More cowardice and hypocrisy from the New York Times: “Muhammad Cartoon in the New York Times? Of Course Not,” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, July 1 2015:
Last Monday, the New York Times ran a lavish full-color image of a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of condoms. If they thought twice about offending Roman Catholics’ religious sensibilities, they gave no public hint of doing so. And so my human rights organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), decided to test their commitment to free speech by submitting an ad featuring a cartoon of Muhammad – the winning cartoon from our free speech event in Garland, Texas, which the Times had refused to run in their coverage of the jihad terror attack on our event.
Predictably, it rejected our ad as well. AFDI submitted the ad, featuring Bosch Fawstin’s cartoon of Muhammad exclaiming, “You can’t draw me!” and the cartoonist answering, “That’s why I draw you,” with the caption “Support Free Speech,” to run on Sunday, July 5, at the staggering cost of over $40,000.
Our ad is not obscene or offensive in any objective sense. It is a statement about how free people are not going to submit to violent intimidation and allow bloodthirsty thugs to curtail our freedoms.
But for the Sharia-compliant New York Times, even that was too far over the line. The Times’ John Shaw wrote me: “I have checked with our advertising acceptability department and this ad does not comply with our acceptability standards because it is offensive on religious grounds. We thank you again, but we will not be able to accept the ad.”
Offensive on what religious grounds? Sharia. For years now, the New York Times has adhered to and enforced the strict code of Islamic law. Bowed and cowed, the Times will not violate the vicious and archaic blasphemy laws under the sharia: it will not criticize, mock or otherwise mock Islam, no matter how high the death toll or how gruesome the jihad.
Back in 2012, the New York Times ran a full-page ad calling for Christians to leave the Catholic Church. When AFDI submitted a mirror image of that same ad, making the exactly the same declaration concerning Islam, the ad was rejected out of hand. We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference was that ours was true and what we described about the mistreatment of women and non-Muslims under Islamic law was true. The anti-Catholic ad, by contrast, was written by fallacious feminazis. Nonetheless, in a craven capitulation to Sharia blasphemy laws, the Times rejected my ad.
Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. Christie said that the Times would be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”
During our conversation, I asked Christie, “If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”
Christie responded, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.”
I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.”
He said, “No, it’s not.” I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad. You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”
Christie then sent me a follow-up letter, claiming that the Times was going to “delay publication in light of recent events in Afghanistan, including the Quran burning and the alleged killings of Afghani [sic] civilians by a member of the U.S. military. It is our belief that fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the region in danger.”
The publication “delay” is, of course, still going on.
Not to be outdone, the Washington Post rejected the ad as well. Video here and here.
It was most disingenuous for the New York Times to refuse to run our counter-jihad ad based on their concern for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Liars. The New York Times has done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. Was the Times concerned that they were putting our troops’ live in danger when they ran front page articles on Abu Ghraib every day for a month? Starting on May 1, 2004, the New York Times had a front page article on Abu Ghraib every day for 32 days.
Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaida in the mountains of Pakistan?
The New York Times exposed SWIFT (which put military and civilians at great risk of jihad). SWIFT was a legal secret program that gave the government access to a massive database of international financial transactions, using “broad subpoenas to collect the financial records from an international system.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in 2006, “The president is concerned that, once again, the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is protecting the American people.”
Despite the obvious hypocrisy of the Times, the mainstream media fell into line. It took a couple of days to get their arms around how to frame the Times’ self-enforcing of Shariah, but the Huffington Post and the left lemmings soon began to follow the Times’ line, claiming that running my ad would endanger lives.
Really? What nerve. What is lower than using our brave men and women to cover for the Times’ cowardice and anti-freedom editorial policies? That is so … left.
And now, with their running the Pope condom “art” but refusing to run my free speech statement, their cowardice and hypocrisy are fully exposed.

Angemon says
Of course not – catholics are very unlikely to go Charlie Hebdo on them.
underbed cat says
i agree Angemon..the New York Times uses their freedom of speech quite offensively….cutting edge artwork, but they can offend religions as you say, becasue “catholics are very unlikely to go Charlie Hebdo on them.” So they are safe. It is not in the nature or a practice to do such a barbaric acts and certainly not an religious imperative to do so.
Part of me understands that reasoning…and I certainly do not want to see anyone injured or worse, but when a nation tolerates the intolerable due to deception where is the obligation to at least announce why you are not printing a drawing without calling it “hateful”.and untruthful.
Shane says
It is quite simple. The NY Slimes hates Christians and fears Muslims. I hope that all Christians would boycott the Slimes.
Jay L. Stern says
I understand completely what Pamela is saying about a “double standard” from the NY Times. And she is right. But for those of you boycotting the Times, do it for the right reason! Look at the condom portrait of Pope Benedict. Viewed from the appropriate distance, it is beautiful and respectful. The artist was making the point that Benedict disapproved of condoms, even though they prevented the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Through a very meticulous placement of woven condoms of various colors, she gets that message across. The Times treatment of the AFDI ads on the other hand is clearly cowardice on parade. The Times is afraid of being bombed, sued, whatever for SHOWING the truth. And do you know what? The crazies don’t need excuses to bomb, sue or whatever! The more people cave in to them, the more they will do it. So, people, take two lessons from my post: (1) The only good muslim is an Apostate and (2) that’s really a nice likeness of Benedict.
