[ April 30, 2024 ]
Today was a dark day in American history, but you'd never know because the media is complicit in this sharia enforcement. I had a front-row seat to witness the rape of the First Amendment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Rosemary Collyer, presiding. Robert Spencer and I went down to Washington as defenders of America's most fundamental and unalienable right. And in return, we had the sad misfortune of watching a U.S. District Court Judge discard, denigrate, downplay and dismiss our most basic law of the land: the freedom of speech.
The Judge went out of her way to validate and substantiate the ridiculous premise of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), that the AFDI pro-freedom ad would endanger passengers on the D.C. subways and thus must not be posted, or at least delayed until some (fanciful) time when the jihad threat would subside. It was painful to watch Judge Collyer almost physically wrestling with the First Amendment, trying to tackle it and pin it to the floor. But the First Amendment was much too wily for the wrongheaded, utterly subjective, and clueless judge.
Philip Staub, the lawyer for WMATA, invoked the international Muslim riots that have been blamed (falsely) on the Muhammad video, and said the WMATA had received an email threatening them if they posted our ad. He was, in other words, counseling submission to violent Muslim intimidation, and the curtailing of the freedom of speech to appease savages. He made the laughable argument that if the ad ran after November 1, the threat would have subsided by then, and would be well — as if the jihad terror threat would completely die down by then. Judge Collyer then asked him if the ads could be posted sooner if they were moved away from the train platforms, so that passengers would be less likely to get caught up in fights or terrorist attacks over them. He seemed open to that idea.
Story continues below advertisement
The whole issue about moving the ads represented the judge’s
attempt to find a way to accommodate the WMATA’s fearmongering argument that
the ad would endanger passengers. And is that now the American response to
threats of violence from a fascist ideology – to accede and submit to that very
same fascist ideology? The judge was an embarrassment to every proud American
who understands what is at stake. I can’t speak for our lawyer, Robert Muise,
but his frustration was palpable.
Staub also argued that the ad constituted fighting words,
but here even Judge Collyer couldn’t go along with what he was saying, although
she struggled mightily to do so. She gently pointed out to Staub, whom she
treated with kid gloves and like a special-needs child the whole afternoon,
leading him by the hand to the disbelief of the open court (in sharp
contradistinction to her frequent interruptions and contradictions of Robert
Muise – stop making sense!), that for
the ad to constitute fighting words, there had to be an imminent threat of
violence. But the ads have run without incident in San Francisco and New York –
they were vandalized in New York in an attempt to shut down free speech, but
there was no violence aside from Muslim Brotherhood poster girl Mona Eltahawy’s
pink spray can) – and so it was impossible for Staub or Collyer to sustain the
idea that they constituted an imminent threat to the safety of the passengers.
But Collyer certainly tried, coaching and coaxing Staub, and at one point
saying to him, “The imminence issue is hard for me to get to. Just trying to
tell you where I am going.” She never gave Muise any such hints.
Collyer further coached Staub by saying that she assumed –
assumed! – that he was arguing (since he was so inept at actually doing so, the
point wasn’t clear) that the government’s “compelling interest” in refusing or
delaying these ads was concern for the safety of the passengers. She then said,
with obvious reluctance, that against that concern there had to be balanced “the
very broadly read First Amendment,” and asked him how he thought this could be
done.
Staub answered that the safety of the passengers could be
balanced against the First Amendment by delaying the ads. He said that he
thought things would cool down in Africa, Asia and the Middle East by November
1, and that the ads could run then. Remember, guys, we’re talking about four
little ads here, and the WMATA is talking about unrest on two continents.
That’s how paralyzed with fear of savages the U.S. Government has become.
Then our lawyer, Robert Muise, called for an immediate
injunction overruling WMATA’s delay and ordering that the ads run immediately.
He cited ample legal precedent to show that it was an established point of law
that the delay of a citizen’s freedom of speech constituted irreparable harm.
