MTA: We have a right to ban free speech, Judge says not so fast

18

We had a victory yesterday in federal court. The MTA filed a motion to dismiss yesterday. The Judge who ruled in our favor was not amused. And just to show how loaded the dice are against us, the judge, the MTA lawyer and libeler Charles Moerdler, the MTA board member who prefaced his remarks with a vicious tirade of abuse against me during the vote ban, are all friends. Good clubby, cigar, 1%, brandy friends. But the Judge assured us that he would be impartial, and frankly, to date he has been, so I will reserve judgement.

Yesterday, the MTA and AFDI lawyer David Yerushalmi argued before Manhattan federal Judge John Koeltl, who ruled in our favor not  a week ago. MTA lawyer Peter Sistrom insisted yesterday that the ban against our ads was not against us per se, but against political ads.  Nonsense. They never fought the anti-Jewish ads or anti-Israel ads, they only banned only our ads — ads exposing the ideology behind the jihad against Israel and America.

There is an expression in yiddish, “auf ein gunaf brentz hittle,” or “on the thief the hat burns.” In other words, “you have a guilty conscience.” And the hot hats over at the MTA are on fire.

Story continues below advertisement

Judge Koeltl railed against Sistrom for 45 minutes. It was gorgeous.

Imagine in post 9/11 NYC, with scores of Islamic attacks thwarted in the subway, the Holland Tunnel, NY Stock Exchange, the Federal Reserve Building, Times Square, etc., and NYC is banning criticism of jihad and sharia.

The Ground Zero mosque Imam Rauf was right when he said 9/11 was a watershed moment for Islam. They won.

“MTA defends right to ban political ads,” By Rich Calder, NY Post, Mat 2, 2015
savage ad
MTA defends right to ban political ads
Photo: Stefano Giovannini

Group behind anti-jihad ads challenges MTA ban
MTA bans political ads in transit system
MetroCard fares not going up 15 percent anytime soon

MTA lawyers on Friday argued that the agency had every legal right to revise its policy on political advertisements — and that it wasn’t done to quiet a pro-Israel group seeking to attack Islamic fundamentalist.

During a hearing before Manhattan federal Judge John Koeltl, MTA lawyer Peter Sistrom said he “strenuously takes issue” with any suggestion the agency’s board two days earlier voted to revise its policy only because it wanted to prevent activist Pam Geller [sic] and her pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative from running controversial ads on city buses.

“[The policy change] was in the works long before and was not aimed at these ads” — and Geller’s group was “not a target,” said Sistrom, referring to a planned AFDI ad that read “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah” attributed to a Hamas group, as well as the message “That’s His Jihad. What’s yours?”

Koeltl last week ruled that the MTA under First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights cannot stop AFDI from running the ads — even though agency officials feared it could promote violence.

The agency then countered by revising its policy so that any advertisement with political messages would banned — a move Geller’s group claims is an insult to the Constitution.

Modal Trigger

Sistrom said the policy revision not only affected AFDI. He said it also blocked planned ads from going up on subways and buses submitted by at least two other parties. He also argued that the preliminary injunction that Koeltl granted April 21 in AFDI’s favor should be declared “moot” because of the policy change, adding the MTA now wouldn’t be rejecting the group’s ad over inciting potential violence but rather only on the grounds that it’s a political ad.

Koeltl in his earlier ruling gave the MTA 30 days to avoid putting up the ads while it considers an appeal. On Friday, he extended this stay an additional month until June 22 while he continues to hear arguments from both sides in writing and at a June 16 hearing.

AFDI lawyer David Yerushalmi accused the MTA of trying to “back door” the legal process by revising its policy to circumvent Koeltl’s ruling. He accused the MTA of “blatant censorship” and said his group is likely to file an amended lawsuit or new suit to deal with the agency’s new ad policy, if necessary.

The group last year paid $100,000 for six ads denouncing jihad on 100 city buses and in the city’s busiest subway stations. The MTA green-lighted five of the ads but denied the one in question because agency officials thought it would provoke violence due to Mideast turmoil. Geller sued over the rejection last October.