BlueRaven says
I am boycotting reading New Yolk Times till they print AFDI ads – their attitude towards the freedom of speach is pathetic.
Neil Jennison says
Rank hypocrisy from the left. Hardly surprising though is it?
God help freedom, if it dies in the USA as it has here in Britain we really are f**ked!
gungadin says
I spent a couple of years stationed at RAF Bruntingthorpe in the Midlands in 1960 and 61 while I was in the USAF. Grand duty it was then !! Loved every moment of it !! I am SHOCKED to see what has happened to England. We here in the US are taking the same road that the UK has taken and let the savages into our land. Its’ long overdue that we throw these savages OUT of our lands !!
john spielman says
We need to throw out EVERY POLITICIAN who has become a whore for muslim money and votes (including Christie of New Jersey)
matt b says
Would have they run the ad if you pixellated the image and put ‘image censored by request of the magazine’ superimposed over the top.
Now that’s a statement about so-called freedom of speech. They are truly gutless wonders!
rubiconrest says
Great article; good points illustrating the hypocrisy of the MSM and one that I will keep for future reference. Thank you Pam.
Zimriel says
If Jews were allowed tattooes, hers would be “we can’t spare her, she fights”.
Cecilia Ellis says
Zimriel, tov meod!
gungadin says
Pam and Robert are both patriots and I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with them any day. I’m only sorry I missed that Garland Texas affair. But for sure I will make the next one…wherever it might be !!
Thanks Pam !! Keep up the GREAT work !!
IQ al Rassooli says
I am not a lawyer BUT based entirely on LOGIC, Pamela has an excellent opportunity to take the Times to court based on DISCRIMINATION or unlawful selectivity of advertising materials
Since they are very willing & happy to OFFEND Catholics (and Pamela has the proof) WHY are they refusing to OFFEND Muslims?
Take these spineless criminals to COURT!
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Mitch says
“unlawful selectivity of advertising materials”
Newspapers are and ought to be allowed to discriminate in this way.
Transit companies governed by U.S. states and cities are not allowed to violate speech when selling ad-space. So Pamela sued the MTA and won.
That’s my non-lawyerly understanding of Free Speech.
(The fact that The New York Times behaves as an organ of the DNC, a branch of our one-party federal government — with its decoy opposition-on-a-leash, the RNC — is another issue. One recourse to that is to exercise one’s First Amendment right, while still we can, to expose TNYT’s hypocrisy in another medium. Pamela and Robert do that tirelessly.)
No Fear says
NYT should publish a depiction of Mohammed beheading hundreds of the Banu Qurayza jews.
epistemology says
Hypocrisy, double standards and cowardice at the NYT. A sharia-compliant paper can never be a free paper. It’s disgusting
particolor says
Islam is a Mental Institution without a Fence and no Wardens !!!!
mortimer says
The NYT has ESTABLISHED Islam as its unofficial religion and ESTABLISHED Sharia law as its RELIGIOUS CODE.
The NYT has SUBMITTED to Islamic religious rules without a fight and under Sharia law, NYT is now a DHIMMI organization.
It sure isn’t Roman Catholic canon law the NYT follows!
Kepha says
The NYSlimes should be free to accept or reject whichever advertising it wants.
“Fairness” and “Equal coverage” doctrines are just a plot to shut down every independent voice in the USA.
Otherwise, I’m in complete agreement with the critics of the NYSlimes who have posted here. I further support Pam and Robert, and wish them all success. However, one of the things we’re fighting for is liberty, including the liberty to speak and publish–including for the other side.
Mirren10 says
” However, one of the things we’re fighting for is liberty, including the liberty to speak and publish–including for the other side.”
I agree with you, Kepha, up to a point. What sticks in my throat is the sheer hypocrisy and cowardice which allows them to print a picture of the pope made out of condoms, but refuse to print the winning mohammed cartoon. Didn’t they also print the ‘Piss-Christ’, and the Virgin in elephant faeces ?
What Miss Geller should do, instead of fighting for them to print the mohammed cartoon, is to publicly, and relentlessly, hammer their utter hypocrisy and cowardice.
Kepha says
Mirren, I also hate the cowardice and hypocrisy of the NYSlimes, Washington Compost, Useless News and Worthless Report, Slime, and the rest of the MSM. Hence, I exercise my right to keep my seventy-five cents to a buck fifty in my pocket.
Scott says
The thing I’m interested in is…..
Why is there not a lot more comments on this article as its absolute proof of what Robert and Pamela have been saying all along?
Betty says
people wear the t-shirt and bumper stickers in all 50 states. that will help a lot to get the word out.
John says
Islam is a stand over ideology.Stand up against it and it will crumble…….. Islam is a pedophile death cult….. Damned be Islam…. Blessed be Pamela Geller forever.