But then Judge Collyer broke in with her most disquieting,
most un-American argument of all. She said that while Muise was arguing that
the ad was core political speech, and thus the most protected category of
speech of all, Collyer said, “I see hate speech. When you defend this ad as core political speech, I have a problem with that." Muise pointed out that U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer in New York had ruled that the very same ad was core political speech, Collyer said peremptorily that she disagreed with Judge Engelmayer, and rudely cut Muise off when he tried to explain that the ad was not hate speech and that the main part of it — "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man" — was adapted from the work of Ayn Rand. Collyer snapped defensively that she knew who Ayn Rand was and still thought the ad was hate speech, constituting a hateful message.
The ad is not hate speech, it's love speech. It's love of life speech. The ad speaks to the defense of freedom and individual rights for all. There's nothing hateful about it. 9/11 was hate. 3/11 in Madrid was hate. 7/7 in London was hate. The Fort Hood jihadi was hate. The Christmas balls bomber was hate. The Fort Dix Six was hate. Pushing back against such hate is not hate. This poor woman hasn't a clue as to the jihadic doctrine that relentlessly seeks to violently impose Islamic law and pursues jihad against non-Muslims. Judge Collyer is on her own personal jihad to defend and sanction the very dull knife that will be employed to cut her own head off.
In the midst of this nonsense, Muise kept acting like the one kid in the sixth grade classroom who was trying to keep his classmates from running wild in front of the hapless substitute teacher: he kept trying to remind Collyer (and Staub) of basic points of American law. He reminded Collyer that there is no law against "hate speech" in America, so that even if she did think the ad was "hate," that should have no bearing on her ruling. Speech is only considered inciteful, he said, if the speech itself is calling for the lawless, violent action. WMATA's argument about the threat this video posed to the safety of the passengers, he pointed out, rested entirely on riots that took place not in the U.S. but in Muslim countries, and not because of this ad, but (supposedly) because of the Muhammad video. The video and the ad, he said, did not have remotely the same content. There was one email that the WMATA received that apparently contained threats related to this ad, he said, but he explained that we cannot allow those who threaten violence to restrict our First Amendment rights, and cannot have the government acquiesce in the restriction of those rights in response to threats.
Collyer seemed to grasp none of this, and went on to say contemptuously to Muise, "No threat? Where have you been?" But in trying to show her awareness of the jihad threat she only demonstrated how little she knows about it, naming the recent riots and the London attack of 2005 ("admittedly, that was a few years ago") as if that was all there was. She said that it was not reasonable to think that in light of the worldwide riots over the Muhammad video that WMATA was not right to be concerned about the safety of its passengers if this ad went up.
In response to that, Muise pointed out that DHS had issued guidelines for precautions public agencies can and should be taking, and that to stand down from saying things that might offend the rioters would be giving the heckler's veto the sanction of American law, and saying that in that case anyone could threaten violence to silence someone whose speech he disliked. Collyer showed her reflexive willingness to submit and acquiesce to savagery when Muise said that to postpone or cancel the ads would be to validate the threat of that one emailer and encourage people to make more such threats. He said that this emailer could even rightly be called a "savage," whereupon Collyer said, "He could be standing behind you" — as if that should change what Muise would be saying about him, and implying that Muise should curb his speech to appease the violent.
Muise further reminded her that the First Amendment was put into place precisely so as to protect speech that some might find offensive. He also completely torpedoed the idea that the ad is hate speech when
Collyer asked him to summarize in his own words what he thought it
meant, and he patiently explained that it was calling for support for
Israel against those who commit savage attacks against innocent civilians in the name of jihad. Collyer then demonstrated even more vividly that she has no idea what the jihad is and what it's all about, when she complained that our ad wrongly applied the concept of jihad to what she termed a "long-standing territorial dispute" between Israelis and Palestinians — one that she obviously thinks has nothing to do with jihad.
Finally, Collyer explained that she was going to make no ruling today. This poor, silly woman said she needed to give the case more thought. She is clearly going to take some time to try to figure out a way to circumvent the First Amendment and allow WMATA to kowtow to violent intimidation.
