MPs Ban Car Stickers Criticising Terror and Islam

[Calanen]

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4899/bumpersticker2zm0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5581/bumpersticker1cu9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Photo: The car and decals the United States Military won't allow Jesse Nieto, a 25-year Marine veteran whose son Marc was killed by jihadists on the USS Cole in 2000, to drive into Arlington Cemetery.

Jihadwatch posted a particularly mind-blowing story (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023503.php) today that unfortunately fits in with my theme of the day (http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/578/Default.aspx) about mainstream society's mission to outlaw, repress and thoroughly stamp out strains of expression that come under the banner of traditionalism. Country; marriage; patriotism; conservative dissent; even McCain-Palin--you name it, it is now anathema in the Public Square.

This "progressive"-type neo-Puritanism extends also to the United States Military--a fact that is particularly mind-blowing. Seems Jesse Nieto, 25-year Marine veteran whose son Marc was among the 17 US sailors killed in a jihadist attack on the USS Cole in 2000, has a car with some decals the military wants removed. As Nieto's lawyers (http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19)at the Thomas More Law Center explain:

Since 2001, Nieto has displayed various decals on his vehicle expressing anti-terrorist sentiments, such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000,” “Islam=Terrorism,” and “We Died, They Rejoiced.”

Here's another picture:

On July 31, 2008, two military police officers (MPs) issued Nieto a ticket for displaying “offensive material.”

Remember, folks, this is the Marines talking.

In mid-August, after Nieto refused to remove all “offending” decals from his vehicle, the Base Magistrate issued Nieto a written order, ordering him to remove his vehicle from the base until all decals were removed and banning his vehicle from all other federal installations. The order in effect prevented Nieto from driving his vehicle to Arlington National Cemetery (a federal installation) to visit the grave of his fallen son....

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The banning of these decals is political correctness run amuck in the military. Our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists, 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, these terrorists want to destroy America, the Islamic countries persecute Christians, and now the military is victimizing a father whose son was killed by Islamic terrorists while serving our nation.”

Continued Thompson, “I suspect the next thing the Marine command will want to do is eliminate the Marine’s Hymn since the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne.”

You want to know what's "offensive"??? The PC, sensitivity-trained US military command. That's what's offensive.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/579/Default.aspx

[goat89]

I mourn for his son. But this is not the way to fight. Its despicable.
Quote from a Muslim man on radio 'Hitler was Christian. Are all Christians like Hitler then?'

[Mu-Meson]

Saying "They rejoiced" is painting all Muslims with a broad brush. That is not honest, and everyone knows it.
Free speech and all that, but this is over the line.

[LineDoggie]

His Son was Killed by Radical Muslims, I kind of understand his Attitude after that. Is it Generalizing? Yep, but then My Kid wasnt Killed.

[Hot Lips]

This would be one reason why he's not allowed on our military bases or federal installations with those decals...

http://www.religionnews.com/images/uploads/rnsarlingtonburials_267.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01tOfvF1dQ9FR/340x.jpg

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/krskhan-gravesite-photo-september-2007-001.jpg

[vinny_121_ND]

I agree with Hot Lips.

I'm sorry for this father's loss, but that crescent sign he has on is saying that he hates muslims. If I saw the Star of David in that fashion, I would be pretty angry. I'm not jewish either.

[NicNZ]

The word terror is not a synonym for terrorism. Any person who thinks it is is wrong and looks, to all the world, like a monkey.

[Calanen]

It raises interesting freedom of speech issues however. If the guy decided to challenge the decision in the Federal Courts what would they say about the First Amendment? I imagine also that if he had 'Say No to Israeli Apartheid - Free the Occupied Territories' on his van, that would be permitted. But should it be? Or if there was a swastika on the van, or KKK etc - should that be permitted?

I dont agree with saying Islam equals terror, ie all Muslims are terrorists or involved in it. I do believe that everyone has a right to freedom of speech, even unpopular speech.

