of speech, which is largely honored in the breach. Still, it “resolves” the potential free speech conflict by choosing to make the invited speaker primary and prohibit the disruptive speakers.
But the analogy falls short by the fact that this isn’t pure speech, but conduct with a putative expressive component. The people removing posters aren’t standing in front of them expressing their views, but physically tearing down and destroying a physical item the only purpose of which is to express an idea. And some have made this point quite explicit.
In contrast, some have argued that while it might be offensive, the act of ripping down “kidnapped” posters is every bit as much free speech as the act of putting them up.
Miles Grant, 24, takes down posters in New York “occasionally,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s the lack of context that gets me,” said Mr. Grant, who said he is Jewish and a self-described “pro-Palestinian who is not a Zionist.”
“It’s so obvious that they don’t care about people’s lives,” he said of those putting up the “kidnapped” posters. If they did, he said, the posters would include details explaining the history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. “Why did this happen and what are the events that led to this happening? That is what’s missing, and I think it’s intentional.”
He said he had felt concerned at times that he would end up in a viral video, but he has not let that deter him. “I think they’re putting them up to bait people to take them down” he said. “I think it’s disgusting how they’re trying to destroy people’s lives.”
Bear in mind that free speech does not distinguish between rational ideas and the deep thoughts of 24-year-old boys.
A woman in Brooklyn, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she said her family would be upset by the publicity, said she had torn down “kidnapped” posters after a friend in a group chat for activists encouraged her. The posters, she said the friend told her, amounted to anti-Islamic war propaganda.
“So I said, ‘Cool beans, let’s take them down.’”
Regardless of whether you find one side more compelling than the other, is the act of tearing down (or defacing, as has also happened) as much free speech as the posting, or is it an act of vandalism even though it may have an expressive component? Is “speech” that precludes other “speech” different, and less worthy of protection? Does it matter that there are alternatives to express disapproval with the “kidnapped” posters that doesn’t involve tearing them down, such that both sides have the opportunity to express their views without precluding the other?
*Tuesday talk rules apply within reason.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d say tearing down posters is probably free speech. But free speech does not mean free from consequence as some college radicals are finding out. But one should have the courage of one’s convictions. If you’re willing to commit the act, in this case tearing down posters of Israelis kidnapped and held hostage, you have to be willing to accept the consequences, such as losing that nice Wall Street job or even getting your butt beat by angry construction workers.
Since you didn’t offer any reason why you would “say” so, I assume it’s because it might be vandalism, but it’s still expressive conduct. But then, isn’t burning a poster expressive conduct? And so too is punching someone you feel is evil expressive conduct? What about shooting that person?
A lot of conduct is expressive, but it’s still conduct. It may vary in degree, but illegal conduct is illegal.
The line for me usually involves whether or not the property being destroyed is owned by the one doing the destroying. If not, I lean towards not free speech.
Were these people the ones that placed the posters up only to subsequently tear them down in demonstration, I would argue it’s free speech. That doesn’t seem to be the case in any of these instances though.
Or perhaps I (like others) am conflating free speech with protected speech in some of these cases. I have a hard time thinking of cases in which restriction of another’s property would be protected speech.
All illegal activity can be said to be expressive in the sense this is expressive. For example, writing “kill Jews” or beating a protester with a flag both are expressions of a viewpoint.
A pro-Palestinian anti Israel rally is free speech, even if it is abhorrent in context. Tearing down pictures of kidnapped, raped, or tortured is anti speech. It’s a line that’s legally and morally defensible.
My sense is this act is not protected speech. It is antisemitism in raw form.
Not answering your question and thus lowering the signal to noise ratio, but it is Tuesday:
>“I think it’s disgusting how they’re trying to destroy people’s lives.”
This take is utterly vile and indicative of the mindset many so-called “pro-Palestinian protestors” have. They’ve chosen a side and nothing is going to convince them they’re not on “the right side of history” for supporting literal baby killing terrorists.
The placement of those posters violated Boston University’s promotions & publicity policy. And that is pretty clearly written and a person can be fined.
Boston University policies don’t apply to NYC. In terms of BU, is it the job of an individual student to police those policies?
so if that was her reason, that was not what she said at all.
I was thinking about this while walking my dog this AM.
If putting up a poster is free speech, then putting another poster over it, or spray painting “Bullshit!” or “Hateful!” on it, would also seem to be free speech.
Still, somehow, actually tearing it down strikes me as vandalism.
I’m not able to explain exactly why this seems a valid distinction. My dog had no answer, either.
I’m with your dog on this.
Edit. I watched the entire video and it does not support my theory.
Edit: Maybe do that before commenting?
Tearing down posters is suppression of free speech as is “deplatforming”, and hitting people with bike locks for wearing red hats. Only in the New Speak of the Ministry of Truth is censorship promoting free speech.
The Boston University’s “Publications Policy” includes the statement:
“Posting signs, posters, and fliers is permitted only on authorized bulletin boards. Materials may not be placed on walls, doors, windows, or trees, and may not be attached with permanent adhesives.”