And worst of all? She's a Bush appointee. As we pursue free speech cases around the country, I have come to dread Bush appointees: they always side with the government, no matter what, even against (as Collyer probably will in this case) the Constitution. Clinton and Obama appointees, meanwhile, while they're far to the left, often will see the merits of a case against the establishment elite in a way that the Bush judges don't. This is no endorsement of Obama by any stretch of the imagination. It's just an indication of just how hard times have become for the rule of law and above all for the First Amendment in the United States.
Free speech is in its death throes. Clearly, Collyer is trying to establish a precedent that will allow for the criminalizing of "hate speech" — which will mean any speech the political elites want to silence. It is indeed a very dark day.
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.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
77 Comments
11 years ago
Does the Judge not care about innocents slay in name of Jihad.
11 years ago
Mrs. Geller:
You are a modern day Old Testament Deborah and Joan of Arc! I am in awe of your courageous stand against the evils of the Islam.
I am afraid much of the blindness to this threat is due to the self imposed curse that the nations have incurred due to violating the Abrahamic Covenant in the Bible:
God blessing those who bless Israel and cursing(placing under a spell) him who curses Israel(Judean people): Genesis 12.3
The Nations(Gentiles) are under the curse and spell of Islam due to their support and complicity with/for Israel’s enemies the Mohammedans.
May the Lord bless and protect you dear Woman.
You are fighting a man’s fight, I am astounded at your bravery and heroism.
You are of the finest examples of the blessed Judean people who are such a blessing to mankind in every field of endeavor.
11 years ago
Protest peacefully. Hold up signs of jihad and signs demanding this dhimmi judge to respect freedom of speech. Protest constantly. Peacefully protest in front of her house. Keep at it until the newspapers and TV cannot ignore it and President Romney will remember it and make a point of schooling her.
11 years ago
I’m shocked by this. I thought this was so open-and-shut that no judge in the D.C. District would act this bizarre. I’m beginning to think they have more crazy judges in D.C. then anywhere else. She’s a Bush appointee, so I didn’t think she’d be as kooky as some of those appointed by Clinton.
It’s looking like this will have to be resolved by the Court of Appeals.
11 years ago
Although her bias and ignorance are evident she still has not ruled. Did she say when she would issue a ruling? Don’t injunctions have to be decided rather quickly?
11 years ago
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Rosemary Collyer NEEDS TO REFRESH HERSELF WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF OUR LAND. WE MUST INSTITUTE AND ENFORCE LAWS THAT ADDRESS FOREIGN RE:SHARIA LAWS THAT ATTEMPT TO USERP OUR LAWS AND PLACE THEIR FOREIGN LAWS OVER OURS. IF JUDGE ROSEMARY COLLYER WANTS TO LIVE UNDER SHARIA AND RISK LIFE AND LIMB DOING SO, SHE IS FREE SO, DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE YOU KNOW WHERE ON THE WAY OUT!!!
11 years ago
The rioting has occurred in countries where there is no free speech protection…consequently, those countries’ laws are most undermined by a Muslim agenda.
By shutting down free speech, the western world is going the same way as those countries.
11 years ago
She’s obviously ignorant. I’ve noticed that a number of the judges in that court have no idea what certain things mean, yet they presume to know everything. It’s a form of institutional narcissism. A territorial dispute? Amazing.
File your notice of appeal as soon as you can. Let’s hope you get a better panel than this nincompoop.
By denying the real antisemitic hatred underlying the Palestinian assault on Jews, she is revealing herself as a complicit anti-semite. She would not be the first one in the federal courts of D.C. Don’t forget, Jonathan Pollard was lynched in this court.
11 years ago
A few points that judge needs to be educated on ….
1) Ad is not hate speech as it speaks out against violence
perpetrated around world incluing america by jihadi organisation
like Al-qaeda, hamas and their supporters .Supprssing these ads
amounts to supporting Al-qaeda, hamas and their offshoots
that threaten all civilsed societies , Not just Israel.
2) The ones who threatens & supports these violent terror groups
are the ones who should be arrested. Giving in to their threat
amounts to cowardly submission to their terror acts. Its unconstitutional
3)There are other ads besides Pro-israeli ads that will be rolled out
including ads in support of defence of America against these terror
organisation.