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RalphB
RalphB
8 years ago

Good to hear. Just yesterday I wrote here:

AFDI must insist that since the judge ordered the ads to be posted the
ads must be posted. No one gets to make a judge’s order “moot” by
unilaterally and “ex post facto” changing the wrongful policy they are
guilty of applying in order to claim that no wrong was done after all —
that’s legally absurd. The MTA board is not empowered to overturn a
federal judge’s remedy against their own wrongful action by voting to do
so! That is like saying that the public school boards ordered to
desegregate by court order in the sixties could avoid the order by
voting to make themselves “private academies” supported by public “merit
scholarships” not subject to equal protection rules. We have a
separation of powers in the U.S. Nobody gets to vote themselves out of a
court order, only another judge can alter the ruling of the court.

I’m only disappointed that the judge postponed the deadline by another month. But we will prevail.

RCCA
RCCA
8 years ago

Moerdler’s statement made it very obvious the change in policy was retaliatory and personal, with all that nonsense about “lashon hara.”

pamelageller
pamelageller
8 years ago
Reply to  RCCA

Exactly.

KathyIBrown
KathyIBrown
8 years ago
Reply to  RCCA

◔❧❧◔❧❧◔Run Profit from h0me with Google J0bs@nb6::

….

➨➨➨➨https://CastleRockNethinas.biz/Quantum/leap….

vlparker
vlparker
8 years ago

MTA lawyer Peter Sistrom said he “strenuously takes issue” with any suggestion the agency’s board two days earlier voted to revise its policy only because it wanted to prevent activist Pam Geller [sic] and her pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative from running controversial ads on city buses.

Talk about insulting the judge’s intelligence.

SJS
SJS
8 years ago
Reply to  vlparker

I strenuously take issue with any suggestion he had anything but Pamela Geller in mind.

JacktheRipper
JacktheRipper
8 years ago

Banning these ads is like spit in the face of the Jewish people. At a bare minimum the MTA should honor the court’s decision and allow the posting of Pam’s ads. This rabbit-out-of-your-hat policy change only proves they were not acting in good conscience, they had a back-up strategy in place that would assure their spineless and moralless agenda would be fulfilled. It’s a personal attack on Pam & her well-intentioned ads.

This should be a lesson to us all, to watch out for evil doers anxious to thwart reasonable and intelligent action to confront antisemitism and Jihad savagery. We should be deeply concerned that mainstream society can so perfunctorily dismiss our 1st amendment as an islamic courtesy. These ads serve a noble purpose, to expose a hatred and criminality that no civilized people would even think of respecting. And to think this beast of a man, Moerdler, could so pompously denounce Pam’a ads as “filth” is a shocking hyperbolism and perversion of truth. This unjust & exaggerated derision by Mr. Pompous far exceeded legal necessity and is a good indicator of whose side he’s on in regard to antisemitic hate.

His superficial gloss may have fooled some, but it didn’t fool me. His argument is that of a pseudo intellect with a dark heart. He spoke without honor, and with no appreciation for the constitution, or the people’s right to speak in defense of human life and good morals. What kind of man does this?

JacktheRipper
JacktheRipper
8 years ago
Reply to  JacktheRipper

Pam, you are right, you know you’re right, and we know you’re right. Thomas Paine said, “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” I suspect that the darker and longer your tunnel gets, the brighter the light at the end. You fine lady, are a queen.

