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=bef9594b03848534Docket 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, AttorneyThe 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
Beagle says
“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
-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
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
Exceedingly excellent posting Mortimer and it’s nice to see someone quote from the great utilitarian, J.S. Mill.
MCD says
????????
mike9a says
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
+1
Gerald Mucci says
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
Exactly. And the truth itself – obviously – has an islamophobic “bias”.
Sentinel says
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.
jihad3tracker says
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.
gravenimage says
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
Except in Britain & other European countries unfortunately.
Norger says
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.
Japetto Danatelli says
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?
Phil Copson says
Was putting up “Wanted” posters of Jesse James offensive to cow-boys ?
Georg says
Capturing terrorists is “offensive.” Arresting an illegal alien for violent crime “racist.” They hate what is good and love what is bad.
Lydia Church says
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.
eduardo odraude says
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.
Ray Jarman says
“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.
Bill says
The Ninth Circuit seeks the destruction of the Constitution.
Hogdude says
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.
Tom says
“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.