The Jewish Press: “Savaged For Daring To Name Savagery: Pamela Geller Attacked by Critics of Free Speech”

Finally, a sweet breath of intellectual fresh air in what is otherwise a fetid, squalid cesspool of media bias and sharia-compliant tools (aka journalists). Kudos to Lori Lowenthal Marcus. Brilliant!

Savaged For Daring To Name Savagery: Pamela Geller Attacked by Critics of Free Speech

Lori Lowenthal Marcus  The Jewish Press, September 24, 2012

ADVERTISEMENT

The ads are already running on the sides of
San Francisco buses, they began running today, September 24th, in New
York City, and they were scheduled to begin appearing in the Washington,
D.C. metro system. However, the DC system balked, citing the violent
rioting by Muslims allegedly inflamed by a YouTube video which
represents, so Geller initiated an emergency court action at the end of
last week to enforce her First Amendment rights.

Pamela Geller, conservative commentator and blogger provocateur, is
the executive director of the American Freeedom Defense Initiative. 
AFDI created and paid for an ad campaign to run in several urban transit
systems, in response to anti-Israel ads that ran in the same spaces.

The AFDI ads contain a paraphrase from the philosopher Ayn Rand: “In
any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized
man.”  It concludes with: “Support Israel. 
Defeat Jihad.”

The
ads are already running on the sides of San Francisco buses, they began
running today, September 24th, in New York City, and they were
scheduled to begin appearing in the Washington, D.C. metro system. 
However, the DC system balked, citing the violent rioting by Muslims
allegedly inflamed by a YouTube video which represents, so Geller
initiated an emergency court action at the end of last week to enforce
her First Amendment rights.

Because there is so much misinformation both about Geller and her ad, The Jewish Press
asked her to explain what her ad means, why it is scheduled to run this
week, what the responses to it have been and, most importantly, why she
continues to express her views so publicly, when she is repeatedly
condemned by virtually the entire spectrum of mainstream media and even
by other Jewish and pro-Israel groups.

First, let’s get the chronology and the geography straight.

ADVERTISEMENT

2010, Seattle

In late 2010, in Seattle, Washington, anti-Israel groups sought to
run advertisements on the side of municipal buses reading: “Israeli War
Crimes: Your tax dollars at work. Stop30billion-Seattle.org.”  Just
before the anti-Israel ads were about to go up, the county executive
crafted a new policy banning all non-commercial advertisements.  The new
policy enabled the municipality to reject not only the anti-Israel ad,
but also two counter-ads that had been submitted, one of which was one
proposed by Geller, the other one offered by the David Horowitz Freedom
Center.

September, 2011, New York

Last September, another series of anti-Israel ads went up in various
transit systems including the one in New York City.  This ad shows two
smiling dads – one Israeli, one “Palestinian,” with their young
daughters.  The ad copy: “Be on our side.  We’re on the side of peace
and Justice.  End U.S. military aid to Israel.” In other words, American
tax dollars is being used to support Israeli militancy and injustice. 
These ads ran in 18 NYC subway stops for a month, in Manhattan,
Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.

That same month, Geller’s organization, AFDI, submitted the
anti-Jihad ad.  The MTA refused to run it, claiming the ad violated its
advertising standards because it “demeans[s] an individual or group of
individuals.”  AFDI claimed that rejection violated the U.S.
Constitution. On September 227, 2011, AFDI, Pamela Geller, and AFDI’s 
associate director, Robert Spencer, filed suit against the MTA claiming
that the transit agency’s no-demeaning standard constitutes “viewpoint
discrimination” and is unconstitutional and therefore the MTA’s
rejection of AFDI’s ad unlawfully restricted their free speech.

September 2012, New York

On July 20, 2012, Judge Englemayer, the federal district court judge
in New York before whom the matter was heard, ruled that the MTA’s 
prohibition on “demeaning” language is unconstitutional and the ad must
run.  Significantly, the court ruled that

ADVERTISEMENT

the AFDI Ad is not only protected speech—it is core
political speech. The Ad expresses AFDI’s pro-Israel perspective on the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and implicitly calls
for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict. The
AFDI Ad is, further, a form of response to political ads on the same
subject that have appeared in the same space.   As such, the AFDI Ad is
afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.

While AFDI was the victor in the case, Judge Engelmayer threw more than a few crumbs to the ad’s opponents.

