In Theory: A judge’s 1st Amendment decision raises questions

A federal judge recently ruled that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority cannot prohibit a pro-Israel group from displaying an advertisement that reads, “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” along with “That’s His Jihad. What’s yours?”

The MTA had argued that the ad had the potential to incite violence against Jews, but U.S. District Judge John Koeltl disagreed, according to the Washington Post.

“There is no evidence that seeing one of these advertisements on the back of a bus would be sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore, these ads — offensive as they may be — are still entitled to 1st Amendment protection,” Koeltl said in his ruling.

The group behind the ad, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has a track record of defending its controversial ads and messages in court.

“Those messages include a poster depicting Adolf Hitler meeting with ‘the leader of the Muslim world’ and demanding that the United States cut off all aid to Islamic countries. ‘In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,’ reads another AFDI poster. ‘Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,’” the Washington Post reports, adding that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers AFI an “anti-Muslim” hate group.

Q. Do you agree with Judge Koeltl’s decision? What do you think of the AFDI’s advertisement and overall strategy of producing controversial ads to get its message across?

--

While Judge Koeltl’s decision may be offensive, I really cannot go against the idea of freedom of speech. And even if such ads tend to incite violence, the idea of freedom of speech must still be defended, in my opinion. However, having said that, I must quote the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, who says while all things may be lawful, not everything is helpful. So the Southern Poverty Law Center may be right in calling the AFI an anti-Muslim hate group, but again, I still believe freedom of speech must take precedence.

Now I realize that an argument against freedom of speech may be made in saying that that freedom does not permit one to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and I would agree. But, c’mon, everybody. Aren’t we all adults here? Haven’t we all heard that “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me?”

That’s not true — names do hurt. But it seems to me that each of us needs to practice restraint and not respond like a maniac if somebody says something to us which we find offensive. Also, aren’t there other ways of fighting back other than physical violence? How about a letter-writing campaign or even a counter-advertising campaign against ads which we find offensive? Dwight Eisenhower was right: We do need to find a moral equivalent to war, another way of responding to what’s offensive without literally tearing the other guy’s head off.

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

Rather than inciting hatred against Jews, this ad is doing the necessary work of bringing to the public’s attention the hatred that already exists against them. I agree with Judge Koeltl’s decision that it is protected under the 1st Amendment. For those who protest against the ad, it’s astounding to me how anyone could defend the individuals responsible for the deaths of so many Israelis, and who persist openly in their “Jihad” to destroy Israel as a nation. Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” The words of the ad might be shocking and strong, but they are true words. The enemies of Israel consider it worship to kill them. Exposing the evil for what it is forces each reader to either call evil what it is, or to call it good. So, dear reader, putting aside all the hype and “political correctness,” what do you call it?

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

--

In my early years of education, I heard a description of freedom of speech that included the idea that shouting “fire” in a crowded theater should not be considered an acceptable exercise of free speech because it could well endanger the lives of innocent people. And from my point of view, the display of hateful ads directed at Muslims by an extremist Jewish group on MTA busses in New York City is just such an example of the irresponsible use of freedom since it has the potential to incite violence against any Muslims.

How a federal judge could rule otherwise is both baffling and distressing to me as a person of faith and a member of the clergy. If the judge thinks that such ads would not trigger a violent reaction, he seems to be showing both his own lack of concern for the feelings of the targeted group and a jaded belief about the values of the residents of New York. Just because one group disagrees with another doesn’t give them the right to launch a public attack on their supposed enemies.

From my point of view, public bigotry of any kind, whether on the basis of race, religion, nationality, class, culture, sexual orientation or gender identification, to name only a few, is unacceptable in our country or any other. Coming from a religious tradition that was a part of our country’s early history and one that continues to support respect for all people, I find any attempt to attack others through the use of stereotypes and slanderous speech or libelous writing reprehensible.

In “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” hate speech is neither.

Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta

--

I remember when I first saw the ads. I thought they were ISIS recruiting posters, and I hated them. Now I find out they are a pro-Israeli propaganda ploy, and I hate them more.

As regards the 1st amendment to the constitution, I think Judge Koeltl’s decision is wrong. If he reads the entire 1st amendment, he will see it speaks of freedom of speech, religion, the press and the right to peaceful assembly. These posters are inflammatory first and educational second.

If you want to have a rally for any cause, you must apply for a permit to meet. The police will ask you if there is a chance on the part of members of your group to become violent. If you reply “yes” or even “possibly yes,” the police or governing authority will deny you your permit. If the police ask the leadership of the AFI if the posters on the buses will cause people to violently react, and the leaders were honest, they would say probably say, “yes.”