[CG51]

This would be one reason why he's not allowed on our military bases or federal installations with those decals...

http://www.religionnews.com/images/uploads/rnsarlingtonburials_267.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01tOfvF1dQ9FR/340x.jpg

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/krskhan-gravesite-photo-september-2007-001.jpg

Thank you colin powell

[Hot Lips]

Thank you colin powell

Do you have a problem with these fallen soldiers?


It raises interesting freedom of speech issues however. If the guy decided to challenge the decision in the Federal Courts what would they say about the First Amendment? I imagine also that if he had 'Say No to Israeli Apartheid - Free the Occupied Territories' on his van, that would be permitted. But should it be? Or if there was a swastika on the van, or KKK etc - should that be permitted?

I dont agree with saying Islam equals terror, ie all Muslims are terrorists or involved in it. I do believe that everyone has a right to freedom of speech, even unpopular speech.

Fred Phelps and his family get away with it all the time. I have to wonder how he would feel about being perceived as a Fred Phelps like person for carrying hateful signage into a cemetary where Muslims have died for this country and where the soldiers families comes to mourn (like he does for his son) and might see his car.

[CG51]

Do you have a problem with these fallen soldiers?

Did I say that?

[Holycrusader]

I dont agree with saying Islam equals terror, ie all Muslims are terrorists or involved in it. I do believe that everyone has a right to freedom of speech, even unpopular speech.

Im suprised...

As to the freedom of speach. It should have its border. The freedom of speach end when security of other persons starts...

[vinny_121_ND]

Did I say that?

I think he misinterpreted your post. Here's a article about Khan and Powell's thoughts.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=144515&highlight=colin

[ronnieraygun]

Im suprised...

As to the freedom of speach. It should have its border. The freedom of speach end when security of other persons starts...


Well, you really missed out on the last 8 years stateside. :oops::-(:oops:

[Fiber]

The decals are moronic. As is the article. Heck, I wore a Bad Religion t-shirt when I was in high school. It is of course everyones right to display their moronic views and the driver and writer does so in spades.

On the other hand the military should be able to make their own deciscions on what people can and can not flaunt on their grounds.

[Calanen]

On the other hand the military should be able to make their own deciscions on what people can and can not flaunt on their grounds.

They can only restrict speech on military bases if it is content neutral. That is, they could say, no bumper stickers at all are permissible on base. Or they could say, any political speech made is not permissible. It becomes more problematic to ban one particular point of view.

[Connaught Ranger]

They can only restrict speech on military bases if it is content neutral. That is, they could say, no bumper stickers at all are permissible on base. Or they could say, any political speech made is not permissible. It becomes more problematic to ban one particular point of view.

You obviously have no idea what they can do in the military.

Despite this guys prior service in the military

& the loss of a son,

it does not give him a right to do as he likes on military property.

And the title of the thread is misleading as it suggests the Military Police banned

these symbols as shown on the van, when obviously they are only obeying

orders from higher up the chain of command.

Connaught Ranger

[Calanen]

You obviously have no idea what they can do in the military.


I actually do have a very good idea about how the United States constitution applies to the United States military. And I would suggest, that you do not.

Your experience of being in the Irish military, has no bearing on to what extent the First Amendment applies to US military institutions. And it is not as clear as the military can do whatever they like, the US Supreme Court has said as much.

What I said was that the law appeared to me to be, that you could ban any political statements, but not particular political statements, although the subtle nuances of that cannot be compressed into one forum post. Exploring all the different options would extend beyond the attention span of most people.

The leading case concerning military bases and political speech, Greer v Spock:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/greer.html



With respect to Reg. 210-26, there is no claim that the military authorities discriminated in any way among candidates for public office based upon the candidates' candidates' supposed political views. It is undisputed that, until the appearance of the respondent Spock at Fort Dix on November 4, 1972, as a result of a court order, no candidate of any political stripe had ever been permitted to campaign there.

What the record shows, therefore, is a considered Fort Dix policy, objectively and evenhandedly applied, of keeping official military activities there wholly free of entanglement with partisan political campaigns of any kind. Under such a policy members of the Armed Forces stationed at Fort Dix are wholly free as individuals to attend political rallies, out of uniform and off base. But the military as such is insulated from both the reality and the appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes or candidates.