4) Suppresing these ads amounts to bowing down to hate filled idealogy
practiced by these jihadi terror gangs. Its unconstitutional & will
encourage more such threats not reduce it.
5) This court is an american court , not a somalian or any other
sharia compliant state and should never suppress the truth being
exposed & never support the Al-qaeda , hamas and other jihadi
threats. Its unconstituional & will set bad precedent and encourage
more such threats from criminal gangs.
6) Court should allow the ad and uphold consitutional rights and call
for arrest of those that threaten violence.
11 years ago
Completely out of whack.
Hostile, ignorant, arrogant and clueless.
Fearful! She lives in fear she could put herself in harms way by holding up the law.
Complete and utter fail.
The result of a libtarded education.
11 years ago
I’m not sure if the judge is worrying about violent Muslims here or violent Muslims overseas, or perhaps the boogie Muslims under her bed? The majority of people who rioted overseas never even saw the Innocence of Muslims video and the jihad terrorists we’ve dealt with here in the US have not been motivated by anything except Islamic teachings.
Sorry it was a tough day in Atlasville.
11 years ago
I wonder if that judge has ever heard the term “political speech.”
11 years ago
Take note that you will not get a hearing at the US Supreme Court if you win at the lower court. The measure of success is how well you set out the facts and legal arguments for ultimate resolution by a higher court. You control the puzzle pieces just as surely as if you were hosting a dinner party and selecting the china salad dinner wine and desert.
Did anyone advocate that Jihadists are not violent savages that pose a clear and present danger to free peoples locally and globally? (Everyone present is in apparent agreement that this would be preposterous.)
The judge knows that she must allow the ad to run or her ruling will eventually be overturned. She has no choice in the matter, other than to follow the law. She can only whine about how doing so makes her personally feel uncomfortable.
The fascinating thing about the First Amendment is that there as so many cases, each representing lots and lots of conflicts between citizen freedom and tyrant government thugs bent on imposing their will. The battles will never end.
Do Muslims have free will to be violent or not? (Be careful how you answer.) If you believe them to be human you must answer yes. The label of savage is a reflection of that choice and not some immutable observable characteristic.
Carmen,
STAY AWAY FROM THE JUDGE’S HOUSE!!!!
I repeat
STAY AWAY FROM THE JUDGE’S HOUSE!!!!
Don’t send letters to her for she cannot take cognizance of ex parte communications etc. Let Pam’s lawyers do their thing, in peace.
Perhaps picket near where the ads would run, with text that matches the ad, or one of its variants.
“Hate” speech laws have been tolerated only as a penalty enhancer for conviction of some other wholly independent violent crime. The plaintiff’s here are not defendants for criminal conduct. The judge’s thoughts on hate here evidences only her own personal hate, nothing about the law.
11 years ago
I am outraged that this judge has felt it necessary to knock out freedom of speech and kow tow to the Islamists. May God forgive her for her decision because I can’t. If this means that we need to redouble our fight and education to America and the world then so be it. Pamela and Robert God bless you for the time and money you have used to bring us this far. Please don’t be discouraged and we are right behind you in the future fights that will be necessary to iradicate this cancer.
11 years ago
“Hate Laws ” themselves are unconstitutional. They equate to thought crimes. They also equate that we are different in the eyes of the supposed blind justice system.
11 years ago
“This poor woman hasn’t a clue as to the jihadic doctrine that relentlessly seeks to violently impose Islamic law and pursues jihad against non-Muslims.”
My take on the judge’s comments and obvious contempt for Pamela, Robert, Mr. Muise and the First Amendment
NO! She did have “a clue” what she was doing. She new exactly what she was doing because it’s obvious to me that she did not walk in that courtroom with an open mind. She obviously had a biased mindset. Her behavior and demeanor could best be summed up:
“Don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve ALREADY made up my mind.”
These statements and her contemptuous behavior supports my assertion:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Collyer certainly tried, coaching and coaxing Staub, and at one point saying to him, “The imminence issue is hard for me to get to. Just trying to tell you where I am going.” She never gave Muise any such hints.
“I see hate speech. When you defend this ad as core political speech, I have a problem with that.”
“No threat? Where have you been?”
