• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

AFDI lawsuit: “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend”

Mar 22, 2018 6:45 pm By Robert Spencer

One of the reasons why we have such a cult of victimhood in today’s society is because being offended is currency. It buys things for you. But only for some people. If conservatives are offended, it matters not a whit. But if Muslims are offended, everyone jumps to mollify them, in part to stave off the bombs and machetes, and in part because Islamic advocacy groups have so skillfully played the victim card and pushed into the mainstream the assumption that to oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression constitutes racism and bigotry.

The problem with shutting down speech that some find offensive, however, is that it gives the offended groups total power over the public discourse. And that means the end of a free society and the beginning of an authoritarian regime.

What happened in this case was that Seattle took down an FBI wanted poster because the people on it were Muslims. We are trying to put it back up. The safety of the people should not be secondary to the putative offense being taken by peaceful Muslims. If they’re offended by depictions of jihad terrorists, do they really oppose them in the first place?

“Free Speech Lawsuit: American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County ‘Brief on the Merits,'” by Pamela Geller, Geller Report, March 19, 2018:

“We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

AFDI is suing Seattle King County for refusing to run our ad — an FBI wanted poster featuring the world’s most dangerous terrorists. In accordance with sharia law, Seattle denied the ad saying it was offensive to Muslims.

Here is the back story. It all started in July 2012, when the FBI ran a terrorism awareness campaign featuring bus ads depicting photos of 16 wanted terrorists, all of whom were Muslim. This was a publicity campaign sponsored by the Joint Terrorism Task Force for the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, or RFJ. But then the leftists and Islamic supremacists complained that the ads were “Islamophobic,” and they came down – and unbelievably, Seattle is refused to allow my group, the AFDI, to put them back up.

 

We have asked that the ads (below) be put up forthwith, as the county’s refusal to run them is an unconstitutional restriction on our freedom of speech.

 

Moreover, the RFJ program has been successful: Through it, the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has paid more than $125 million to more than 80 people who offered genuine information that led to jihadis being jailed and prevented acts of jihadist terror. This program was instrumental in leading to the arrest of jihadist Ramzi Yousef, who is now in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center jihad bombing. In short, this program has saved lives.

We sued Seattle King County.

Our opening brief and excerpts of record were just filed in the Ninth Circuit.

Citing Supreme Court ruling in the Matal v. Tam, it compels the court to conclude that King County’s (“County”) “demeaning or disparaging” and “harmful or disruptive” restrictions on AFDI’s political speech are unconstitutional. In fact, these speech restrictions are facially invalid.

There is no basis to conclude otherwise. Unlike a trademark, which has a commercial component, the speech at issue here is pure political speech addressing a public issue—global terrorism. Consequently, “the viewpoint discrimination rationale renders unnecessary any extended treatment of other questions raised by the parties.”

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/14/2018 at 6:21:35 AM PDT and filed on 03/14/2018
Case Name: American Freedom Defense Initi, et al v. King County
Case Number: 17-35897
Document(s): https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/docs1/009029847945?uid=bef9594b03848534

Docket Text:
Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants American Freedom Defense Initiative, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Date of service: 03/14/2018. [10797431] [17-35897] (Muise, Robert)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Mr. Robert Joseph Muise, Attorney
Mr. David J. Hackett
David Yerushalmi, Attorney

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Main Document
Original Filename: 17-35897 Opening Brief.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:

Opening Brief Filed: Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants American Freedom Defense Initiative… by Pamela Geller on Scribd

ER Volume I- Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants American Freedom Defense Initiative by Pamela Geller on Scribd

ER Volume II Filed: American Freedom Defense Initi, et al v. King County by Pamela Geller on Scribd

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: American Freedom Defense Initiative, FBI, Featured, free speech Tagged With: King County, Seattle


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Beagle says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 6:55 pm

    “Ninth Circuit”

    Usually I would say your arguments are rock solid and based on clear precedent so you should get a favorable result. But…

    • mortimer says

      Mar 22, 2018 at 7:42 pm

      -INDIA’S SUPREME COURT – 2014 Landmark – Overturns India’s Hate Speech Laws

      The Supreme Court of India on Monday 3 March 2014, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by Advocate M L Sharma seeking intervention by the court in directing the Election Commission to curb hate speeches. Dismissing the plea, the Apex court said that it could not curb the fundamental right of the people to express themselves.

      “We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious right guaranteed by Constitution,” a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said, adding “we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide. We are 1280 million people and there would be 1280 million views. One is free not to accept the view of others”. Also the court said that it is a matter of perception, and a statement objectionable to a person might be normal to another person.
      – Wikipedia

      – The Irish Law Reform Commission’s 1991 Report opined that “there is no place for the offence of blasphemous libel in a society which respects freedom of speech.”