[Fiber]

They can only restrict speech on military bases if it is content neutral. That is, they could say, no bumper stickers at all are permissible on base. Or they could say, any political speech made is not permissible. It becomes more problematic to ban one particular point of view.

That's what I would assume. Not Islam bashing is forbidden but Christianity bashing is cool.

[Lokos]

I guess there is a fine line between criticism and open denigration/mocking. In my eyes that car-sticker is on the same level as its KKK/Nazi analogues.

L.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

They can only restrict speech on military bases if it is content neutral. That is, they could say, no bumper stickers at all are permissible on base. Or they could say, any political speech made is not permissible. It becomes more problematic to ban one particular point of view.

Hey, the military banned oral *** back when I was in during the 80's. That's right, the '80's with no oral ***. Also, no back-door action. And, no co-habitatin' in the same room. Luckily, I was a bad airman, and broke the UCMJ on a regular basis. The military has all kinds of "unbalanced" policies - it's not like regular law. They can ban whatever congress thinks will help good order and discipline.

The last time I looked, we were all free to love or hate anybody or any group, based on any criteria we like to use...but bottom line here I think is that the military pretty much owns every aspect of your life - especially on base, and that's part of the deal you have to accept with military life.

[LineDoggie]

The US Military can and does restrict such things. You cannot wear t-shirts that say "Thousands of your future grandchildren died on your daughters face last night" T-shirts to the PX or any on base facilities. Nazi Emblems are banned, Klan emblems as well.

[ronnieraygun]

[quote=2Sheds_Jackson;3693091]Luckily, I was a bad airman, and broke the UCMJ on a regular basis.[quote]

I forgot about that whole "no sodomy" thing in the UCMJ. That definition includes whistling in the wheat field, if I recall correctly.

[seraosha]

The father of a murdered child was prevented from visiting his grave.
Because of a bumper sticker.



WTF is wrong with this picture?

[California Joe]

I think maybe the old guy could use a bit of grief counseling and maybe some extended therapy.

[Bruisercruiser]

I mourn for his son. But this is not the way to fight. Its despicable.
Quote from a Muslim man on radio 'Hitler was Christian. Are all Christians like Hitler then?'

I think this may be a bit of a stretch. I doubt he was a practising Christian.

[CMNot]

The father of a murdered child was prevented from visiting his grave.
Because of a bumper sticker.

WTF is wrong with this picture?

He had a dead simple choice.

[seraosha]

He had a dead simple choice.

Nice choice of words there, sport.

[CMNot]

For my part, the pun wasn't intended.

[Calanen]

Hey, the military banned oral *** back when I was in during the 80's. That's right, the '80's with no oral ***. Also, no back-door action. And, no co-habitatin' in the same room. Luckily, I was a bad airman, and broke the UCMJ on a regular basis. The military has all kinds of "unbalanced" policies - it's not like regular law. They can ban whatever congress thinks will help good order and discipline.

The last time I looked, we were all free to love or hate anybody or any group, based on any criteria we like to use...but bottom line here I think is that the military pretty much owns every aspect of your life - especially on base, and that's part of the deal you have to accept with military life.

I don't disagree with any of that. And I'm not saying the military can't issue orders or going down that road at all, Im only speaking about the way the First Amendment impacts with the military.

But even the military is only limited by the constitutional power granted to the US government. So they could not issue, presumably, a valid constitutional order that said 'There will be no McCain bumper stickers on this base. Only Obama stickers will be permissible.' But they could say, no political bumper stickers are permitted on this base.

In this extent, there has always been an exception for what is termed obscene, or hate speech. Now whether this amounts to hate speech or not, minds may differ. It's (at least for me) an interesting question.

[Calanen]

I think maybe the old guy could use a bit of grief counseling and maybe some extended therapy.

Can never recommend counselling and so on enough to people, getting back to good is far better than toughing things out.

Putting aside the interesting constitutional questions it might raise, I think it would be better to just take the bumper stickers down.