… when she complained that our ad wrongly applied the concept of jihad to what she termed a “long-standing territorial dispute” between Israelis and Palestinians — one that she obviously thinks has nothing to do with jihad.
Despicable. She should be impeached IMHO.
11 years ago
If she rules against the ads she will have weakened a nation already in decline, the wolf is at the door and she wants to offer it coffee and muffins…Where is the America that I’ve known and loved. We are witnessing the death of a great nation. The Supreme Court cannot even be trusted with this issue either!
11 years ago
In my view, the dignity of this womans court rests not with the robes or the grand building but in the way she subborns her own fears, rational or not, to the dispensation of common justice. I would sugest that for her or the WMATA to concern her self or themselves with a possible violent reaction is going way beyond her remit. I fail to see why she insists on putting a court in the way of the civil police doing their jobs to maintain the peace in the possible event of illegal violence.
To my way of thinking, by standing on her head in that way, she has allowed her robes to fall around her ears, and in so doing, has displayed her bloomers for the world to see.This may be an entertaining spectacle but this somewhat partial jugement seems to have robbed that court of much of it’s dignity.
11 years ago
American Law for American Courts. That fits this case so well. For, although the judge isn’t ruling according to foreign law, she is ruling according to what is happening in foreign countries.
The only guideline the judge is authorized to use is AMERICAN LAW, first and foremost THE US CONSTITUTION, and the precedent of rulings by other federal courts, SUCH AS THE ONE IN NEW YORK, WHICH SHE IGNORED.
11 years ago
That’s an unbelievably powerful, courageous, patriotic and unassailable defense of our freedom of speech. If the judge reads this I would see zero chance she’ll rule against the Constitution and Pamela Geller, since she will know there’ll be more of the same to come if she does.
Absolutely amazing. Historic.
11 years ago
Let’s use an analogy to highlight the ludicrousnes of this situation. Supposing we wanted to put up a poster to the effect “Be wary of muggers, they can be violent”. Then a mugger emails that he is offended, and if we don’t remove the poster he will (guess what) come and mug us, with possibly disastrous effects. Also there have been many incidents of muggers carrying out violent acts – of course, they have just been expressing the effect on their feelings at being criticised for their beliefs, nothing to do with their desire to mug their victims. Worse still, resulting from the poster, other muggers might come together and cause general mayhem. And so the judge rules that we can’t put up the poster because there is a risk of violence.
If perpetuated, this becomes a bully’s charter, whereby bullies are able to guard their behaviour from scrutiny, and help achieve their objectives.
Sad to see that this kind of conclusion could come from a legally trained mind. We can only hope that this is nothing more than an isolated incident.
11 years ago
The battle for the first amendment is not over. There is still hope. The Left and the Islamists may be powerful, but when it comes to God, anything is possible. Martin Luther King Jr. went through similar trials, but he stood in the fire no matter what. If he and the civil rights movement gave up, then they would still be living in persecution to this day. And if we give up, much worse will be coming our way. What we need to do as American citizens and as lovers of freedom is to, (1) pray to our heavenly Father that He would help us in securing our freedom of speech and our country, (2) expand this article/situation to your families/friends/worship places to let them know what is going on in this country, and (3) we need to make a big fuss about this issue to Mitt Romney so he knows that we are being attacked from the inside. We have never faced the issue of censorship regarding exposing Islam like this before. The reason why the Left and the Islamists want to censor us is because they know that influence is a powerful tool to get people on your side. If one has great influence, great numbers, and great organizing, you can shape a nation’s thoughts and beliefs. But the enemy at home and abroad doesn’t want to lose their influence and power because they know that it will be the end of their agenda. So what they have to do is find illegal means and other means to destroy their opponent. As the saying goes whoever said this, “All that remains not must perish.” And that’s their goal, and we must recognize it. But like I said, the battle for the first amendment is not over.
11 years ago
I was wondering if I missed some precedent re “hate speech” when I read the part about the judge saying she sees “hate speech.” As far as I knew, “hate speech” was a faddish term of art of the eternally blissful and oblivious of our land who rally against hurt feelings and mean catcalls in America. Ironically, the very people who will have Pamela Geller to thank more than anyone for as long as we remain a free country living in peace.
