Pamela Geller has the story:
Today AFLC filed our lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority.
After our historic win in our first amendment lawsuit against the NYC MTA, our pro-Israel ads were scheduled to run in New York and DC Metro stations. The ad was submitted and approved. We signed contracts and paid for the ads.
Back on Tuesday, the DC Transit authority canceled 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 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. Short of that, we will file a lawsuit tomorrow.
Clearly, DC is kowtowing to the threat of jihad terrorism. Dhimmi DC transit is not alone. Others have criticized the use of the word “savage.” But it is entirely apt. They claim that the ad refers to all Muslims, or all opponents of Israel. It doesn’t. It refers to those who rejoice in the murders of innocent civilians. The war on Israel is a war on innocent civilians. The targeting of civilians is savage. The murder of Ambassador Stevens was savage. The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage. The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage. The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family was savage. The Munich Olympic massacre was savage. The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage. The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage. The vicious Jew-hatred behind this genocide is savage. The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab media is savage. The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state is savage. The list is endless.
9/11, 7/7, 3/11, Fort Hood, Christmas day bomber, Times Square bomber, Bulgarian bus bombing, Mumbai, Bali, etc., are savagery.
Today our legal team, Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of American Freedom Law Center filed suit against Washington Metropolitan Authority:
Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Wash. Metro Area Transit Auth.
“AFLC Files Federal Lawsuit Against D.C. Transit Authority for Refusing to Run Pro-Israel/Anti-Jihad Advertisement” American Freedom Law Center
Citing concerns about “the situations happening around the world” and the “security and safety” of its passengers, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has decided to delay running a pro-Israel/anti-jihad advertisement submitted by the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), a human rights organization, until some unknown “future date.” As a result, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of FDI and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The lawsuit challenges the WMATA”s unconstitutional restriction on FDI”s right to engage in protected speech in a public forum. AFLC also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking a court order to permit the advertisement to run immediately as scheduled.
The planned advertisement states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The WMATA does not want to display a message that it deems to be critical of Islam, critical of jihad, or supportive of Israel in light of the current “˜world events.” However, it is precisely because of the current political situation unfolding in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere that FDI should be permitted to express its message, and any delay amounts to government censorship of speech. Because FDI”s speech is core political speech, it should be accorded the greatest protection under the First Amendment.”
By policy and practice, the WMATA has leased its advertising space for a wide variety of commercial, noncommercial, public-service, public-issue, political, and religious advertisements. As such, the WMATA has permitted political and social commentary advertisements covering a broad spectrum of political views and ideas. For example, the WMATA leased its advertising space for a pro-Palestine advertisement, which displayed the anti-Israel message: “End U.S. military aid to Israel.”
In response to the pro-Palestine advertisement, FDI entered into a contract with CBS Outdoor — the advertising agent for WMATA — on September 6, 2012 to place the pro-Israel advertisement on four dioramas in area subways from September 24, 2012 to October 21, 2012. At the time of the contract, the advertisement was approved for display, and it satisfied all of the WMATA”s guidelines.
Nevertheless, the WMATA — presumably intimidated by the ongoing violence perpetrated by Muslims who claim to be angered by a YouTube video critical of Islam — informed Geller on September 18, 2012 through its CBS Outdoor agent that they will not run the advertisement as scheduled. Geller requested that the WMATA change its position, but the transit authority confirmed its decision, citing “world events and a concern for the security of their passengers.” Consequently, AFLC promptly filed its federal lawsuit and a request for a temporary restraining order so as to allow the advertisements to run during the period of time agreed upon by the parties. The lawsuit argues that the WMATA”s speech restriction is censoring FDI”s core political speech on the basis of its content and viewpoint because the restriction is based on the perceived negative response that FDI”s message might receive from certain viewers, most likely Muslim viewers who might engage in violence as a result.
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented, “Under the First Amendment, speech cannot be punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob. The WMATA”s speech restriction is based on the perceived negative response that FDI”s message might receive from certain viewers based on its content and viewpoint. However, a viewer’s reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. This is known as a “˜heckler’s veto,” which is impermissible under the First Amendment.”…