[goat89]

I think this may be a bit of a stretch. I doubt he was a practising Christian.
He was... until he wanted to replace the Bible with Mein Kampf. :(

[LineDoggie]

I mourn for his son. But this is not the way to fight. Its despicable.
Quote from a Muslim man on radio 'Hitler was Christian. Are all Christians like Hitler then?'

Hitler was a Vegetarian as well, should we think all Vegetarians are Mass Killers?


The Mans SON was Killed, by Terrorists who espouse that they are the true followers of Islam. In all their attacks, they use religious reasons as excuses for those attacks, many of those attacks are shown in Mosques in Iraq. you cant watch a Muj vid without hearing 2 things:

1-Crappy Music
2- Allah Akbar, over and over, and over


I may be wrong , but I dont recall reading the Reich using the Cross, or Christian Outrage as an excuse for its actions. "Die Frontschau" wasnt big with Jesus images or repeated "Hail Mary full of grace" in its narrations.


Frankly, it's not so much of a stretch for a Bereaved father to believe it's all of them, rightly or wrongly.

I think the father earned the right with the blood of his child

I also think the Military has a Obligation to preserve good order and discipline, and the right to proscribe such images.

He can visit his Sons Grave in another vehicle without such images. He hasnt been Banned , only the Vehicle whille it has those images

[CG51]

The father of a murdered child was prevented from visiting his grave.
Because of a bumper sticker.



WTF is wrong with this picture?

Sad if you stop and think about it.

[Laworkerbee]

This would be one reason why he's not allowed on our military bases or federal installations with those decals...

Great post Hot Lips.

[CG51]

Great post Hot Lips.

They were American soldiers. Just like the 4000+ that have bravely fought and died fighting the enemies of this country. Don't understand why people want to seperate them into a special group. Cheapens their sacrifice IMHO.

[Laworkerbee]

They were American soldiers. Just like the 4000+ that have bravely fought and died fighting the enemies of this country. Don't understand why people want to seperate them into a special group. Cheapens their sacrifice IMHO.

In my opinion her images were a powerful counter to any argument for allowing those bumper stickers anywhere near a military cemetery.

I don't see anything separate or being cheapened.

[Bombtrack]

Cal, you're grasping at straws again. "We died - they rejoiced"? First of all, who the **** is "we," and second "They" with a symbol signifying all of Islam crossed out isn't extreme?
Yeah, Goosestepping and nazi flags is just freedom of speech too. I'm surprised balkans threads get shut down in no time but your threads get a free pass.

[LineDoggie]

The "We" is Marc Nieto of the USS COLE, over 4,000 G.I.'s and over 3,000 Civilians since the WTC attack.The "They" is the question

[Bombtrack]

edit - nevermind

[2Sheds_Jackson]

So they could not issue, presumably, a valid constitutional order that said 'There will be no McCain bumper stickers on this base. Only Obama stickers will be permissible.' But they could say, no political bumper stickers are permitted on this base.

Ok, I see what you mean there. I really don't know what kind of rule book they go by...or if there even is one. There's probably some congressional committee that meets every 20 years to review such things.

[Calanen]

Cal, you're grasping at straws again. "We died - they rejoiced"? First of all, who the **** is "we," and second "They" with a symbol signifying all of Islam crossed out isn't extreme?
Yeah, Goosestepping and nazi flags is just freedom of speech too. I'm surprised balkans threads get shut down in no time but your threads get a free pass.

I'm not saying I agreed with what he was saying, nor do I say that he shouldn't be criticised. What I am only speaking about, is whether constitutionally, he should be permitted to say it. It's not so easy one way or the other as a matter of constitutional law.

[MichaelF]

They can only restrict speech on military bases if it is content neutral. That is, they could say, no bumper stickers at all are permissible on base. Or they could say, any political speech made is not permissible. It becomes more problematic to ban one particular point of view.

That is incorrect. The Garrison Commander, or more likely, the Provost Marshal, can ban just about anything he pleases (within reason, and not including items specificaly authorized* in ARs) from his Post. "Big Johnson" shirts being one particularly notable example.

