Free Speech by Monday by 5 pm

"Judge rules in favor of AFDI, orders WMATA to post ads by 5 P.M. Monday" Washington Free Beacon

Update 4:40 P.M.: On Friday, U.S. District Court judge
Rosemary Collyers ordered that the Washington Metropolitan Transit
Authority must post the ads in question by 5 P.M., Monday.

Story continues below advertisement

Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer declined to decide at a Thursday
hearing whether to issue an injunction forcing WMATA to run the
controversial ads, but said she would issue an order and written
decision soon.

The ads, which have already stirred considerable controversy
in New York City, display a quote from Ayn Rand: “In any war between
the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” The quote
is followed by “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” placed between two Stars
of David.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative, a group founded by
conservative activist Pamela Geller, attempted to buy advertising space
from WMATA for the ads. WMATA initially consented, but after
anti-American riots exploded in the Middle East last month, blamed
partly on an anti-Muslim film produced in the U.S., the transit
authority told the AFDI it would postpone placing the ads until
November.

The AFDI, represented by the American Freedom Law Center, sued WMATA,
arguing the ads were core political speech protected by the First
Amendment, and that delaying their placement resulted in “irreparable
harm.”

WMATA argued during Thursday’s hearing that the incendiary ads could
provoke fights around the subway platforms, causing safety risks. It
also said it had received memos from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) warning that it was at risk of terrorism.

“We’re not trying to close the forum to end debate on the
Arab-Israeli conflict,” WMATA lawyer Philip Straub said in the hearing.
“We’re merely saying these words used in this ad—‘savage,’ ‘war,’
‘defeat’—echo so closely to the video that’s resulted in protests and
deaths overseas, and, as we were notified by DHS, the threat of
terrorism on U.S. soil, that these words could not be displayed in our
system until passions have cooled somewhat.”

The warning from DHS was a sealed exhibit and not available to the public.

WMATA argued the ad constituted “fighting words” and also cited cases
restricting protests outside of abortion clinics. It argued its
decision was not based on the content of the ad, but on an interest in
the safety of its passengers.

“There is no more compelling interest for WMATA than the safety of its passengers,” Straub said.

Judge Collyer seemed to agree with most of WMATA’s legal arguments,
but was skeptical of its “fighting words” claim. She also called the
advertisement “hate speech.”

“Let’s talk about it first as political speech, because I read it and
I also see hate speech,” she said to AFLC lawyer Robert Muise. “Now I
know that the First Amendment goes that far, but when you defend this as
core political speech, I do have a problem with that, given the message
that I glean out of this advertisement, which is not core political
speech, but it’s really hate speech, isn’t it?”

When Muise explained the quote in question was from Ayn Rand, Judge
Collyer, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002,
interrupted.

“Yeah, yeah, yeah, right. I understand that,” she said. “Wonderful.
My point is it all depends on context. In the limited words in the ads
the context of those terms seems to me to be hateful. Let me be very
clear, the First Amendment protects your client’s right under the
scenario I’m questioning you about, but nonetheless it seems to me it
connotes a hateful message, so then I have to ask, ‘When I’m looking at
it, does that make a difference?’”

In July, a U.S. District Court judge ruled
in favor of the group, saying the New York City Metro Transit
Authority’s policy was overly broad and the ad’s content was core
political speech.

Muise argued WMATA’s restriction was indeed based on the ad’s content
and that its logic failed to tie any imminent threat of violence to the
ads themselves.

“At best, [WMATA] speculates that there might be threats based on a
video,” Muise said. “We don’t have any verified acts of violence, and
this isn’t the video.”

He also disputed the relevance of the abortion protest cases. “We’re
not talking about Ms. Geller showing up with 50 protesters and blocking a
subway platform,” Muise said. “We’re talking about a poster.”

Collyer said she would wait to issue her judgment. “I don’t find [the
case] as straightforward as plaintiff,” she said, referring to the
AFLC. “But I don’t find it as defensible as WMATA.”