Your argument that yours is “love speech” is as absolutely and literally true as every other unassailable point.
Godspeed and God bless you.
11 years ago
Judge Collyer may have red hair but she’s got blonde roots.
11 years ago
Do we have another higher court, where we can appeal against this judgement
11 years ago
We love you Pamela. Nobody else can do what you have done for our Freedom.
Bless You.
11 years ago
Strangely enough, on 7-7, the scuzzlums didn’t need any anti-islamic video to motivate their terrorist attacks on public transportation in the UK. Ditto, for the Madrid train bombings.
Our government is rotten to the core.
11 years ago
She’s already wearing black. Someone forgot to cover her hideous face. I don’t care how many jerkoffs in black say “Blah, Blah, Blah.” I will never “submit.” NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!
Screw Islam, Mohamhead and the little sheep he raped in on!
11 years ago
Pamela what is all that doom and gloom???
That is just one stupid judge, she does not mean anything, apeal the thing and if needed apeal it again and again.
Due to all respect to you, but to say freedom is in its death throes is as stupid as that ruling from that judge.
Pamela freedom loving ppl look at you, you CANT!!! be negative, you are a bell sheep which leads the way, now if the you are deprived of hope, we all are, so stop that death throes talk and MOVE ON!!! … keep the good work up!!!
11 years ago
As the Finns say: “Stupidity is self punishing” = Judge Rosemary Collyer will find it out sooner or latee…
11 years ago
11 years ago
@Steve
This POS judge is setting a precedent for other corrupt, POS judges to follow. Her
judgement is rendering the 1st amendment null and void because any islamonazi can claim just about any criticism of pisslam is hate speech.
It’s strange that hypocritical, corrupt, lieberal oafs like this judge would never call the pervasive, explicit, antisemitic vomit in the holy books of pisslam hate speech though.
11 years ago
The logical conclusion of this slide into dhimmitude is that
It will become illegal to mention the existence of savagery in case it incites savagery.
11 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
11 years ago
@Kufar Dawg:
u r right and I understand the gravity of this whole thing, BUT there are also other judges, like the one in New York, to which the 1st amendment actually means something, therefore I would not loose hope because of some ignorant judge.
Also important is, that the 1st amendment cant be made null and void by any judge, because if they try, they can be actually sued for ruling against the constitution and its amendments, which, according to current law, could lead to the arest of those judges.
What I am saying is, that we have to kick it up a notch higher, the constitution is edged in stone, it cant be tempered with. Sure they try it, but the constitution overules everything and it is the duty of all americans to make sure the constitution and its amendments are obeyed.
That whole thing could technically lead to a civil war, I hope it does not get that far, but all americans have the DUTY to defend the constitution and its amendments no matter what, it also involves military actions, nothing is off the table and we have got tons of options and all the enemies of freedom can do is to bend and break the law, we have the law on our side, so we should be able to win this, even if it takes long and wil be very hard!
11 years ago
@Danny Owen:
u think this is funny? Really? Well it could be easily the next time that ur opinions are called hate speech and will be banned, so you are hahaing to ur own lost of freedom, which shows me that u r a short sighted prick!
11 years ago
Danny Owen – Fernando Olmos
11 years ago
At the recent AFDI conference on free speech it was fancifully proclaimed that the USA has twenty years. It doesn’t have two. It won’t long before elected representatives find themselves in courts of law on “hate speech” charges.
By the way, there are no moderate Muslims which is why none has appeared to defend the right of free speech in America with respect to the advertisements.
11 years ago
An activist judge,,she needs to be fired.
11 years ago
So shouting “fire!’ in a crowded theater” is illegal even when there is a fire? Because people might panic?
The judge, saying the signs could incite violence, is actually admitting the problem is that severe…. But if tt’s that severe, then isn’t there even more reason for educating people about the threat and allowing free speech?