The Garrison CO on Schofield Barracks banned vehicles with surfboards or kayaks strapped to the roof, as "incitement to theft".

The indicated bumper stickers/decals would likely fall under "objectionable material", in that they (arguably) demonize discrete groups and mock/defame a holy symbol (crescent moon). I'm guess that the crescent with the strike through it was the real offender.
Since it is arguable, short of a court case deciding, the Post CO gets the final say.

In the meantime, he can go to Arlington in another vehicle, or park offpost and walk. Next controversey....


*-such as religious medallions.

[Calanen]

That is incorrect. The Garrison Commander, or more likely, the Provost Marshal, can ban just about anything he pleases (within reason, and not including items specificaly authorized in ARs) from his Post. "Big Johnson" shirts being one particularly notable example.



I have to disagree with you there. An order that all McCain bumper stickers were banned, but all Obama stickers were approved would fall foul of the test to be applied for constitutional validity, have a look at my post above where I extracted the leading case.

I should also say that, you cannot say I wish to invade the parade ground and have my protest etc. Let's not be ridiculous. But in terms of what soldiers themselves can do themselves or other people who are authorised to be on US bases. For example, could the Provost Marshal issue an order saying that 'All contractors attending US bases will have bumper stickers that support our President to be, Obama. Any other bumper stickers will be prohibited.'

He could say, No bumper stickers. Well he can say anything, the question is whether the US Supreme Court would uphold it is constitutionally valid having regard to First Amendments. While military personnel lose a lot of rights in the military, they dont lose *all* of them. Another impermissible regulation would be to say, any military personnel found with a McCain pamphlet will be court martialled, but Obama campaign material is permissible. They could say, that no political material was permissible.

[MichaelF]

I have to disagree with you there. An order that all McCain bumper stickers were banned, but all Obama stickers were approved would fall foul of the test to be applied for constitutional validity, have a look at my post above where I extracted the leading case.

I never addressed the "on the one hand, but not on the other". If someone drove onto the Post with a bumper sticker saying "convert or die, Infidels" or "Death to the Jews", or a Magen David with a strike through it, he'd probably get the same treatment.

"Offensive Bumper Stickers" are banned. Not "McCain Bumper Stickers". With the Provost Marshal determining what is offensive.

And while, yes, it is possible for someone to make a legal case that "my anti-muslim sticker is not offensive", taking it* to the courts is not a career-enhancing move. Which limits its practicability (and secures the Provost Marshal's authority) for the vast majority of personnel. The squeaky wheel sometimes gets the grease, and sometimes gets a bad OER.

*-If you're going to lawyer up, make sure it's for some reason that the majority of people care about. Minor issues, like this, are the hallmarks of barracks lawyers, and bring negative attention to same from all Raters. If you cannot stand the thought of being told not to do some random thing that you might technically be legally entitled to do....the military is not for you.

[Midav]

I agree he shouldn't have the sticker on federal territory.

With that said, no stickers, whatsoever, should be allowed then. Any sticker could be offensive to anyone. Let's be realistic, folks. It's a PC world.

In God we trust could be offensive to Satanists...

Nature is awesome could be offensive to us carnivores...

I heart NY could be offensive to Bostonians... ;)

[seraosha]

I never addressed the "on the one hand, but not on the other". If someone drove onto the Post with a bumper sticker saying "convert or die, Infidels" or "Death to the Jews", or a Magen David with a strike through it, he'd probably get the same treatment.

"Offensive Bumper Stickers" are banned. Not "McCain Bumper Stickers". With the Provost Marshal determining what is offensive.

And while, yes, it is possible for someone to make a legal case that "my anti-muslim sticker is not offensive", taking it* to the courts is not a career-enhancing move. Which limits its practicability (and secures the Provost Marshal's authority) for the vast majority of personnel. The squeaky wheel sometimes gets the grease, and sometimes gets a bad OER.

*-If you're going to lawyer up, make sure it's for some reason that the majority of people care about. Minor issues, like this, are the hallmarks of barracks lawyers, and bring negative attention to same from all Raters. If you cannot stand the thought of being told not to do some random thing that you might technically be legally entitled to do....the military is not for you.