Source: https://www.bu.edu/dos/policies/lifebook/publications-policy
In the BU video, the posters do not appear to be on an authorized bulletin board and I don’t see anything else posted to the wall that students are allowing to stay. Given that, I’d say that removing the posters from the wall is not a free-speech violation.
I’ll pose the same question to you. After reading those policies, where does is give random students the authority to police the signs? If posting the signs isn’t free speech because of a policy, how is removing the signs suddenly free speech without authority?
I didn’t say that removing the signs was a form of speech/expression.
It is true that the policy doesn’t explicitly say that students have the right to remove signs from unauthorized areas, but given that students have no right to post the signs in that area in the first place, I don’t have an issue with other students simply taking them down.
The video doesn’t show any other signs on the wall, so either other students aren’t posting signs to that wall, or if they did those signs were already removed.
“is the act of tearing down (or defacing, as has also happened) as much free speech as the posting”
If “as much” implies a continuum vs. a simple binary, the tearing down is far less. The only “content” it entails is the momentary performance. It leaves nothing, like writing in invisible ink, and if done discreetly the only notable result is the reduction of someone else’s speech.
The posting of a flyer includes both the performance of posting it and the enduring content of the message. The momentary conduct is so secondary to the speech that few would even note the public behavior itself as the purpose or insist that the speech would be invalidated by anonymity. If done discreetly, the result is still the persisting message. Almost nobody reacting to the above videos knows who posted the flyers, they only know the message of the flyers.
In this sense destroying the flyer – or concealing it – is just conduct with no speech beyond the public behavior. Vandalizing the flyer by adding to the original message is more of a parallel. Even covering it with another message has more speech content. If this conceals the original it becomes the heckler’s veto, which is contrary to free speech and open debate, but public flyers can be very low stakes and more appropriate for this, like shouting out song requests in a crowd. Just destroying it outright is to free speech what book burning is to free speech.
On the other hand, burning a flag is considered speech. The ceremony of destruction does count for something in terms of an act of protest, and should only be banned for separate property or safety reasons. A posted flyer may itself be as much a violation of property or safety. If you want to be an enforcer based on content, you have to do what the above folks do and resort to cancel culture. Or play the “hate crime” game.
Also, Miles Grant sounds like a protagonist from a too-on-the-nose satirical novel titled Poster Boy.
Who owns the wall (or lamppost, or whatever)? Do they have an established policy?
Otherwise, I think this is one of those questions that are hard to answer because the stakes are so low.
I see a lot of people referencing policy on whether the posters should be removed or not (in specific cases) and that is a fair point. However, it defies credulity to assume that most (or even some) of the people removing the posters are doing so because they are enforcing the prevailing policy on posted materials. The public removal of these particular posters seems to be a nationwide phenomena and more related to political beliefs rather than a group of upstanding citizens just trying to make sure public posting policy is being upheld.
Isn’t it already a crime to take down some else’s posters (vandalism, destruction of property?) in most jurisdictions?
Personally, I think that if this was a public forum then taking them down would be as much free speech as putting them up. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t punch the person I found tearing them down.
If I go around putting up posters in public places that say “Line up for your government injection!” and people tear them down, is that free speech, or is it vandalism? That’s not an honest question, because it is neither. When I leave a poster in a public place, I am in effect abandoning it and it becomes public property, and anyone can take it down. What it says is irrelevant (unless it is an election-related sign placed by a campaign, in which case it is subject to laws governing those types of signs during an election).
An honest question would be “In a propaganda war, is it acceptable to tear down the other side’s propaganda?”
God help me, because I agree with you for once.
Please excuse me while I go rethink my life.
This reminds me of Chinese students studying in the US or Australia, tearing down posters regarding the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests massacre. Nobody seems to care. “Cool beans.”
Is it vandalism? Not sure. What I do know is it’s brutish and crude and smacks of brawn over brain.
I also think it’s a safe bet that a significant number of those tearing down posters have very little knowledge of the history of Israel and the Palestinians. They could educate themselves but why bother when you can spend the time tearing down posters and sloganeering
Would you be generally willing to allow the state to use force to stop a person from tearing down flyers? If not, then it’s not vandalism. Would you always preclude the state from using force to stop someone from tearing down flyers? If not, then it’s not free speech, either.
To me, this is just crass, childish behaviour. I’m not generally willing to throw someone in jail over it, but I can see some scenarios where you might want to prevent such behaviour (think: campaign workers tearing down a rival candidate’s flyers, or a college setting minimum time limits for flyers on public bulletin boards). Public opprobrium seems to be the best response in general.
The most interesting aspect of these comments is the depths to which some will go to make excuses for those tearing down the posters. They don’t care how stupid or pathetic their excuses, as long as they back their team.
I’ve been on the road for a couple days, doing a couple thousand miles in the Skinkmobile with imbeciles, so forgive me for damaged brain cells. But an individual puts up a poster and an individual tears it down. Am I missing something?
Yes.