      • mortimer says

        Mar 22, 2018 at 7:44 pm

        U.S. law values and permits the right to blaspheme because THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED ‘American religion’. What is ‘sacred’ to one person may be highly ‘blasphemous’ to another. Without an officially defined state religion, it is not the responsibility of the judges to intervene.

        -Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “…it is enough to point out that the state has no
        legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful
        to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real
        or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
        -Justice Frankfurter noted that beliefs that are “…dear to one may seem the rankest ‘sacrilege’ to another,” and added concerning “sacrilegious” speech: “…history does not encourage reliance on the wisdom and moderation of the censor.”

        – Freedom of speech in the West was won for purpose of questioning and criticizing religious authority.

        Without that freedom, all other freedoms will be dealt with as religious matters subject to religious law. Those freedoms will be lost.

        To criticize religion, and even to ridicule it, is not just a freedom, then, but a profound obligation.

        -“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent, we may be led like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington

        -In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”

        -Ideas don’t have rights. People have rights.
        Every ideology must be subjected to open, free discussion in regard to its value, ethics or truthfulness without fear of reprisals. No exceptions. ‘Islamophobia’ is not racism any more than ‘communistophobia’ or ‘fascistophobia’ would be. Islam is an IDEA, rather than a race. In a civilised society, no idea… whether religious, political or philosophical…can claim a special exemption from critical analysis or be set beyond the reach of empirical evidence.

        -“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” – Harry S. Truman

        -“The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

        -“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” -Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992).

        -“The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert H. Jackson, prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials

        -“…if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”
        -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).

        • Ray Jarman says

          Mar 23, 2018 at 2:38 am

          Exceedingly excellent posting Mortimer and it’s nice to see someone quote from the great utilitarian, J.S. Mill.

        • MCD says

          Mar 23, 2018 at 6:13 am

          ????????

  2. mike9a says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 6:58 pm

    You’ll need all the help possible! What about donate button? The least I could do. I urge JW user to do similar. Thank you Robert for all you do.

    • gravenimage says

      Mar 22, 2018 at 7:59 pm

      +1

  3. Gerald Mucci says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 7:12 pm

    Yup. I get it. Anti-terror is offensive to Muslims, like anti-concrete shoes were offensive to the Mafia.

    And, as an aside, to those who still use the term “radical Islam”: There is a huge and very significant difference between the phase “radical Islam” and “Islam is radical.” The first one is FALSE. The second one is TRUE and the only one that should be used in legitimate, truthful discourse. There is no “non-radical” Islam. Saying “radical Islam” presupposes there is a non-radical Islam. There is not. Saying “radical Islam” is both redundant and misleading.”

    • MFritz says

      Mar 22, 2018 at 11:58 pm

      Exactly. And the truth itself – obviously – has an islamophobic “bias”.

  4. Sentinel says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 7:16 pm

    You can’t issue wanted posters in respect of Muslims, leads to you can’t find Muslims guilty of crimes, leads to one segment of the community being above the law based on religious/racial grounds.

    Is the truth the truth only valid it suits one particular group of people ? Seems as if someone is rewriting the Constitution with a Sharia pen.

  5. jihad3tracker says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 7:25 pm

    THIS IS THE LATEST COUNTER-JIHAD PUSHBACK BY PAMELA GELLER AND ROBERT SPENCER.

    A PRIOR EXAMPLE: Both of them risked their lives on May 3 2015, in Garland Texas, against Islam’s ban on depicting its “prophet” — a violent depraved human. That is why Muslims ALWAYS AVOID TALKING OR WRITING about him.

    AND DAY AFTER DAY — we are the recipients of Pam’s and Robert’s work. It is easy to get comfortable with their devotion to our education. So, how about finding a few spare minutes to thank them? Look those internet addresses up —

    I won’t specify them here because Jihadi trolls are always ready to kill the truth.

  6. gravenimage says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 8:01 pm

    AFDI lawsuit: “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend”
    …………………..

    Kudos to AFDI for continuing to stand up for freedom of speech!

    • David M says

      Mar 22, 2018 at 8:06 pm

      Except in Britain & other European countries unfortunately.