Which has ****all to do with a father of a murdered child being prevented from visiting his kids grave because of a ****ing bumper sticker.
The Dad is a decorated Vet, the dead son was killed in the line of duty by jihadi douchebags that most certainly died for their alaah, and while I agree that the bumper sticker is offensive, that means it's working as intended.

all that aside, what asshat E6 dropped the ball by not offering to give the man a lift to go visit the grave? WTF is wrong with people.

[Laworkerbee]

all that aside, what asshat E6 dropped the ball by not offering to give the man a lift to go visit the grave? WTF is wrong with people.

Now that is a very reasonable compromise.

[Calanen]

"Offensive Bumper Stickers" are banned. Not "McCain Bumper Stickers". With the Provost Marshal determining what is offensive.


Well the Provost Marshal is certainly entitled to his view, whether or not it is constitutional is another question.

To get to the stage where speech is hate speech or obscene speech - you have to pretty darn bad, look at the pass the Westboro Baptists get.

I'm not arguing one way or another as to what should be permissible, only considering what probably is.

You are right though as a soldier, you would be stupid to bring a Federal Court injunction against the Provost Marshall because he took your McCain bumper sticker and let people have Obama ones.

[deagle]

i think its a tough issue, as we have to be culturally sensitive, while they do not. they are experts at spinning it into propaganda, so it would be best not to provide them with the timber. better to think it, but not say it (loud at least) i guess.

[MichaelF]

Which has ****all to do with a father of a murdered child being prevented from visiting his kids grave because of a ****ing bumper sticker.

Hmmmm....visit your son's grave.....or keep your bumpersticker....

Decisions, decisions.


The person having a deceased servicemember in the family, or being a decorated Vet, is unrelated to the subject (his vehicle being decorated with decals declared unwelcome by the Garrison). He caused the problem. The onus is not on the Garrison to give him an exception due to who he is. The onus is on him to adhere to policy.

I'm a decorated combat veteran, an Officer, wealthy and good looking. There's all kinds of rules I'd like to be exempt from. Sadly, the Army doesn't see it that way.

[Hot Lips]

They can only restrict speech on military bases if it is content neutral. That is, they could say, no bumper stickers at all are permissible on base. Or they could say, any political speech made is not permissible. It becomes more problematic to ban one particular point of view.

Why does it have to be political in nature... couldn't they simply ban negative/hateful content on t-shirts, car decals, etc. Anything that conveys a message of discrimination based on gender, age, ****** orientation, etc....


The father of a murdered child was prevented from visiting his grave.
Because of a bumper sticker.

WTF is wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with the picture is this man chose keeping a decal over visiting his son.


all that aside, what asshat E6 dropped the ball by not offering to give the man a lift to go visit the grave? WTF is wrong with people.

Installation gatekeepers are not there to act as chauffers on the tax payers dime for able bodied persons who would chose to cling to hate and discrimination against the faith of other fallen American Soliders and their families rather than visit the grave of his son.

They gave him a choice. He could have removed the decals (even if only while on the base) or returned in another vehicle.

He alone decided what was more important to him.

[sunsettowner]

i read the post expecting to read that MPs stopped cars (on highway or other public places) and ordered the drivers to remove such stickers. But after seeing the stickers and knowing the circumstance of the incident, i can only say that it was a very good act, showing the profesionalism of US Armed Forces.
but IMHO,
Had the gentleman removed the star and crescent symbol, the word "they" would've need no explanation and driving into a military facility wouldn't be a problem

[Bia]

My view... wear/paste your views on your own property and in public all you want.
Go onto someone elses land (including federal land) and you must abide by their rules.

Not very difficult.

[Midav]

Which has ****all to do with a father of a murdered child being prevented from visiting his kids grave because of a ****ing bumper sticker.
The Dad is a decorated Vet, the dead son was killed in the line of duty by jihadi douchebags that most certainly died for their alaah, and while I agree that the bumper sticker is offensive, that means it's working as intended.

all that aside, what asshat E6 dropped the ball by not offering to give the man a lift to go visit the grave? WTF is wrong with people.

