Washington Transit Authority “apparently considers adherents to Islam to be violent and incapable of responding to critical, political speech in our country in a civilized manner”

“This lawsuit represents a clash between our American values and the
fundamental right to freedom of speech on the one hand and those values
espoused by sharia-adherent Muslims who want to suppress speech through
violence on the other. In direct contravention of our Constitution,
the WMATA is siding with the jihadists and silencing our clients’
political speech. This is known as a ‘heckler’s veto,’ which is
impermissible under the First Amendment." Robert Muise

We will be back in court on Thursday fighting for free speech, this time in DC. We submitted the "savage" ads to run on DC Metro train dioramas. The contracts
were signed and the ads were paid for up front. They were scheduled to
run at the end of September. In light of Ambassador Stevens' coldblooded murder, as
well as that of two navy SEALs and other US diplomats, what else would
you call jihadists? Why is this controversial? We intend to paper this ad across America.

On September 25, 2012, the DC Transit authority canceled
("postponed") our pro-Israel ads. DC Transit said, "due to the
situations happening
around the world at this time, we are postponing the start of this
program …" "The reason for this decision is one of security and safety
for the commuters using the DC Metro rail system." This is exactly the reason why our pro-freedom ads should run.

It
is precisely because of the current political situation that it is
important that I be able to express my message now, and I consider any delay to be government censorship of my core political
speech. I demanded that the transit authority change
their position. They did not, so we are filing a lawsuit.

Clearly, DC is kowtowing to the threat of jihad terrorism. Their
cowardice does not make commuters or Americans safer. On the contrary,
it puts us in more peril to the whims of violent Islamic supremacists. They are rewarding savage behavior and lawlessness.

If someone commits violence, it is his
responsibility and no one else's. The
responsibility for one's actions lies with one who acts and no one
else. Islamic supremacists and their allies in the mainstream media are
trying to get us to accept the idea that we are responsible if Muslims
riot and kill and blame what we say. Yet there is nothing that you could
say to me that would make me riot and kill. Theirs is the
responsibility and they are the only ones who deserve condemnation, if
the media were doing its job.

So we are back in court on Thursday with our legal special forces team, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center. 

Federal Court Hearing Scheduled in AFLC’s Challenge to D.C. Transit Authority’s Refusal to Run Anti-Jihad Advertisement

U.S.
District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer has scheduled a hearing for
October 4, 2012 on the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC)’s request for
an injunction to halt the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA)’s censorship of a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement.  The
hearing will take place at 2:00 p.m. EDT in Courtroom 8 at the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia located at 333 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C.  The hearing is open to the media and
the general public. 

Download PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER / PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed and this,
Download Ex 2–Geller Supp Declaration–Filed

INTRODUCTION

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”),1 a government
agency, is asking this court to ratify an unprecedented, radical, and exceedingly troubling
position: that a private citizen’s fundamental First Amendment right to engage in core political
speech in a public forum in the United States of America can and should be abridged because
violent Muslim protestors overseas are engaging in “savage” behavior in response to a video that
they deem to be anti-Islamic.2 (See Def.’s Opp’n at 5-8 [Doc. No. 13]).

In sum, the WMATA’s arguments are wrong as a matter of law and dangerous to our free
Republic as a matter of principle.3 Consequently, they must be summarily rejected.

1 While the lawsuit names Richard Sarles, the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer for the
WMATA, the fact remains that a claim against a government official in his or her official capacity is a
claim against the governmental entity to which he or she is employed. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159 (1985); see also Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-72 (1985) (holding that “a judgment against a
public servant ‘in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents”). And such
claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See,
e.g., Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (holding that prospective injunctive relief provides an
exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity).

2 One would assume that even the WMATA would recognize that storming an American embassy,
violently killing our ambassador and three other Americans, and destroying property are “barbaric and
uncivilized” acts. (Def.’ Opp’n at 7 [decrying the fact that the anti-Islam video depicts “Muslims as
violent, barbaric and uncivilized, or in other words, as savages”] [Doc. No. 13]).

3 If one pauses for a moment and seriously considers the WMATA’s position, there is one inescapable
conclusion: the WMATA apparently considers adherents to Islam to be violent and incapable of
responding to critical, political speech in our country in a civilized manner. When the WMATA ran an
advertisement critical of Israel, urging the United States to end its military aid to its long-time ally in the
Middle East, there was no concern about violence and passenger safety. What message is the WMATA
sending about Islam by restricting Plaintiffs’ core political speech? And what message will this court be
sending if it affirms that position? Indeed, whether intentionally or not, the WMATA is essentially siding
with the Muslim Brotherhood leader of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, who condemns speech critical of Islam.
(See Def.’s Opp’n at 6 [quoting Morsi as stating “We will not allow anyone to [criticize Islam] by word or
deed.”] [Doc. No. 13]). However, Americans enjoy freedoms in this country that do not exist in the
Middle East. And chief among those freedoms is the right to freedom of speech.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS

There is no dispute as to these relevant, and dispositive, facts:4
 The WMATA accepts for display on its property a wide variety of commercial and political messages, including controversial messages. (Def.’s Opp’n at 3 [Doc. No. 13]; Murray
Aff. at ¶ 5, Exs. B through G [Doc. Nos. 13-3, 13-6 through 13-11]; Geller Decl. at ¶ 4 [Doc. No.
2-1]).

