[ April 18, 2024 ]
Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situations is, according to the media, “anti-Muslim.” We have been fighting this one in Detroit for a decade.
I was treated like a criminal for placing these ads. Read this: SMART Sh*t
Panel Looks Likely to Overturn Ban on Anti-Muslim Ads
By Kevin Koeninger, Courthouse News Service, December 13, 2019:
Story continues below advertisementCINCINNATI (CN) – A conservative free speech group appeared successful Friday at persuading a Sixth Circuit panel that a Detroit-area public transit authority cannot ban its anti-Muslim ads for being overtly political.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative sued the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation in 2010 in an attempt to get its “Refuge From Islam” ad on the sides of public transit vehicles in metro Detroit.
The Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse in Cincinnati, home of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (AP Photo/Dan Sewell)The ad reads: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers! RefugefromIslam.com.” It was rejected by the transit authority, known as SMART, as being political speech.
Although a federal judge initially granted AFDI’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit overturned the injunction in a 2012 ruling and told the district court that SMART’s ban on political advertisements is both reasonable and constitutional.
Upon remand, both parties conducted discovery and filed motions for summary judgment.
U.S. District Judge Denise Hood sided with SMART, ruling in March that because the public transit vehicles are a nonpublic forum, the speech contained in the ad is afforded less protection under the First Amendment.
AFDI appealed the decision, which returned the case to the Sixth Circuit for Friday’s arguments in front of a different panel of judges.
Attorney Robert Muise argued on behalf of AFDI, and cited a pair of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions throughout his argument – the 2017 case Matal v. Tam and the 2018 case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.
In Tam, the nation’s high court found the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause, which prohibits scornful or offensive speech in trademarks, is viewpoint-based and violates the First Amendment, while Mansky found a ban on political apparel at polling places was unconstitutional.
U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, an appointee of President Donald Trump, asked Muise if there would be any limitations on the ads allowed on buses if the panel struck down SMART’s restrictions, including whether the KKK could advertise on vehicles.
“Hard cases oftentimes made bad law,” Muise responded, adding that if SMART wanted to eliminate potentially political advertising, “they don’t have to permit advertising.”
The attorney told the panel that while banning campaign ads is an objective standard, SMART’s sliding restrictions on what constitutes political speech is subjective and allows “unfettered discretion” on behalf of the government agency to dictate speech.
Attorney Christian Hildebrandt argued on behalf of SMART and faced a barrage of hypotheticals from Murphy, who pounced on a deposition witness’ definition of political as anything that produces divided viewpoints in society.
“You can’t get our society to agree on anything,” the judge said, and asked about putting a “Go Bucks” sign in a bus, referencing the college football rivalry between the Ohio State Buckeyes and Michigan Wolverines.
Murphy pressed on, asking whether Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association would be allowed to advertise on SMART’s buses.
Hildebrandt said it would depend on the ads, and that such groups could advertise but not advocate specific positions. He added that examples like the “Go Bucks” ad take the matter to “illogical extremes.”
“The point of Mansky,” the attorney told the panel, “was that it was as haphazard standard.”
Murphy pointed out that SMART’s standard seems to be continually changing, and that the agency’s definition of “politicized speech” took it out of the realm of politics entirely.
Hildebrandt responded that SMART analyzes the proposed ad, as well as the advertiser’s website, before it makes a final decision.
“I completely feel for you,” Murphy said, “but we have these recent Supreme Court decisions.”
The judge added that the point of a definitive standard is to make answers to hypothetical scenarios straightforward.
“It’s not clear to me what the answer would be to a lot of these hypotheticals,” he said.
In his rebuttal, Muise said SMART’s restriction is unlawful on its face.
“The standard is utterly unworkable,” he said. “This is Mansky in spades.”
Muise said in an interview after the hearing that he “would be surprised if we don’t prevail,” based on the precedents set in Tam and Mansky.
Hildebrandt declined to comment after the argument.
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., an appointee of Bill Clinton, and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Eugene Siler Jr., a George H.W. Bush appointee, also sat on the panel.
No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.
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.
12 Comments
4 years ago
It’s like a judicial ping pong ball.
Will selective censorship be allowed?
4 years ago
Lots of Muslims leaving Islam today on the Pink Bus!
4 years ago
Reply to
ben tossed
Agree. After facebook, twitter , even Google, youtube joins lslamofascist gang to support illegals and jihadis suppress conservative free speech
who is really behind it http://tinyurl.com/lgp28rs
Conservatives by failing to support , fund , organise and resist have allowed their free speech to be suppressed. Your Bill of rights will not defend itself from Left/Jihadi criminals. you need to fight back.
