Judges believed likely to torpedo Detroit ban on religious speech
Dec 29, 2019 07:09:34 #
1st Amendment has been under assault through censorship practices.
December 28, 2019
A free speech case that has gone on for a decade could be coming to a close.
Courthouse News Service reported the American Freedom Defense Initiative appeared successful at persuading the 6th Circuit that Detroit's Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional T***sportation cannot ban its anti-Muslim ads for being overtly political, based on First Amendment protections.
Rather than being "anti-Muslim," the AFDI argued, the ads offer help to Muslims.
The ads were to state: "Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers! RefugefromIslam.com."
AFDI has been forced into several court fights to place the ads in various U.S. cities.
"Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situation is, according to the media, 'anti-Muslim.' We have been fighting this one in Detroit for a decade," ADFI said in the CNS report.
AFDI sued SMART in 2010 for refusing to allow its "Refuge" ad on t***sit vehicles even though it allowed similar ads.
It's the second time the 6th Circuit has heard the dispute. The court previously ruled the censorship was "reasonable and constitutional." But lawyers for ADFI argue Supreme Court opinions favor the ads.
AFDI's Robert Muise explained to the appellate panel that while banning campaign ads is an objective standard, SMART's sliding restrictions on what constitutes political speech is subjective and illegally allows "unfettered discretion."
While no time frame was announced for a court decision, Muise said after the hearing that he would be surprised if the ads are not protected by the First Amendment.
AFDI also has used a "Faces of Global Terrorism" poster for t***sit system advertising campaigns.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a thumbs down to censorship of that ad.
The ad is based on an image created by the State Department that previously was run on county buses in the Seattle area.
The ad was rejected by King County Metro T***sit officials who claimed it disparaged some people and might disrupt the system.
Those are both lofty ideals, but unconstitutional in this case, the court ruled.
"We conclude that Metro's disparagement standard discriminates, on its face, on the basis of viewpoint," the panel said. The ruling said Metro requires the refusal of ads that disparage people, but "giving offense is a viewpoint, so Metro's disparagement clause discriminates."
As for the disruption?
The t***sit system previously had run the largely similar ad presented by the State Department with no ill effects.
"It is settled law that, in a nonpublic forum, regulations must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral," the court said. "Government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject."
That ad 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.
AFDI's ad campaign also has been opposed by New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
December 28, 2019
A free speech case that has gone on for a decade could be coming to a close.
Courthouse News Service reported the American Freedom Defense Initiative appeared successful at persuading the 6th Circuit that Detroit's Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional T***sportation cannot ban its anti-Muslim ads for being overtly political, based on First Amendment protections.
Rather than being "anti-Muslim," the AFDI argued, the ads offer help to Muslims.
The ads were to state: "Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers! RefugefromIslam.com."
AFDI has been forced into several court fights to place the ads in various U.S. cities.
"Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situation is, according to the media, 'anti-Muslim.' We have been fighting this one in Detroit for a decade," ADFI said in the CNS report.
AFDI sued SMART in 2010 for refusing to allow its "Refuge" ad on t***sit vehicles even though it allowed similar ads.
It's the second time the 6th Circuit has heard the dispute. The court previously ruled the censorship was "reasonable and constitutional." But lawyers for ADFI argue Supreme Court opinions favor the ads.
AFDI's Robert Muise explained to the appellate panel that while banning campaign ads is an objective standard, SMART's sliding restrictions on what constitutes political speech is subjective and illegally allows "unfettered discretion."
While no time frame was announced for a court decision, Muise said after the hearing that he would be surprised if the ads are not protected by the First Amendment.
AFDI also has used a "Faces of Global Terrorism" poster for t***sit system advertising campaigns.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a thumbs down to censorship of that ad.
The ad is based on an image created by the State Department that previously was run on county buses in the Seattle area.
The ad was rejected by King County Metro T***sit officials who claimed it disparaged some people and might disrupt the system.
