Someone brought the picture below to my attention. It was taken during one of the protests against the Arizona immigration bill. See below:
The sign (or signs if you will) carry two messages. On the first sign, the protester lists a series of goods and services he wants for free – a “package” that currently no one receives. Even those under the poverty line have to find their own jobs and pay some money to live within a house or apartment.
The second sign, on the other hand, can be taken as a threat. “Unless our demands are met…” is the oft-used phrase in many television and movie dramas by criminals when negotiating with the police, especially when the criminals are holding hostages. In this case, the “threat” is that the mysterious “we” will keep shooting at the police until their demands are met.
How do you view this picture? Do you think the sign is a threat? If so, what should be done to the person carrying the sign?
Loading ...
Wow, that photo can be a photoshopped forgery. Be careful.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2010/05/08/prot…
I think this is more likely a forgery than a parody, satire or, *gasp* reality.
I think the person carrying the sign should be apologized to.
Awww, I was hoping that angle wouldn't be brought up until later.
Yes, there is a possibility that the picture itself is photoshopped, and that opens up a whole new angle to the question over the debate. Does artificially placing a “threat” on a protest sign fall under the protections of the First amendment, and if it doesn't, how should it be handled?
Anonymity leads to irresponsible behavior. If folks could yell, “Fire” in a crowded theater anonymously as effectively as in person, there would be a LOT more trampling deaths, etc. If the photoshopping has attribution, then the source could be questioned further.
Let's assume that the sign was actually carried with the phrases that are on it, it has to be satire or irony as it reads like a right-wing chart of things that illegal immigrants are accused of taking from the United States without appropriate compensation.
The second part is quite incendiary and may be read as a direct threat. It would be one thing if the Border Patrol and border police were complicit and on the payroll of the smugglers. Then it would be simply internecine — as much of the Mexican violence itself has become. But I do not believe that is the case, in general. The police officers and border patrol officers are doing an important job and are quite likely under resourced for the entirety of their task.
I can't belive someone would write and carry this sign to an event like this. there are other things that some immigrants do that irritate and disappoint me, but this isn't the right flavor…
Hehe look at this… other people can photoshop, too…
http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu57/JennyPL…
-Jim
HAHAHA … that's great.
Great points, Jim. You are right about how “stereotypical” the sign reads. A laundry list of demands isn't unusual in protests, but to demand something that no one current receives is suspect.
Also, the example of yelling “fire” is a good point. While people have the freedom of speech, speech that results in panic can lead to criminal punishment. I would definitely place the second-half of the sign in that category. Just because you are “free” to say anything, it doesn't mean you are exempt from the responsibility that comes with that freedom.