Good post! If gvmt. can give rides for 4 stars, I think my tax money can give this guy a ride to and from his sons grave from the gate ;)

With that said, I honestly believe the double standards should stop. All decals/stickers should be banned from federal areas in this case. ANY sticker could be offensive to anyone. Especially in todays society.

[Hot Lips]

Unless they are permitting message of hate to be actively displayed against non-muslims, there is no double standard. An objection was raised, they acted on it. I don't think many of our American troops or their families are cruising through military installations with discriminatory messages on their clothing and vehicles. Maybe you think otherwise about our troops in general? I'm pretty sure policy isn't "hate against muslims isn't permitted, but you're free to hate jews, catholics, etc...".

This American was presented with fair a choice. A choice that both allowed him is individual freedom and them to protect the interest of all their personnel and visitors to their private installations. To honor his son and his fellow fallen soliders (some of whom are also Muslim), or cling to his hateful decals outside their property.

[Calanen]

Why does it have to be political in nature... couldn't they simply ban negative/hateful content on t-shirts, car decals, etc. Anything that conveys a message of discrimination based on gender, age, ****** orientation, etc....


Negative/hateful content? Pretty broad sweeping term there. Free speech, means, free, even unpopular speech.

As I indicated in my post above, I bet you any money that a bumper sticker with a star of david and a line through it that said END ISRAELI APARTHEID - FREE THE WEST BANK would have not raised an eyebrow.

[Hot Lips]

Negative/hateful content? Pretty broad sweeping term there. Free speech, means, free, even unpopular speech.

As I indicated in my post above, I bet you any money that a bumper sticker with a star of david and a line through it that said END ISRAELI APARTHEID - FREE THE WEST BANK would have not raised an eyebrow.

Discrimination - narrows it down a bit doesn't it? Gender, religion, ****** orientation, national origin, age...

[Calanen]

Discrimination - narrows it down a bit doesn't it? Gender, religion, ****** orientation, national origin, age...

Or how about, 'boycott French products!' as a bumper sticker. I think even the US government was in on that one. Or what about making fun of the President of Iran? Would these be Ok? Wouldnt they be insensitive to those in the military of Iranian descent and French descent?

Discrimination, is usually the less favourable treatment of a person, not a statement directed at large - I think what you mean is 'hate speech' which as I say, is hard hurdle to get over.

[Hot Lips]

Discrimination, is usually the less favourable treatment of a person, not a statement directed at large - I think what you mean is 'hate speech' which as I say, is hard hurdle to get over.

What about discrimination directed employees which the civilians and soldiers working and resting there are?

I don't think they'd allow a swastika laden car through and I don't see them allowing a cross with a redline through it, a star of David with a line through it, etc on the premise either. Therefore I don't see a double standard as a policy, but rather action taken in the interests of all on the premise and keeping peace within their facility based on complaints received.

[LaoSexMachine]

The sticker is a little overboard. Blaming a whole religion aint gonna get you no where. Military base. Their rules.

[Laconian]

There are signs up before you reach any military installation that clearly indicate there are different rules on post. Although, the man may be free to have those stickers on his car out and about his town, state, whatever, the military in general and the post PM or commander in specific can make local policy that may fly in the face of a visiting civilian. It is not an entirely free environment.

I hope his son rests in peace, and the father finds some as well.

[Midav]

I am agreeing with you, HL. The sticker shouldn't be allowed on federal territory. With that said, there are double standards. I've seen with my own eyes bumper stickers with things written on them such as "I'd fly 10,000 miles to smoke a camel jockey" when I was on post at Cambrai in Germany.

I've seen abortion stickers.. both pro and con.

Nothing was said. Those are offensive to people from either viewpoint. I've seen people get offended over Obama posters for pete sake lol

I understand policies are made by the base/post commander. There should be one rule. No stickers. Everyone and anyone is going to get offended by something.

