An important victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech. Read Pamela Geller’s reaction and background on this case here.
“AFLC Victory Over Government Apologists for Islamic Jihad: Ninth Circuit Unanimously Rules that King County’s Rejection of ‘Faces of Global Terrorism’ Ad Violates the First Amendment,” American Freedom Law Center, September 27, 2018:
Seattle, Washington (September 27, 2018) — Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that King County’s rejection of a “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad submitted by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and their organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), violated the First Amendment.
In it ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the County’s rejection of the ad based on its disparagement standard was viewpoint discrimination and that its rejection of the ad based on its disruption standard was unreasonable, all in violation of the First Amendment.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of Geller, Spencer, and AFDI.
The ad at issue was modeled after an advertisement submitted by the federal government and accepted for display by the County in 2013. The State Department ad depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.” The advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.
The terrorists identified in the ad were also found on the FBI’s most wanted global terrorists list, which is posted on the FBI’s website. At the time, this list included pictures and “wanted posters” for thirty-two terrorists. Of the thirty-two listed terrorists, thirty were individuals with Muslim names or were wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.
According to news reports, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad campaign after receiving complaints from politicians and advocacy groups that took offense that the list of wanted global terrorists pictured in the ad appeared to include only Muslim terrorists.
Shortly after the government pulled the ad, Geller and Spencer, on behalf of AFDI, submitted an ad to the County that included the same pictures, names, and message as the government’s earlier display. The County transit authority refused to run the ad in part because it claimed the ad was not wholly accurate about which government agency ran the rewards program and the amount of the awards, prompting AFLC to file this lawsuit.
After the courts agreed with the County, AFDI submitted a revised ad, this time making certain the ad was presented in such a way that removed the inaccuracy argument. The County still refused to run the ad on the grounds that it was disparaging to Muslims and that it would be disruptive to the transit authority.
The trial court once again ruled in favor of the County. AFLC appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that “[b]ecause neither of the [County’s] reasons for rejecting Plaintiffs’ revised ad withstands First Amendment scrutiny, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for Plaintiffs on this claim.”
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented:
“This is an important victory for free speech. Too often we are seeing government officials restricting speech based on claims that it is demeaning, disparaging, or offensive. The First Amendment does not allow such censorship, as the Ninth Circuit’s opinion makes clear. Under the First Amendment, the government is not permitted to impose special prohibitions on speakers who express views on disfavored subjects or on the basis of hostility towards the messenger or the underlying message expressed.”
David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, added:
“It is clear from the record and the Ninth Circuit’s decision that King County, which initially accepted the federal government’s ad only to have the feds pull the ad for fear of offending Muslims, is suffering from the debilitating disease of political correctness. And there is little doubt that County officials also dislike the messenger—our clients—who are doing a great service by alerting all Americans to the dangers of sharia and its followers.”
AFLC has represented Geller, Spencer, and AFDI successfully in federal lawsuits across the country, most notably in New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., where the courts have ordered the transit authorities to run AFDI’s anti-terrorism ads. In each of those cases, the transit authorities were forced to pay substantial legal fees to AFLC. In Chicago, the transit authority initially refused to run an AFDI “anti-jihad” ad, only to capitulate after stating in a letter that while transit authority officials considered the ad “morally reprehensible,” they were aware of AFLC’s successful litigation.
Frank Anderson says
An amazing and wonderful ruling almost certain to be appealed for a hearing before the entire 9th Circuit (en banc) or to the Supreme Court. Every once in a while the 9th Circuit gets a decision correctly. This is one of them. Excellent work by the attorneys who handled the case to this point; may they continue with their successful efforts.
mortimer says
Many supreme court justices have already come down firmly on the side of freedom of expression.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, there is every reason to be pleased about the decision. We need to take into account this was 3 judges ruling unanimously out of many more on the total court. A rehearing en banc or the Supreme Court can. hopefully not will, overturn the decision. I believe the losing party has 42 days to file a motion for rehearing en banc or notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. If the en banc upholds the panel’s decision, the Supreme Court will almost certainly deny cert, refusing to hear the case further. In any event the Supreme Court denies about 98 percent of all Petitions for Writ of Certiorari, asking review of a lower court decision. Right now there is reason to be happy; but not too happy.