11 years ago
As Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Judge Collyer is bound by the law to rule opposite to her blatently telegraphed tyrannical inclinations, but she hasn’t ruled yet. Therefore, it is way too early to even think about threatening her with death or serious bodily injury the way our mentally defective Danny Owen has threatened Ms. Geller. But it would be the logical thing to do on the assumption that threats are relevant to the exercise of rights, as I will show.
Since this is just a thought experiment let’s suppose someone, let’s call him Danny Owen, wanted the ad to run because he wants to provoke chaos and believes it will cause chaos, with the help of Mona Eltahawy, for example. I know Mona would never do anything chaotic, but suppose our boy Danny believed she would, and so Danny did threaten Judge Collyer if she, in effect, prevented the ad in question from being displayed. And suppose that threat were credible and its execution immanent unless the judge ruled the way Danny wanted. If it is the threat of violence that determines whether one may speak or not speak, this would strongly imply that the ad must run since otherwise Danny would kill her or do serious damage to her body.
But now suppose someone else, let’s call him Mo Owen, threatens the judge with death or serious bodily injury if she does what Danny wants, and insists the WMATA not display the ads? Now the Judge must decide whose threat is more credible, immanent, and frightening. This is like a movie — I’m on the edge of my seat! Who will Collyer invite to murder her, Danny or Mo? … Danny or Mo?
Once we allow threats of violence to determine whether we will be free or not, decisions will be made solely on the basis of whose violence is the stronger. This is known as “The Law of the Jungle.” Ever hear of that law, Judge? To entertain the idea that threats are relevant to rights is to piss on the Constitution. Our rights are not at the mercy of whomever happens be the most credible wielder of violence!
If violence is what it’s going to come to, then we must return to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson. And don’t forget that in America there are 250-300 million guns in private hands. This fact should help clarify the relative merits of judging cases on the basis of the Constitution, versus judging cases based on balancing relative potentials for violence. Remember, this is just a thought experiment.
11 years ago
Actually, both Bushes (Sr. and “Dubyah” – a.k.a. #41 and #43, respectively) have egregious records when it comes to picking judges (think former Supreme Court Justice David Souter). And neither Bush was a rock-ribbed conservative by any means (Michael Savage notably referred to Bush #43 as a “fiscal socialist”). Moreover, that family has had ties to the Saudi royal family spanning back decades (and the Saudis are among those who’ve provided financial support to HAMAS-CAIR). Is it any wonder that “Judge” (sic) Collyer ruled the way she did, in that context?
11 years ago
“counseling submission to violent Muslim intimidation, and the curtailing of the freedom of speech to appease savages.”
i call this dhimmitude enforcrcing sharia
Mrs PAMELA GELLER
You are of the finest examples of bravery and heroism in this world of cowards
11 years ago
One thing for sure is that historically, procrastinating about dealing with serious threats from savages, gives them time to grow in strength.
11 years ago
The court’s cowardly dhimmitude is sickening.
It shall not stand.
(You are the greatest!)
11 years ago
One more thing, I suppose that “heckler’s veto” is a term used in some First Amendment case law, but it is way too mild to describe what the WMATA is proposing here.
The thug’s veto? The savage’s veto?
11 years ago
She appears to be considering shaping her opinion from a political position or from the hiding place of the craven coward certainly not from the constitution. I do not understand why the Bush appointees’s are such dolts.
11 years ago
This judge needs some book learning is all I can say. some one send her the qura’n and let her study. and see how she feels then we all need bumper stickers. NO TO SHARIA LAW AND NO TO JIHAD
11 years ago
I am so sick of all the people who want to bow to the very people whom want to kill us. and the ones that want to bow to these people need to move to a muslim country and just keep bowing to them because they want to be their slave.I don’t think they take the time to read and study about islam and jihad. and what it really means they think they are being nice and kind and in truth they are doing more harm to them selves and every one else rather than good.
11 years ago
Its clear that when Collyer took her oath of office to uphold the constitution, she was lying. Perhaps someone should have given her a Koran to be sworn in just as that Muslim Ellison used. Collyer is clueless. Doesn’t she know that she is on a slipperly slope, and once the First Amendment is even slightly played with its much easier to chip away at in every time Muslims find something they claim offends them and their pedophile profit.