If Judge Collyer grants the AFLC’s request for an immediate
injunction, WMATA will be forced to place the ads right away. If the
request is denied, they are still scheduled to go up on Nov. 1.

Outside of the courtroom, Geller said the ads are also running in San
Francisco now, and are supposed to run in Portland as well. She
disputed the judge’s characterization of the ads as hate speech and
defended their content.

“I think acts of jihad and killing innocent civilians are hate,”
Geller said. “The blowing up of a bus in Bulgaria full of Israeli
tourists is savage. The killing of a U.S. ambassador is savage. The acts
of jihad are savage.”

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

0 0 votes

Article Rating

9 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

yorkie01

11 years ago

Congratulations, Pamella. It’s great to have a champion American backer such as you, who as always, will not take NO for an answer.

0

pdxnag

11 years ago

A DHS sealed exhibit?
Wholly molly this provides a wonderful opportunity.
Demand that DHS be declared a party to the case and that any injunction here be effective against the DHS here — AND anywhere else that DHS might like to be a pest to AFDI for similar ad campaigns anywhere in the USA for some specified period of time in the future. They stuck their nose in where it does not belong so grab ahold of it and twist. (They made an “appearance,” as far as I am concerned, and cannot complain about the jurisdiction of the court to make them a party. A judge could construe it as such.)
You can immediately request a corrected/modified order to reflect the current facts, the DHS meddlesomeness while trying to do so without the risk that res judicata — and the like — would apply to them. Make the DHS a party, to clarify their nonsense. If they have something to say then join or demand to join and make your argument as a real live party in interest to the case. This demand alone would be worth the battle.
Should the DHS be looked at as the “real party in interest” — where they are demanding that the WMATA censor AFDI? Ponder for a moment that the WMATA wanted to refuse the DHS demand and told the DHS to F__ O__. What would a legal demand by DHS to WMATA look like? We will apparently not see it, at least not in any court of law.
Government bodies are often given an automatic right in a statute to join a case, at the state level. This one is a new twist, where they just want to be devious and unaccountable at the same time. Let them do it in open court. Have fun with this one. Make Clinton pay (i.e., be accountable) for her Istanbul Process incited illegal peer pressure.

0

Fred and Ethel Mertz

11 years ago

“Hate speech”?
What, is this judge some kind of hippie from the sixties wearing a “LOVE” tee-shirt or something? She thinks she is mother hen with all her little chicks around her. HATE SPEECH

0

Laura

11 years ago

Calling out jihad savagery now constitutes hate speech to the morally confused, politically correct elites.

0

Dajjal

11 years ago

http://dajjal.posterous.com/istanbul-process-update-subway-advs-denouncin
This new blog post takes on the Rabbis for Human Rights, Sojourners & United Methodist Women, dissecting their arguments point by point and refuting them with citations to the Qur’an, hadith & Shari’ah, all of which is done in the context of the Istanbul Process.
When Muslims bitch about being exposed, we need to lift the lid higher and shine the light brighter. I’d like to see this one go viral for that purpose.

0

JacksonPearson

11 years ago

The slitting of thirty Christian college students in Nigeria was done by outraged SAVAGE Muslims. Islamophobia my ass. Given the opportunity, they’d do it here.
Suggestion: Perhaps the U.S. Department of State should spend a few billions arming Christians in the Middle East or Africa, instead of giving monies to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or al Qaeda in Libya, and Syria.

0

ro

11 years ago

If this judge wants to see what are truly examples of hate speech,all she needs to do is read the koran.

0

JacksonPearson

11 years ago

Kudos to civilized U.S. District Court judge Rosemary Collyers.

0

TOM PAYNE

11 years ago

SAVE EARTH: ERADICATE CHRISTIANS, JEWS, MUSLIMS, AND MORMORONS.

0