gravenimage says
+1
Frank Anderson says
GI, I know there are enemies reading here as well as friends and undecided. I try to keep straight down the line according to all the rules I must follow to keep my licenses (2). I invite and welcome correction whenever I am in error. The more and better JW/RS friends understand the more likely they will cooperate by not creating problems by their personal adventures; and contribute support in the several forms needed to win. These evil people cannot be beaten and crushed by uncoordinated amateur pinpricks. I have attended an SPLC fundraiser and know their goal is to crush all they do not like.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Frank.
Michael Copeland says
An excellent ruling, hear hear. Much credit to Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi. Fine work.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Michael.
Clive Stephen Delmonte says
A great and necessary success for the ALFC and for US law ! Well done !
Frank Anderson says
C.S.D. repeating that I am writing purely for myself and with no authority for anyone else. I am a friend and supporter of JW and its people starting with Spencer and going through the list to all the people who read and write here, whether articles or comments. I am not a particularly successful lawyer. But I have done and seen enough to help win and keep this site and work going. It will take all of us, working together in a disciplined coordinated manner to win any fight. Just as “Too many cooks spoil the soup”, too many people going off on their own with their uncoordinated efforts can complicate or defeat future victories for liberty. Very soon after law school I was part of mass litigation with about a thousand parties on each side, in 2 different cases. We had an excellent lead attorney in each case and the parties cooperated cheerfully for the best chance of success.
The result of any military campaign, large or small, or for that matter a football or soccer game where players go off on their own instead of working together is not hard to imagine. They will lose. We need to win and can win by conserving our resources, including time and money, and being prepared to spend them in a coordinated manner as led by Spencer and the attorneys he selects to conduct the fight.
I think the words of Benjamin Franklin apply (paraphrased), “Let us hang together; for we shall surely hang separately.”
J D S says
You’re right about the appeal Frank but it sure is good yo win one.
Frank Anderson says
J.D.S. it is not a matter about my being right. I am trying always to aid our discussion. I looked. For private parties the deadline appears to be 14 days under Federal Rule of Appellate Practice 35 to request a rehearing en banc. I THINK there are 90 days allowed to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court. I have done that only one time taking 12 hours per day 7 days per week for 7 weeks to type the 102 page booklet in proper form, make 70 copies for filing and service, plus few extras, and filing. That was over 20 years ago. They did not grant cert, as is the case 98 percent of the time. But I made a record for all time what happened and proved to an arrogant, lying, corrupt opponent that I could do something he never expected.. Better information is always appreciated.
mortimer says
We have to fight hard to stop the use of the “Heckler’s Veto”.
cornelius says
Seattle’s response after losing appeal…?
Rejection of all political advertising.
If they lose that appeal?
No advertising at all.
The city will rather lose an important source of revenue….than to promote something that is politically incorrect.
Indiana Tom says
Sounds like a good idea to stop all political advertising which will be determined by the Ministry of Truth.
Actually, I wish they would have signs on the sides of the busses with a big picture of Big Brother and the caption Big Brother Is Watching You!.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjDg3lQGmRs
gravenimage says
Free speech victory: 9th Circuit rules that Seattle’s rejection of AFDI anti-terror ad violates First Amendment……………………
*Excellent* to hear–and especially surprising from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
revereridesagain says
Great news! Congratulations — we need every victory for freedom of speech we can get now, and this is a big one. And especially sweet coming from the “9th Circus Court”!
Vicky says
God Himself changed the minds of the most leftist court in the United States. It is also the most overturned by the supreme court. To God be the glory!
Burner Jack says
Great news! Couldn’t imagine this being possible in the Age of Obama.
Don’t know how, but somehow The Black Imam in the White Mosque would have found some way to stop you.
FREEDOM is making a comeback!