In a world full of clueless, corrupt, and compromised officials, we are still standing for the truth and the freedom of speech. How about you?
“AFLC Files Opening Brief in Appeal of District Court Order that Allowed MTA to Sidestep an Injunction and Refuse to Display Pamela Geller’s Ad,” American Freedom Law Center, August 23, 2015:
Today, lawyers for Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and their non-profit organization, American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), filed their opening brief in their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing a federal district court’s ruling that “dissolved” the court’s earlier order requiring the New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to run Geller’s “Hamas Killing Jews” advertisement displayed below.
Judge John G. Koeltl, presiding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in downtown Manhattan, had earlier ruled on April 20 that the MTA’s refusal to run the ad (the MTA claimed that Muslims in New York might understand the ad to be advocating violence and would therefore incite them to murder Jews as Islamic worship) was unconstitutional. In fact, Judge Koetl ruled that there was no evidence of any threat of violence.
The court stayed (i.e., postponed) the enforcement of its order for 30 days to give the MTA time to appeal or to work out the logistics of running the ad. The MTA did neither. Instead, it convened a public board meeting at which MTA board member Charles Moerdler ranted incoherently about hate speech and Geller’s newly proposed ads designed to expose wealthy Jews who supported boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning Israel—what is referred to as the BDS movement.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the board voted to change the MTA ad policy by excluding all speech that, according to MTA officials, addressed “disputed” causes and issues. On the heels of that decision, the MTA filed a motion to “dissolve” the court’s previous order to run the Hamas Killing Jews ad on the grounds that the MTA was no longer applying the “incitement” provision, but rather a “no political message” provision. The district court granted that motion.
The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national, nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, which represents Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and AFDI, opposed the motion on numerous grounds, not the least of which was that the MTA’s conduct was and continues to be in bad faith and a transparent effort to silence Geller’s criticism of Islamic terrorism and the media bias against Israel.
David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, explained,
“We believe strongly that the court has misread the First Amendment law regarding limited public fora and thus applied the wrong, less exacting standard. We are confident this ruling will be reversed and the MTA will run the Hamas Killing Jews ad, which highlights the murderous nature of Islamic jihad.”
Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, added,
“This appeal is important for all freedom loving Americans because the government should not be permitted to violate the First Amendment and then on the heels of an adverse court decision simply modify its rules to avoid the consequences of its unlawful behavior.”
Muise continued,
“If we can’t get the Second Circuit to protect the First Amendment through this appeal, then we will consider Supreme Court review. This issue is that important.”
AFLC has now won two federal lawsuits against the MTA, one against the Washington, D.C. transit authority, and one against the Philadelphia transit authority on behalf of its clients, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and AFDI. Cases are still pending in Detroit, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

mortimer says
The question is WHY anyone would consider defending Islam…???
Islam’s many defects include:
1 No Golden Rule 2 No free speech 3 No democracy 4 Jihad – holy war of supremacism 5 Honor killings 6 Taqiyya – sacred lying 7 Taqlid – group think 8 Misogyny – repression of women 9 Rape of kafirs as jihad prizes 10 Genocide 11 Ethnic cleansing 12 Al-Walaa wal-Baraa – Islamic apartheid 13 Torture 14 Plundering 15 Cruel and unusual punishments 16 Backwardness – stagnation 17 Violence against women 18 Slavery 19 Discriminatory Sharia law 20 Hatred of the arts 21 Pedophilia disguised as child marriage 22 Fifty generations of cousin marriage and genetic defects 23 Cruelty to animals 24 Extortion tax to humiliate disbelievers 25 No historic basis 26 Anti-intellectual obscurantism 27 FGM 28 Arab racism 29 Theocratic totalitarianism 30 Vigilantism.
What moral…even sensible…person would defend ANY of the above? To defend Islam is to defend Bronze Age savagery and bigotry.
Gufo says
I have always wondered in what twisted society anyone who dare exposing islam is a fascist. islam IS fascist, but if you oppose it… then you are? How can you be “liberal” and “democratic” while supporting the least democratic system of all times? How can you be a feminist and support islam? How can you claim pedophilia is a crime, and defend islam? Orwell was a beginner, compared to our governments.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Money is one reason. Over at FrontPageMag today there’s an article that outlines the successes of the Iranian American Political Action Committee fund raising for globo-socialist senators, to include Sen. Markey, Sen. Shaheen and Sen. Stuart Smalley (aka Franken). The Moslem dude who set up the IAPAC was even nominated by ex-Prez Bill for an ambassadorship (but he wasn’t approved).
The organization, and its bought senators, it goes without saying are for the “deal” with the Supreme Leader to continue enriching uranium, building advanced centrifuges, and to buy ICBMs. But the “deal” is artfully silent on Iran continuing to fund Hamas and assisting in building IEDs to kill and main American soldiers and marines. Silence is golden.
Money is a big reason why so many support Islam and its key component Jihad terror mass murder operations. It’s hard to swallow, but true.
Mark says
Never give up.
Angemon says
Here’s to seeing those ads in NY very soon.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
We just had five Supreme Court justices sign off on a 23-page explanation of why “exchange established by the state” does not mean “exchange established by the state.” Something about how they “adopted a reading” and inferred what the text of the law really meant in the minds of those who passed it.
So, in a milieu of liars and cowards in black robes, we can’t reasonably expect them to stand up for free speech and take the personal risk of being stabbed to death or shot full of holes, or maybe blown up by a stateside IED. Plus, they probably sympathize with Moslems to boot.
Look for these august legal scholars to “adopt a reading” whereby “free speech” is inferred to mean “free speech, except where religious victims are offended.” Yeah, that’s what the Founders meant. We live in the era of Robertsonian jurisprudence. These people are geniuses who hail from the soaring intellectual heights of Harvard Law Tool, Yale Law Tool and Columbia Law Tool.
As we used to say back in the day, roll your own and suck the bone.
Dave J says
When you are prohibited from saying actual facts in public that is the end of Free Speech and the beginning of the end of Democracy.
pdxnag says
I like the Special Facts Exception argument beginning at page 44. It is a vested right, as if the law had been followed from the start and the ads were allowed to run. Let them run now because of the unlawful delay.
BW022 says
What I don’t get is why the MTA is doing this? You appealed and lost. Fine. Run the ads and then say “We were ordered by the district court” if anyone complains.
Why does a transit authority care that much? Is your average MTA employee affected by Hamas, local Muslims, Jewish groups, etc.? They can’t all have personal bones in this ‘dispute’. If you are trying to avoid controversy… again, just run them and say We had to. Do you… expect hundreds of thousands of Muslims not to ride the busses, subways, or buy ads because some court ordered you to run the ads? You’ve already wasted more time and money fighting this than any possible backlash or boycott could bring.
It would seem to me that having a court order you to do something completely removes all responsibility for this, no one can assume you are supporting the message, and any backlash would be against the court and not you.