 The WMATA has accepted controversial messages that convey an anti-Israel message.
(See Def.’s Opp’n at 3 [Doc. No. 13]; Murray Aff. at ¶ 5, Exs. B, C [Doc. Nos. 13-6, 13-7];
Geller Decl. at ¶¶ 4-6 [Doc. No. 2-1]).

 The WMATA admits that it “has run many controversial advertisements in spite of
public protests.” (Def.’s Opp’n at 3 [Doc. No. 13]) (emphasis added).

 Plaintiffs’ Pro-Israel Advertisement met the WMATA guidelines and was thus accepted
for display on four WMATA dioramas. (Geller Decl. at ¶ 10 [Doc. No. 2-1]).

 The WMATA admits the following: “In spite of the incendiary language of the AFDI Ad,
WMATA determined that it complied with the Guidelines and was protected speech.” (Def.’s
Opp’n at 5 [Doc. No. 13]) (emphasis added); see also Murray Aff. at ¶ 7 [“The Office of the
General Counsel determined that (i) the AFDI Ad complied with WMATA’s Guidelines
Governing Commercial Advertising and (ii) was protected speech under the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.” (emphasis added)] [Doc. No. 13-3]).

 Plaintiffs’ advertisement was scheduled to run on four (4) WMATA dioramas beginning
September 24, 2012 and ending October 21, 2012. (Def.’s Opp’n at 5 [Doc. No. 13]; Geller

4 To avoid potential confusion, Plaintiffs have marked their exhibits consecutively. Thus, Plaintiff
Geller’s declaration [Doc. No. 2-1] filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motion is marked as Exhibit 1. And
Plaintiff Geller’s supplemental declaration filed in support of this reply is marked as Exhibit 2.

Decl. at ¶ 11, Ex. B [Doc. No. 2-1]; Geller Supp. Decl. at ¶ 5, Ex. A [acknowledging that
Plaintiffs’ advertising campaign was “to start September 24th”], at Ex. 2).5

 The WMATA has six hundred thirteen (613) dioramas. (Murray Aff. at ¶ 2 [Doc. No.
13-3]).

 On September 18, 2012, the WMATA, through its advertising agent, informed Plaintiffs
that the advertisements were not going to run on September 24, 2012 “due to the situations
happening around the world at this time.” (Geller Decl. at ¶ 14 [Doc. No. 2-1]; Geller Supp.
Decl. at ¶5, Ex. A, at Ex. 2).

 Plaintiff Geller immediately informed the WMATA, through its advertising agent, that
Plaintiffs objected to this restriction on their speech, stating, “It is precisely because of the
current political situation that it is important that I be able to express my message now and that I
consider any delay to be government censorship of my core political speech. I demand that the
transit authority change [its] position.” (Geller Decl. at ¶ 15 [Doc. No. 2-1]; Def.’s Ex. M. [Doc.
No. 13-17]) (emphasis added).

 The WMATA, through its advertising agent, confirmed that the advertisements would not
run “due to world events and a concern for the security of their passengers.” (Geller Decl. at ¶
16 [Doc. No. 2-1]; Def.’s Ex. M [Doc. No. 13-17]).

 The WMATA is restricting Plaintiffs’ speech because of the reaction to anti-Islam
speech in the Middle East. (See Def.’s Opp’n at 5-8 [Doc. No. 13]; Murray Aff. at ¶¶ 11-13
[Doc. No. 13-3]; Def.’s Ex. M [Doc. No. 13-17]).

 The WMATA’s restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech is operating as a prior restraint. (Geller
Decl. at ¶¶ 14-16 [Doc. No. 2-1]; Murray Aff. at ¶¶ 11-13 [Doc. No. 13-3]; Def.’s Ex. M [Doc.
No. 13-17]).

 The WMATA’s restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech is based on the WMATA’s perception
that certain viewers will react adversely to Plaintiffs’ message, and in particular, that certain
viewers will react negatively toward the viewpoint expressed by Plaintiffs’ message.6 (Def.’s
Opp’n at 5-8 [Doc. No. 13]; Taborn Aff. at ¶¶ 5-6 [Doc. No. 13-2]; Murray Aff. at ¶¶ 11-13
[Doc. No. 13-3]). Consequently, the WMATA’s restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech is both content-
and viewpoint-based. (See also Def.’s Opp’n at 7 [Doc. No. 13] [stating that the WMATA made
“a reassessment of the AFDI Ad’s inflammatory language in light of the [anti-Islam video’s]
depiction of the prophet Mohammad and Muslims as violent, barbaric and uncivilized, or in
other words, as savages.” (emphasis added)]; Aff. of Taborn at ¶ 5 [“I determined that the AFDI
Ad was highly incendiary, particularly because it refers to both Middle-Easterners and Muslims
as savages.” (emphasis added)] [Doc. No. 13-2]).