There also needs to be balance in “stating the facts.” This week we have been reading in our synagogues, from the book of Leviticus, chapter 19. One passage stands out with connections to the poster issue: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.”

Even though Israel has borne the brunt of large amounts of vicious propaganda, it is not free to judge its Muslim neighbors and their belief system by using the radical interpretation of jihad as the only basis for dialogue between the religions. Many Muslims do not believe that there needs to be a jihad between, Jews, Muslims and Christians. I have spoken before about the dangers of not speaking up to save lives, “Thou shalt not sit idly by the blood of thy neighbors” (Leviticus 19:16). Now we must subdue those whose voices would bring more violence and bloodshed. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln. Only fools want violence.

Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank

--

I agree with Judge Koeltl that offensive, stupid expression is protected by the 1st Amendment.

As repugnant as is the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s anti-Muslim hate, it is really only the tip of the iceberg of their extremism. The core of their mission is opposing “the ever encroaching and unconstitutional power of the federal government, and the rapidly moving attempts to impose socialism and Marxism upon the American people.” I guess I have failed to notice socialism’s takeover here.

However, despite this ruling, AFDI’s ads probably won’t be appearing in New York City’s MTA trains and buses any time soon, if ever. The transit agency announced after the ruling that from now on no “political” ads of any sort will run in their vehicles.

Such ads accounted for about $1 million out of the New York MTA’s $138 million advertising revenue. With Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia already having banned political ads there doesn’t seem to be a constitutional issue, probably because every point of view is now disallowed.

To me this is a shame because political ads enliven the public debate. One person’s offense is another’s core belief, and even the most controversial idea can be expressed in a way that is thought-provoking and without being insulting. Sects and individuals in Islam do have negative stuff to answer for — what group doesn’t? Too bad the AFDI couldn’t have come up with something more intelligent and clever.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

I don’t see a positive outcome from the ads sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

There is risk, as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has argued, that they could lead to violence against Jews. The ads’ broad inference that all followers of Islam are potential terrorists might also incite violence against Muslims. At the very least, the ads exacerbate the frustration and tension that many Americans feel as a result of the long conflict with terror groups.

Perhaps a better approach for addressing these tensions in the U.S. would be to examine why Jews, Christians and Muslims have been able to co-exist peacefully here for so long and look for ways to reinforce those conditions. An advertising campaign that seeks to strengthen those positive relationships would be a step forward. The AFDI campaign, I fear, will push us backward.

This is a parenthetical point, but the ads suggest that the war with fundamentalist terror groups is an exclusively Jewish/Muslim conflict. In fact, the scope of this war goes well beyond anything the Koran says about Jews. Terror groups have an equal-opportunity approach to atrocity. The mass beheading of Coptic Christians, the Charlie Hebdo attack and the execution-by-burning of a Jordanian fighter pilot Lt. Moath al-Kasasbeh, a devout Muslim, attest to this.

America’s record of religious tolerance isn’t perfect, but across the millennia, it stands out as one of a few bright moments in which people of many faiths have managed to live together in relative harmony. It is unfortunate that the AFDI has chosen to take an approach that threatens to change that.

The New York MTA’s argument that bringing awareness to violence will lead to violence is poor and unconvincing. Violent anti-Semitic acts are not developed in a vacuum. They are a product of indifference, lack of willpower to confront evil and a general attitude of apathy toward Jewish suffering. If we hope to ever reduce the levels of anti-Semitic aggression, bigotry and prejudice which are commonplace across the globe then we need to expose and reveal the extremism that leads to this violence.

While I don’t particularly agree with the AFDI strategy the reality is that blatant, state-sponsored anti-Semitism is rampant across the Muslim world. In Iran there is Holocaust denial, on Egyptian public television there are shows about Jews killing Muslim children to use their blood for their Passover matzo and Palestinian history schoolbooks show maps of the Middle East where the State of Israel is nonexistent. In addition to this incitement, it is downright dangerous for Jews to live in practically every part of the Arab world.

Even more distressing is that this disease has spread to Europe where Jews are regularly assaulted and harassed in cities where Muslims make up a large percentage of the population. And, in January of this year, the entire world watched as four Jews were murdered in a Paris Kosher supermarket for no reason other than the fact that they were Jewish.

It is high time we confront Arab governments and Muslim organizations which promote anti-Semitism. There should be political consequences for our ally Saudi Arabia for not allowing Jews to enter their Kingdom. And the rabidly anti-Jewish organization Students for Justice in Palestine should be barred from every campus across the country.

Alas, this is not the case. By turning a blind eye to blatant anti-Semitism we do ourselves a disservice and ultimately guarantee that the stain of prejudice remains on the conscious of humanity.

Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center