For example, there was a fundamental disagreement over the use of the
term “savage” – Geller claims it refers only to those committing acts
of barbarism against innocent victims in the name of Islam.  Judge
Englemayer, however, held that a reasonable person could conclude the
term referred simply to Muslims.

What’s more, the judge practically wrote a recipe for the MTA to
follow for rewriting its advertising policy so that a ban on an ad like
AFDI’s could, in the future be upheld by a court.

But it would be wrong to conclude that while AFDI may have won the
(legal) battle, it lost the war, because AFDI’s ad was specifically
created to counter anti-Israel ads.  If there is an MTA policy that
constitutionally prohibits AFDI-like ads, presumably it will also cover
anti-Israel ads.  If not, AFDI will surely respond with another counter
to any such permissible anti-Israel ads.

AFDI’s ads began running today, as the MTA conceded that under its
“existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is
required to run the ad.”  However, there were numerous reports that the
MTA is planning on revising its standards in an executive sessions
scheduled for this week.

San Francisco, August – September, 2012

The San Francisco Bay Area Transit system also played host last year
to ads that called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel, claiming Israel to
be unfair and unjust.  AFDI’s anti-Jihad ads began running on the sides
of buses in San Francisco on August 7, at least in part based on the New
York federal judge’s July 20 decision.

However, two things have since happened.  First, the San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency announced it will give all of the
proceeds from AFDI’s ads to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission to
support “educational activities.”  Secondly, although the Muni is
apparently convinced that banning AFDI’s ads would violate the First
Amendment, yesterday it began Atlas Shrugs,

a first in outdoor advertising history, next to our
pro-freedom, anti-jihad ads. Their disclaimer reads: “SFMTA Policy
Prohibits Discrimination Based On National Origin, Religion and Other
Characteristics and Condemns Statements That Describe Any Group As Savages.” Really?
Were the Nazis savages? The Taliban? Hamas? Al Qaeda? Boko Haram?
Daniel Pearl’s beheaders? The Fogel family’s cold blooded murderers?

Never one to rest on her laurels, Geller’s AFDI immediately responded
with ads placed on the sides of San Francisco buses stating: “Why is
the city of San Francisco enforcing Sharia law?  San Francisco is
running disclaimers next to our pro-Israel ads. Why didn’t they run them
next to vicious anti-Israel ads? Stop Anti-Semitism in San Francisco
government.”

Washington, D.C., September 2012

Washington, D.C. is another transit system in which anti-Israel ads
ran last year.  AFDI chose to run its anti-Jihad ad in the District, and
on September 6 entered into a contract with the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority to run the ad beginning on September 24.
However, on September 18, Geller was contacted and informed that “due to
the situations happening around the world at this time, we are
postponing the start of this program to a future date to be determined.”

The “situations happening around the world” are the violent riots by
Muslims which were set off, some claim, by the airing on YouTube of the
video, “The Innocence of Muslims.”  That video depicts the Islamic
prophet Mohammed as a pedophile and a violence-loving man which is
considered blasphemy by strict Muslims.

Although the WMATA is refusing to run the ads, out of “concern for
public safety,” the New York City police department spokesperson Paul
Browne told a reporter that they “were not anticipating adding any
security” to the subways while the ads are up, and that they had “not
received any threats or reports of violence relating to them.”

On September 20, AFDI brought a lawsuit seeking an injunction action
by the federal district court in Washington, D.C. to require the transit
authority to run her ads now, during the time period in which they were
contracted to be run. Once again, AFDI’s attorneys are claiming
viewpoint discrimination, a classic violation of the First Amendment. 
AFDI’s Complaint against the WAMTA states:

The WMATA’s speech restriction is based on the perceived
negative response that Plaintiffs’ message might receive from certain
viewers based on its content and viewpoint. However, a viewer’s reaction
to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. This is known
as a “heckler’s veto,” which is impermissible under the First Amendment.

When asked for a comment on the controversy, Eugene Kontorovich, a
professor at Northwestern University Law school and an expert in
constitutional and international law, had this to say:

The DC Metro is obviously trying to avoid trouble by
granting foreign extremists a veto on American speech. They also seem to
be using the flimsy pretext that anti-American riots are linked to
particular speech by Americans to try to override the First Amendment.

So here is the lineup on Monday, September 24, 2012.

You must read the whole thing.