 In its opposition, the WMATA indicates, for the first time, that “it is prepared to run the
advertisement beginning November 1,” (Def.’s Opp’n at 11, n.15), which means that the
WMATA is imposing an arbitrary, 38-day suspension and censorship of Plaintiffs’ political
speech. (Taborn Aff. at ¶ 11 [Doc. No. 13-2]).

 The very same advertisement at issue here is currently on display on Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (“MTA”) property in New York City. And while there have been some
isolated incidents of vandalism, which is not uncommon for a major transit authority when a
controversial advertisement runs,7 there have been no outbreaks of terrorism or other such
violence that would create any serious safety concerns or a “dangerous environment” for
passengers. (Geller Supp. Decl. at ¶ 10 at Ex. 2). Consequently, the WMATA’s safety concerns
are not only speculative, they are unfounded as a matter of fact.

Read it all: Download PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER / PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed  and this,
Download Ex 2–Geller Supp Declaration–Filed

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

13 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

reliapundit

11 years ago

REMINDER: YOU CAN YELL “FIRE!” IN A CROWDED THEATER IF THERE’S A FIRE.
IN FACT, IT’S A GOOD THING TO YELL “FIRE!” IF THERE’S A FIRE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE DECRYING ISLAMIST HEGEMONY ARE YELLING “FIRE!” IN A WORLD THAT’S ON FIRE.
THEY ARE NOT ISLAMOPHOBES.
THEY ARE COURAGEOUS HEROES.
ESPECIALLY YOU AND ROBERT.
GOD BLESS YOU BOTH.
THE REAL ISLAMOPHOBES ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID OF THE ISLAMISTS AND GIVE IN TO THEIR THREATS AND TRADE OUR RIGHTS TO THEM.
THE WORLD IS ON FIRE.
WHILE WE YELL “FIRE!”,
OBAMA YELLS “FORE!”
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2012/10/reminder-you-can-yell-fire-in-crowded.html

0

Lee Poteet

11 years ago

I guess they have seen the video of Mona. So they know that Muslims, male and female, can be violent and don’t like to be reminded that civilized people don’t think highly so such behavior.

0

Remco Kimber

11 years ago

And in all of these suits, which side is the one presuming that Muslims are inherently violent? The racism, if one goes along with the leftists’ incessant chant re: Muslims, is entirely on the shoulders of government officials.

0

WarEagle82

11 years ago

Wait. The “logic” is the “religion of peace” will continue to exercise non-stop violence if we say things they don’t like?
Now you know why the MORONS at WMATA can’t keep the budgets under control and the trains on the tracks. They mental process is ALSO totally derailed!

0

Clint

11 years ago

I want the ads to be posted all over Austin. Send them to me and I’ll put them up myself. There are parts of the surrounding metro area that makes me think I left the country from seeing all the burkas.

0

Reality Check

11 years ago

You will win for sure. Does the WMATA have to pay your attorney fees? I sure hope so.

0

Tommo

11 years ago

In Libya the civilised man Ambassador Christopher Stevens was dragged through the streets naked, tortured, sodomised and killed by the savages.
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/ar-LB/usa-killed-lybia-zek-970.htm

0

Brandy

11 years ago

Best of luck! A HUGE thanks to David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise!! I admire them greatly.

0

bofaf

11 years ago

These idiots were marching with signs that threatened people with beheading. Wonder if they meant it? look at you tube video “muslim apostate to christianity beheaded in tunisia for leaving islam – arab spring” WARNING!!!! Video is extremely graphic and bloody. Peaceful religion? My ass.

0

Pazuzu

11 years ago

Doesn’t what the DC metro said about the moslem reaction to your ad corroborate exactly what the ad says?

0

ApolloSpeaks

11 years ago

DHIMMI COWARDS
The DC in Washingtion now means Dhimmi Cowards.

0

scrubjay

11 years ago

I particularly enjoyed the footnote:

“Imagine the government telling the Washington Post that it could write a story critical of presidential candidate Mitt Romney based on comments he made at a fundraising event, but that the newspaper couldn’t run the story until after the election in November for fear that it might upset TEA Party supporters. Would anyone seriously dispute that this government censorship of speech is causing irreparable injury? Of course not. Indeed, as the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in Elrod, ‘The timeliness of political speech is particularly important.’”

Doesn’t everyone know that we are predisposed to throwing bales of tea over the sides of ships at even the slightest provocation?

0

Jack Kemp

11 years ago

For a number of years, the Washington Metro system did not include the name “Reagan” in its maps of the Reagan National Airport stop. This was their first act of political censorship. They need to be reminded of this in court and at hearings.

0