News Ticker >
[ April 25, 2019 ]

‘Political Islam’ wants to ‘secede’ from France – French President Macron

[ April 25, 2019 ]

Germany: “Asylum-Seekers” Brutally Assault Passersby, Get Away With Light Sentences

[ April 25, 2019 ]

Germany: Women’s Magazine Gives Tips on Treating Stab Wounds

[ April 25, 2019 ]

EXCLUSIVE: Jewish Couple in Paris Brutally Beaten by Muslim Gang in Their Own Home

[ April 25, 2019 ]

WATCH: Dem Cory Booker Supports Ilhan Omar’s Jew-Hatred, Calls Criticism Of Her ‘Reprehensible’

[ April 25, 2019 ]

No More Celebratory Champagne Popping for Winning Soccer Teams Due To Muslim Sensitivities

[ April 25, 2019 ]

Muslim Academic Invents Anal Suppositories That “Cure” Homosexuality Based on Islamic “Prophetic Medicine”

[ April 25, 2019 ]

Editor of Architectural Review: Islamic Minaret Should Replace Notre Dame Spire

[ April 25, 2019 ]

YouTube and Google Pour Millions into Leftist Fake News Publishers

[ April 25, 2019 ]

Brunei Asks EU Leaders for ‘Tolerance’ of Brutal Sharia Law Punishments

AFDI takes D.C. free speech fight to the Supreme Court

8

We have take our free speech fight against Washington D.C. Transit to the Supreme Court. My organization, AFDI filed a lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for violation of our First Amendment rights by refusing to display our free speech ads. In what could only called an end-run around the First Amendment, the Washington Transit Authority banned “political ads” after AFDI submitted our free speech campaign. No contemporary medium of communication may pass the test of being merely commercial and non-political. The New York Times runs an editorial page every day — not to mention the slant of their “straight news” — and therefore, if they can advertise, so can the Village Voice, the Socialist Militant, and Dabiq (ISIS’ four-color magazine), for that matter.

We salute our legal team of avid Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom law Center for their trailblazing work in the cause of the freedom of speech.

In the Supreme Court of the United States
AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE, et al.,
v.
Petitioners,
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (WMATA)

The D.C. Circuit’s opinion conflicts with this Court’s precedent on an issue of exceptional importance: the freedom to express a viewpoint free from government censorship. Additionally, there is conflict in the United States courts of appeals regarding the application of the First Amendment to the display of public-issue advertisements on government transit authority property. This Court’s review is warranted.
1. Is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s advertising space a public forum for Petitioner’s “Support Free Speech” ads such that Respondents’ rejection of the ads violates the First Amendment?

2. Regardless of the forum question, is Respondents’ rejection of Petitioners’ “Support Free Speech” ads unreasonable and viewpoint based in violation of the First Amendment?

Read the whole thing:

AFDI v WMATA: Petition for … by on Scribd

UPDATE: From AFLC:

On January 28, 2019, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking the high court’s review in a case challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) refusal to display two “Support Free Speech” ads on their advertising space.

The two ads, which were submitted by AFLC clients Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and their organization, AFDI, appear as follows:

AFDI’s ads make the point that the First Amendment will not yield to Sharia-adherent Islamists who want to enforce so-called blasphemy laws here in the United States, whether through threats of violence or through the actions of complicit government officials.

WMATA originally rejected the ads because the ad copy “advocates free speech and does not try to sell you a commercial product” in violation of WMATA’s advertising guideline prohibiting “[a]dvertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions.”

WMATA now claims that the ads also violate its guideline prohibiting “[a]dvertisements that support or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief.”

AFLC contends that both guidelines are unlawful viewpoint-based restrictions.

The district court upheld the speech restrictions, and AFLC appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The D.C. Circuit reversed, in part, the adverse ruling and remanded the case for the district court to determine whether WMATA’s rejection of the ads was “reasonable.”

In its ruling, however, the circuit court affirmed that WMATA’s advertising space was a nonpublic forum and that its speech restrictions were viewpoint neutral.

AFLC disagrees and is asking the Supreme Court to review this important First Amendment case.

In the petition, AFLC presents the Supreme Court with two questions for review:

1. Is WMATA’s advertising space a public forum for the “Support Free Speech” ads such that its rejection of the ads violates the First Amendment?

2. Regardless of the forum question, is WMATA’s rejection of the “Support Free Speech” ads unreasonable and viewpoint based in violation of the First Amendment?

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented:

“The First Amendment is not a privilege that some government official extends to us; it is an existential protection of our fundamental and inherent liberty to speak in the face of tyranny. At a time when the shadow government of faceless bureaucrats joins hands with progressives and Muslim Brotherhood types to suppress public criticism on any subject that might offend the enemies of liberty, AFLC will stand tall and strong.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise added:

“Review should be granted in this case.  The D.C. Circuit’s opinion conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on an issue of exceptional importance: the freedom to express a viewpoint free from government censorship.  Additionally, there is conflict in the circuit courts regarding the application of the First Amendment to the display of public-issue advertisements on government transit authority property.  A circuit split is among the most important factors in determining whether the Court grants review.”

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 to our ground-breaking work here.


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

Contribute Monthly - Choose One

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

Pin It on Pinterest