Once free speech is taken your 2nd amendment will go too. your guns won’t save you !
4 years ago
Reply to
ben tossed
WE ISLAMO-REALISTS KEEP IT REAL! IF YOU FOLLOW ALL THESE SUBVERSIVE ENERGIES UP THE CHAIN YOU WILL ARRIVE AT THE GEORGE SOROS-IAN GLOBALIST BANKING CLIQUE THAT GETS ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT MAKE NO SENSE DONE THAT SERVE IN ORDER TO SERVE THEIR IDEOLOGICAL ENDS! HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL RIGHTISTS ESPECIALLY CHANUKAH!
4 years ago
No surprise here!
Only Muslims are allowed HATE SPEECH as “free speech”.
CAIR attacks Trump’s defense of Jews on campus on grounds of “free speech”
DEC 14, 2019 8:00 AM
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
As reported by the New York Times:
As the poison of anti-Semitism spreads with dangerous violence throughout Europe, the Middle East, and even here at home — most recently in a horrific attack on Tuesday in Jersey City — President Trump is taking meaningful action to crush this evil.
On Wednesday, the president will sign an executive order to combat the rise of anti-Semitism on American college campuses. As a grandchild of Holocaust survivors, I understand the horrors of anti-Semitism. I could not be more proud of President Trump’s new policy.
But get this! Suddenly CAIR, which just called upon Amazon, Google and Barnes and Noble to remove
“all white supremacist and pro-confederate digital audio books and related social media ads,”
supports the freedom of speech:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)…. pledged to oppose an executive order signed by President Trump that attempts to suppress academic freedom by conflating the vile bigotry of anti-Semitism with First Amendment-protected criticism of the Israeli government’s human rights abuses against Palestinians.
CAIR chapters across the country intend to work with local allies, students and educators to protect free speech and academic freedom from the Trump administration’s use of the executive order.
…
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/12/cair-attacks-trumps-defense-of-jews-on-campus-on-grounds-of-free-speech
?w=940
4 years ago
A great case but a little confusing for me as a non-lawyer. Is the “Leaving Islam?” ad political or not? If it is political it has 1st amendment protections, but the lawyer seems to be arguing it is not political, so then it can be more easily banned, except that “… the public transit vehicles are a nonpublic forum” so he’s saying he sees it as political? I’m not sure which side he is advocating or if he is just saying the standards have to be established about what is political. If “Leaving Islam?” is political then so is “Come to Islam,” right? That makes sense. Maybe what is needed is an ad by an organization of former Muslims offering support, something like the ads for gays and lesbians who leave strict religious communities? That would be less “scornful” and more of a public service.
4 years ago
Reply to
RCCA
Muslims only like “free speech” ONLY if it supports their views or is destructive to our country.
It’s another way of using our laws against us and supports Sharia.
4 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
So true. The Islamic definition of free speech is “that which does not offend Muslims.” Our freedom speech guarantees their right to call Jews the spawn of Satan and Israel an apartheid, racist, colonialist, Nazi-fascist, oppressive state. Liberals go along with all of that because of their fear of violence by Muslims. Very PC — pathetic and cowardly.
4 years ago
Reply to
RCCA
My understanding is that it’s the “expressive” dimension of public speech that cannot be suppressed. This applies even if some find it offensive. Behind the legal gobbledygook is this basic truth: your speech is free or it’s not. The possible offense to a person or persons is not enough reason for the government to suppress it (in Matal the US Patent Office couldn’t disallow the patent for an all-Asian group, the Slants, because some Asians would be offended).
4 years ago
Reply to
Jeff Ludwig
So the case here comes down to if a private company is or is not obligated to offer you a place to express yourself even though it is a public forum. They have to come up with some clear guidelines that apply to everyone equally.
4 years ago
I looked up those important recent Supreme Court decisions. Matal v. Tam is especially relevant in this case. It’s so great to see freedom upheld, and interestingly it was a unanimous decision and Gorsuch wasn’t even seated on the court yet. So there really is no room for disgruntled leftists to piss and whine about this likely open door for P. Geller (assuming the decision falls in her favor). I’m rejoicing. Her perseverance and her lawyers’ tenacity have paid off. God bless you Ms Geller and God bless the USA (although we are rapidly falling into degenerate mode and soon there will be little of the truly wholesome America some of us remember quite well).
