A Judge gets SMART and Rules in Favor of Freedom of Speech

In the spring of 2010 the city of Detroit refused to run Pamela Geller's religious liberty bus ads, which offer help to people wishing to leave Islam safely.

Pamela Geller stated, "Despite the desperate need for resources for Muslims under threat for leaving Islam, the city of Detroit refused to run our freedom campaign on the Dearborn and Detroit buses." 

In May of 2010 her group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued the city of Detroit for refusing to post their religious liberty ads.

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that Detroit's SMART bus system must run Pamela's religious liberty ads which are aimed at helping those living in fear, wishing to leave Islam.

The city of Detroit even violated their own ad guidelines on freedom of speech.  The fear which Islamic supremacy poses to others of different faiths has permeated throughout both Detroit and Dearborn. Here is SMART's first guideline:

"As a governmental agency that receives state and federal funds, SMART is mandated to comply with federal and state laws.  First Amendment free speech rights require that SMART not censor free speech and because of that, SMART is required to provide equal access to advertising on our vehicles." 

CAIR claimed that Pamela's ads were "offensive." An individual or group's claim that something is "offensive' does not give them the right to violate the Constitution by violating person' free speech rights.

'According to the Washington Times, a teacher in Dearborn noted that there was "a climate of fear in the Detroit area's community." The educator explained: "The fear is palpable. I know there are things I am ‘not allowed' to say. A discussion of religion with a Muslim person is often prefaced by the statement, ‘Don't say anything about the Prophet [Muhammad].' In free society, open and honest conversation is not usually begun by a prohibition. Threats and intimidation are just part of life here." ' 

Then SMART accused Pamela's ads of being political.  WOW! Is Islam a political entity?  Are they effectively admitting that Islam is political?  Instead of or in addition to Islam being religiously based?

In their motion, AFDI argued "The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection."

Pamela stated:

"I flew to Detroit to testify in the suit back in July 2010.  David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, who is with the Thomas More Law Center, represented me. I was armed with hundreds of pictures of honor killing victims; the testimony of ex-Muslim teenager Rifqa Bary, whose life was threatened; screenshots of Facebook fatwas on apostates, and the actual death fatwa issued at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most important institution of Islamic law in the Sunni world and the authority that approved the revealing English-language guide to the Sharia (Islamic law) known as Reliance of the Traveller." 


"This was a huge win, not just for us, but for the First Amendment, and a defeat for all those who claim that I am a hater because I am willing to talk about what is wrong in Islam -- including, as in this case, honor killings and fatwas for apostasy. Judge Hood protected free speech and did not take any swipes at my message, which she could have (such as saying, "While we might despise AFDI's message, we must protect it..."). She did not do that. Good for her." 


"I was thrilled, not just for the protection of free speech, but for those living in danger who will be helped by our freedom buses." 


"Those ignored and abandoned people were the ones who really won this victory." 

This is indeed a huge win for the First Amendment.  The Constitution won out, as it should, over Islam's environment of fear in Detroit and Dearborn.

Vitriolic Rhetoric by WHICH Party and Against WHICH President?

Before I begin the main part of this post I am again sending my condolences to the loved ones of the victims who were killed in this violent massacre.  My thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims who were hurt and their families as they recover from this horrific tragedy. 


It is truly sickening in our country when politics enters into a national tragedy, and the Left tries to capitalize on a bloody situation to further their political gain.  For the Left to make false accusations and try to make the connection between either symbols or fiery debate on issues and this shooting is extremely disturbing and unwarranted.  The main reason I am writing this post is to correct misinformation by the Left. 


The NY Times is one news outlet that is trying to connect opposition to the President's policies and fiery rhetoric as a cause for the shooting or playing a role in some way in this shooting.   First, Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter,  was NUTS!!! .... mentally unstable and to say that politics or fiery rhetoric made him do this evil act is journalistic malpractice in my opinion.  Second, his political leanings were of a liberal anarchist and to try to connect the Tea Party, conservative commentators, or any conservatives to either him or this incident is absurd.  Brian Lilley of Lilley's Pad points out that it is truly sick for people to try and connect this shooting with Sarah Palin when it is solely the lone gunman's responsibility for his committing this heinous act.  
He also points out the spin being played by the liberal media.  Just because I point out that Loughner has liberal leanings doesn't mean that that is that I'm attributing his actions to his politics.  Brian Lilley shows two targeted maps of districts one used by Republicans and the other by Democrats.  So, for Democrats and the liberal media to act as if Democrats have never done anything remotely similar to Sarah Palin while denouncing her political map and casting aspersions is despicable and hypocritical.  