Dennis
Dennis
8 years ago

Placing advertising anywhere, whether on private property or public property, as a practical matter, is seemingly always subject to some kind of approval that is normally in the domain of the “owner” of the property on which the advertisement is to be placed. That essentially means that to place advertisements on private property must first be approved and allowed by the private owner of the property. In the case of placing adds on public property, in which advertisement has been allowed for many years, generating financial benefits for the public authority; unless there is appropriate legislation constitutionally forbidding certain advertisements, the public authority has no right to ban constitutionally protected free speech. Here the public transport system has for many years accepted consideration (money) from advertisers of all kinds. To now limit AFDI’s adds based on some determination that they will not allow any so-called political adds is patently unconscionable, especially given the history of advertisements in the public transportation system. While I would generally agree that the MTA might consider refusing all advertising, and thereby cease accepting any advertisement revenue, an inane effect, I believe to single out so-called political advertisement (and what is defined as political adds I might ask), under the circumstances here is clearly intended to immediately affect AFDI’s constitutionally protected adds which tell it as it is. I would be shocked if the judge allows that to happen. Will they refuse to accept revenue from the candidates who might choose to advertise on and in the public transportation system as those are political adds? The effect of this decision of a public authority is to ban free speech, whether political or otherwise. While you can’t falsely yell “fire” in a theater, since that is an attempt to create panic and will cause injury, and is not constitutionally protected free speech, you cannot ban free speech in other respects according to how I understand the object of our Constitution.

Jeff Ludwig
Jeff Ludwig
8 years ago

My money is on Judge Koetl allowing the MTA ruling to go into effect after the AFDI signs are allowed to appear. The Constitution does not allow for ex post facto (grandfathering) legislation, so, while I see their right to make a policy change, I don’t see how it can be used to alter the injunction.
Yes, it’s an “old boys network….” Sorry to say, but the establishment is a well-known reality. But there are differences among them. Love of Israel and the Jewish people takes different forms. Love for the U.S. Constitution still lends itself to different opinions. The fact that they are all friends in a way helps the cause of AFDI I think. Let’s say Koetl ends up taking AFDI’s side. Moerdler would not conclude that it’s because of any special liking of Koetl for P. Geller. He would have the assurance that the judge would not be assuming that his opposition to P.G. or AFDI were despicable in the judge’s eyes (in his heart of hearts, he knows it IS despicable). His deep-seated guilt over opposing a person of P.G.’s integrity on an issue that has personal, family implications would not be activated if the decision comes from Koetl. I’m sure the two of them have had multiple “friendly arguments” over a nice glass of brandy. I think Judge Koetl would like this opportunity to remind his friend that friendship is one thing, but encroaching on his turf as a judge is something else. It’s like the Jewish doctor talking to his old high school chum. He tells his old chum, “You maybe were ahead of me in the class rankings, but I’m the doctor here, and you better have this surgery…or else.” Probably I’m psychologizing too much (I have a tendency to do so), but I like the symmetry of it all.

SJS
SJS
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Ludwig

Actually, you sound like you have more than a pedestrian knowledge, perhaps intimate. That said, what you describe, if reality, says to me corruption of the sort that causes strangulation of a society we cherish.

Jeff Ludwig
Jeff Ludwig
8 years ago
Reply to  SJS

Well said. Even forty years ago, I was a reporter sitting at a meeting with a governmental clique of a smallish town in Pennsylvania. One of the clique said to me, ‘it’s better to be on the inside isn’t it?” I got the message. If I want to be a successful reporter, then I get with the insiders, and of course he implied that I would report stories in a way favorable to those insiders. Best wishes.

cmh
cmh
8 years ago

Didn’t another city pull this trick a while back?

Lia
Lia
8 years ago

David Yerushalmi is a hero, as you are a heroine, Pamela! And Judge Koeltl is bidding fair to join you.

mezcukor
mezcukor
8 years ago
Reply to  Lia

i agree with you

obstinate
obstinate
8 years ago

Better get a visiting judge

SJS
SJS
8 years ago

That’s not enough. Moerdler is the quintessential fascist.

This bit about the ads “may” inspire violence need to be challenged with a lawsuit. How can it be that any violence is/can be caused by free speech, and not the violence makers themselves.

The have besmirched Pamela/AFDI with this on an ongoing basis, as if she’s causing violence, and this need to be addressed/stopped once and for all.

Scamster.org
Scamster.org
8 years ago

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. We file lawsuits against Islamic fraudsters operating in USA: http://scamster.org/

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!