Those are both lofty ideals, but unconstitutional in this case, the court ruled.
"We conclude that Metro's disparagement standard discriminates, on its face, on the basis of viewpoint," the panel said. The ruling said Metro requires the refusal of ads that disparage people, but "giving offense is a viewpoint, so Metro's disparagement clause discriminates."
As for the disruption?
The t***sit system previously had run the largely similar ad presented by the State Department with no ill effects.
"It is settled law that, in a nonpublic forum, regulations must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral," the court said. "Government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject."
That ad 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.
AFDI's ad campaign also has been opposed by New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Dec 29, 2019 08:43:13 #
Zemirah wrote:
1st Amendment has been under assault through censo... (show quote)
I don't see a problem with the ad...
Proselytizing at it's best...
What is the grievance against it?
That it might upset someone?
Dec 29, 2019 09:00:40 #
The ad was rejected by King County Metro T***sit officials who claimed it disparaged some people and might disrupt the system.
"Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situation is, according to the media, 'anti-Muslim.'
"Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situation is, according to the media, 'anti-Muslim.'
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I don't see a problem with the ad...
Proselytizing at it's best...
What is the grievance against it?
That it might upset someone?
Proselytizing at it's best...
What is the grievance against it?
That it might upset someone?
Dec 29, 2019 09:12:52 #
Zemirah wrote:
The ad was rejected by King County Metro T***sit officials who claimed it disparaged some people and might disrupt the system.
"Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situation is, according to the media, 'anti-Muslim.'
"Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situation is, according to the media, 'anti-Muslim.'
I wonder if the same would be said about advertisements focusing on donestic abuse... Anti-family?
Dec 29, 2019 10:18:28 #
That would undubitably (that is a word) have been an affirmative forty years ago or even further back.
The media and the law would have sided with the abuser, who would have been male 99 9/10% of the time.
In the early 1970s, domestic violence was still a problem with no name — a private reality for many women, but not an issue considered the business of government or police.
The founders of Toronto’s Interval House, when opening the first shelter for abused women and children in Canada in 1973, laid the groundwork for the problem of violence against women to be brought to light.
The first likely women's shelter in the United States, Emergency Shelter Program Inc. (now Ruby's Place inc.), was established in Hayward, California in 1972 by a local group of women who attended church together.
The first well-documented women's centre in U.K. was established in Hounslow, Great Britain in 1971, which provided an unofficial refuge for domestic violence survivors.
Somehow, perhaps because the Qur'an says men may beat their wives, it's considered part of their religion and culture in much of the "civilized" west, (even up to including honor k*****gs) and Muslim men are not often held as accountable as the law might otherwise allow.
The media and the law would have sided with the abuser, who would have been male 99 9/10% of the time.
In the early 1970s, domestic violence was still a problem with no name — a private reality for many women, but not an issue considered the business of government or police.
The founders of Toronto’s Interval House, when opening the first shelter for abused women and children in Canada in 1973, laid the groundwork for the problem of violence against women to be brought to light.
The first likely women's shelter in the United States, Emergency Shelter Program Inc. (now Ruby's Place inc.), was established in Hayward, California in 1972 by a local group of women who attended church together.
The first well-documented women's centre in U.K. was established in Hounslow, Great Britain in 1971, which provided an unofficial refuge for domestic violence survivors.
Somehow, perhaps because the Qur'an says men may beat their wives, it's considered part of their religion and culture in much of the "civilized" west, (even up to including honor k*****gs) and Muslim men are not often held as accountable as the law might otherwise allow.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I wonder if the same would be said about advertisements focusing on donestic abuse... Anti-family?
Dec 29, 2019 13:04:58 #
The Top Is The State Dept Ad As It Appeared On A Bus
The Bottom Is A Comparison Of The State Dept And AFDI Ads
The Bottom Is A Comparison Of The State Dept And AFDI Ads
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.