    • Norger says

      Mar 23, 2018 at 12:50 am

      What offends Seattle is for the AFDI to point out to the public that the individuals depicted in this ad are in fact wanted for serious (“global”) acts of terrorism and that the US government will pay up to eight figures in reward money for information leading to them. Seattle is not offended by whatever the individuals depicted in the ad may have done to end up on a global terrorist “most wanted” poster. Rather, it’s offensive for anyone to call the public’s attention to the fact these particular individuals are wanted for global terrorism or to point out that these individuals are so dangerous that our government is offerring up some serious reward money. It’s just ridiculous.

  7. Japetto Danatelli says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 8:35 pm

    The “Faces of Global Terrorism” theme was disparaging and demeaning toward a group of individuals…”

    Specifically, the County received complaints and letters expressing the concern that juxtaposing the language, “Faces of Global Terrorism,” next to headshots of certain individuals leads riders to believe that, generally, people of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent, and especially those who practice Islam, are terrorists.

    Their argument for taking the ad down is itself racist and bigoted. Think about it, they imply that innocent muslims who are not criminals will somehow acquire the taint of their criminality simply because of some shared cultural traits like skin color. I guess the fear is that the average public will be so dense they might wrongly infer that all muslims are vicious terrorists. After all, if this dozen or so brown skinned muslims are terrorists, then gosh, the rest must be too. The only ones that are acting bigoted and racist in this affair are those pretending to care about bigotry and racism. First, they are bigoted against us non-muslims with their sweeping generalization about our ability to be fair minded about criminals independent or race. Of course there are always going to be bigots in society that do discriminate for race. But to suppose that a “reasonably prudent person” will be bigoted in interpreting the ad as reflective of all muslims is itself a kind of bigotry against us. Secondly, they are acting bigoted and racist against muslims too. By implication they are saying that honest, decent muslims are in need of special protection from their likely association with terrorists in the public’s mind regardless of the facts or their character. If I were a muslim I would be offended by that. Everyone knows islam is a religion of peace and that mainstream muslims are peaceful lovers of democracy, equality, and religious freedom-cough. What could they possibly have in common with terrorists?

  8. Phil Copson says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 9:24 pm

    Was putting up “Wanted” posters of Jesse James offensive to cow-boys ?

    • Georg says

      Mar 22, 2018 at 10:45 pm

      Capturing terrorists is “offensive.” Arresting an illegal alien for violent crime “racist.” They hate what is good and love what is bad.

  9. Lydia Church says

    Mar 22, 2018 at 10:56 pm

    The other subtle thing is that who knows what will offend somebody?
    Anything might offend someone. So will they want to ban everything next?
    Well, I will do it anyway. Because I have the right to ‘offend.’
    And they have the right to be… offended.
    There.

  10. eduardo odraude says

    Mar 23, 2018 at 1:18 am

    Kick ass, Robert and Pamela. I’m donating to you now to help with the legal fees. I hope everyone does the same. If everyone donates just a few bucks, it can go a long way.

  11. Ray Jarman says

    Mar 23, 2018 at 2:51 am

    “The safety of the people should not be secondary to the putative offense being taken by peaceful Muslims. If they’re offended by depictions of jihad terrorists, do they really oppose them in the first place?” I don’t remember anyone yelling and screaming about ethnicity or religious persecution of Catholics when the FBI proudly placed the pictures of the many Irish and Italian people in their fight against organized crime. There was no cry of racism when a man of color was posted on the bulletin boards.

    How in the world are we to fight against what all to many do not even know exists as the television networks around the world refuse to telecast the atrocities committed by the cult. It seems that Face Book, Google/YouTube and other internet outlets that most of the ill informed utilize are being denied real news provided by Robert Spencer, Pam Geller and Gate Stone and they are too lazy to request these sites to send to their mail address.

  12. Bill says

    Mar 23, 2018 at 7:28 am

    The Ninth Circuit seeks the destruction of the Constitution.

  13. Hogdude says

    Mar 23, 2018 at 3:36 pm

    Islam is a religion of peace only for Muslims. All others must die as infidels? I’ve lived as a man who has chosen his way and will not surrender my will to Allah or Muhammed by threat or force. Praise Jesus.

  14. Tom says

    Mar 23, 2018 at 3:56 pm

    “The problem with shutting down speech that some find offensive, however, is that it gives the offended groups total power over the public discourse. And that means the end of a free society and the beginning of an authoritarian regime.”

    If a court judge can figure this out, the question is “Why the hell do we have such problems with trying to maintain our freedom of speech. Politicians and the elites had better wake up before they are awoken by the voters kicking their collective asses so hard it will hurt for a VERY long time.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)
  • Vladimir on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests
  • John on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Vladimir on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Linda McGuire on UK: Muslim stabs two women in Marks & Spencer, one in the neck, cops search for motive

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.