I personally think this went too far though:

In August, Lt. Col. James Hessen, the base's traffic court officer, ordered Nieto to peel off the anti-Islam decals, the lawsuit said. Nieto did so while a Marine observed. Two weeks later, Hessen ordered Nieto to remove the rest of his decals, including one that said "REMEMBER THE COLE, 12 Oct. 2000," the lawsuit said. Nieto refused.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/state/marine-base-bars-civilian-vehicle-over-decals-239891.html

This man lost his son in the attack and can understand why he would want to have the above on his vehicle. I don't support him having the anti-muslim sticker on his car on federal territory. However, the above went over the limit. I sincerely hope he wins in court :)

[Laconian]

Agreed I have no problem with "Remember the Cole," "9/11 - Never Forget," type stuff. It is the singling out of the religion that can be ruled offensive, IMO.

[Midav]

I agree. To single out a religion, race, people etc is wrong. Off base it's his views that may get his vehicle damaged or Nieto hurt himself as he is free to have them on his vehicle.

[Fargin]

I rate the value of this story just about as high as those fabricated chain emails. The condescending way the author completely vulgarize the story, indicates that freedom of experssion is well, but not a guarantee for quality or intellect.

[Hot Lips]

It is the singling out of the religion that can be ruled offensive, IMO.

Apparently this started with a variety of complaints to EOE office on the base where he works, which is why I brought up discrimination earlier.

I gather he's been doing this for seven years, but it only became an issue this past year when complaints started to be filed at the EOE office.

Other decals included:

Islam = Terrorism
U.S. flag and a stop symbol superimposed on the Koran with the words "Disgrace my countries (sic) flag and I will (defecate) on your Quran"
a cartoon of a young boy urinating on a picture of a Muslim
Since he wouldn't remove the other decals, they took away his Department of Defense decal, but did not bar him from entering the base by other means to get to his job.

----------------

Part of his defense in the lawsuit includes having seen on the base decals with a Confederate flag and the words, "If this offends you . . . you need a history lesson" and "Why experiment on animals when there are so many Democrats?"

[Laconian]

Although I find all of those in poor taste (but I did get a chuckle out of the Democrat one) I guess he has a right to put whatever he wants on his car as long as it conforms with Post policy. I can easily see folks getting upset with the Confederate flag one.

Again, you do not have a Constitutional right not to be offended, but military bases are restrictive environments. He may have an argument if those other stickers were allowed to remain.

[Laconian]

Although I find all of those in poor taste (but I did get a chuckle out of the Democrat one) I guess he has a right to put whatever he wants on his car as long as it conforms with Post policy. I can easily see folks getting upset with the Confederate flag one.

Again, you do not have a Constitutional right not to be offended, but military bases are restrictive environments. He may have an argument if those other stickers were allowed to remain.

[California Joe]

Bottom line is, the old man needs therapy badly.

He's playing the "grief card" as an excuse for blind hatred. Losing a kid has got to be the hardest thing to deal with I can think of, but it's not an excuse to turn your vehicle into a rolling hate fest.

I don't remember seeing his proponents extending the same care and concern to crazy Cindy Sheehan when she was acting out over the death of her son.

[Midav]

I don't agree with either side, but I see one problem with your post, CJ :)

Cindy Sheehan has the press backing her... they love her. Something that's sorta dangerous especially with the state of mind she's in. IMO she was/is being played by politicians.

This is still news, but you'll hardly ever hear as much about Jesse Nieto.

Cindy Sheehan:
Videos (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cindy+sheehan&search_type=&aq=0)
News (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enUS255US255&q=cindy%20sheehan&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn)

Jesse Nieto:
Videos (http://www.youtube.com/results?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enUS255US255&q=Jesse%20Nieto&um=1&sa=N&tab=w1)
News (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4GGIC_enUS255US255&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&hl=en&q=Jesse+Nieto)

[California Joe]

Oh for f*ckssakes, it's not about her or the media you dozy bastard.

It's about a guy that is filled with a massive amount of hate over the death of his kid and for 7 years he's attempted to make everyone around him just as miserable. And when he was told to cut it out, he turned the hate towards them too. The guy needs a fight to take his mind off his loss.