The New York Times article states: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.  Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats."  The NY Times provides NO PROOF to back up their accusation.  Does the NY Times have proof that a Tea Party member, or a conservative who listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative media played a role in any of the violent acts which took place right after the health care law was passed?  Heck, it could have been a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad or simply a nut.  So, I say to these liberal Commie journalists either prove it or retract a most irresponsible and unproven allegation.  


When an administration's spending is way out of control, and government takes over health care,  car companies, student loans, banks, Obama uses the EPA to bypass Congress and institute his Cap & Trade policies, he uses unconstitutional Czars to implement unconstitutional regulations, conservatives had/have every right to express anger.  When DHS labels opponents of the Left's ideology as "right-wing extremists" how the heck are we supposed to respond?  By heating up the rhetoric and stating the absurd - labeling conservatives "right-wing extremists" - those in the Obama administration have effectively made themselves enemies of half of the country.  But, that was done on the Obama administration's own volition.  And, these libs wonder why conservatives might get a little angry, expressing our righteous anger against this indignant, ignorant and radical administration. These libs are so clueless.  I guess the temperature of the rhetoric should have been lowered during the Bush years and activists against both wars needed to stop using their freedom of speech to promote hatred, vile acts, and should have just fallen in line and been alright with all of the Bush administration's policies.  Of course not, because the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media ONLY care about liberals freedom of speech.  Here are some examples of the heated rhetoric by the anti-war Left which was directed toward President Bush.  The ignorant, illegitimate Left wing Media were silent as a Church mouse when there was heated rhetoric under Bush. I am against THREATS TO ALL POLITICAL FIGURES. 


FROM ZOMBLOG: 

A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

Unfortunately place and time weren't documented.

“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.

Original source unknown.

A recommendation that Bush should hang, from an October 27, 2007 protest in Los Angeles.

"Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.

This man calls for “Death to...Bush” at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

A sign saying "Bush — the only dope worth shooting,” at the March 15, 2008 anti-war rally in Los Angeles.

Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.

Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.

An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

The anti-Israel conspiracy site nogw.com hosts this pdf file which describes a mock trial and execution of George Bush for a bizarre litany of purported crimes; included in the document is this image of Bush being hanged at the trial. 

Then Sen John Kerry responded in such a way to Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time which could have been construed as a threat: 

Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Full transcript here. 

The we have Kilborn: 

On August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. Although CBS belatedly apologized five days later, Kilborn was never investigated, questioned or punished, and continued to host the show for four more years.

Now the progressives or liberals reaction to this horrible tragedy is to take away even more of our rights.  TCL has posted information on Congressman Brady's plan to introduce a bill against inflammatory language. Who decides what is considered inflammatory speech?  What is considered inflammatory to one person may not be considered inflammatory to another person. Matt of Conservative Hideout exposes Leftist hate.  Maggie at Maggie's notebook has posted on Blaming the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for Giffords shootings. 

Bill Lilley  says that: 

"We can’t let the acts of what appears to be a crazed gunman, one described by classmates as crazy and a left-wing pot-head not a right wing Tea Partier, change the way we speak to each other.

Should any of us seriously be talking about blowing away our enemies? No."
   

The gunmen is a 9/11 Truther. 

It seems like a greater number of threats and violent acts occur during economic downturns.  If there are indeed more threats happening under Obama than under Bush it may have something to do with the fact that under most of Bush's presidency the unemployment rate was around 5.5 % and the unemployment rate now is presently at 9.4% and this brings the nut jobs out.  

Freedom of speech is precious and is a right afforded to we the people by the Constitution and we cannot let progressives use one horrific tragedy to limit our first amendment right to free speech.