Savaged for Daring to Name Savagery: Pamela Geller Attacked by Critics of Free Speech
By Lori Lowenthal Marcus, JEWISH PRESS
Pamela Geller
Pamela Geller, conservative commentator and blogger provocateur, is the executive director of the American Freeedom Defense Initiative. AFDI created and paid for an ad campaign to run in several urban transit systems, in response to anti-Israel ads that ran in the same spaces.
The AFDI ads contain a paraphrase from the philosopher Ayn Rand: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It concludes with: “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
The ads are already running on the sides of San Francisco buses, they began running today, September 24th, in New York City, and they were scheduled to begin appearing in the Washington, D.C. metro system. However, the DC system balked, citing the violent rioting by Muslims allegedly inflamed by a YouTube video which presents an unflattering view of Mohammad, so Geller initiated an emergency court action at the end of last week to enforce her First Amendment rights.
Because there is so much misinformation both about Geller and her ad,The Jewish Press asked her to explain what her ad means, why it is scheduled to run this week, what the responses to it have been and, most importantly, why she continues to express her views so publicly, when she is repeatedly condemned by virtually the entire spectrum of mainstream media and even by other Jewish and pro-Israel groups.
First, let’s get the chronology and the geography straight.
2010, Seattle
In late 2010, in Seattle, Washington, anti-Israel groups sought to run advertisements on the side of municipal buses reading: “Israeli War Crimes: Your tax dollars at work. Stop30billion-Seattle.org.” Just before the anti-Israel ads were about to go up, the county executive crafted a new policy banning all non-commercial advertisements. The new policy enabled the municipality to reject not only the anti-Israel ad, but also two counter-ads that had been submitted, one of which was one proposed by Geller, the other one offered by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
September, 2011, New York
Last September, another series of anti-Israel ads went up in various transit systems including the one in New York City. This ad shows two smiling dads – one Israeli, one “Palestinian,” with their young daughters. The ad copy: “Be on our side. We’re on the side of peace and Justice. End U.S. military aid to Israel.” In other words, American tax dollars is being used to support Israeli militancy and injustice. These ads ran in 18 NYC subway stops for a month, in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
That same month, Geller’s organization, AFDI, submitted the anti-Jihad ad. The MTA refused to run it, claiming the ad violated its advertising standards because it “demeans[s] an individual or group of individuals.” AFDI claimed that rejection violated the U.S. Constitution. On September 227, 2011, AFDI, Pamela Geller, and AFDI’s associate director, Robert Spencer, filed suit against the MTA claiming that the transit agency’s no-demeaning standard constitutes “viewpoint discrimination” and is unconstitutional and therefore the MTA’s rejection of AFDI’s ad unlawfully restricted their free speech.
September 2012, New York
On July 20, 2012, Judge Englemayer, the federal district court judge in New York before whom the matter was heard, ruled that the MTA’s prohibition on “demeaning” language is unconstitutional and the ad must run. Significantly, the court ruled that
the AFDI Ad is not only protected speech—it is core political speech. The Ad expresses AFDI’s pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and implicitly calls for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict. The AFDI Ad is, further, a form of response to political ads on the same subject that have appeared in the same space. As such, the AFDI Ad is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.
While AFDI was the victor in the case, Judge Engelmayer threw more than a few crumbs to the ad’s opponents.
For example, there was a fundamental disagreement over the use of the term “savage” – Geller claims it refers only to those committing acts of barbarism against innocent victims in the name of Islam. Judge Englemayer, however, held that a reasonable person could conclude the term referred simply to Muslims.
What’s more, the judge practically wrote a recipe for the MTA to follow for rewriting its advertising policy so that a ban on an ad like AFDI’s could, in the future be upheld by a court.
First credit should be given to Ayn Rand
State ” ISRAEL IS CIVILISED”
Drop “Defeat Jihad”
Replace with” NOW YOU KNOW WHO TO SUPPORT”
I just read her entry in Wikipedia: I think I’m in love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller
@ Bernard Ross:
Spam Filter picked my reply at random for moderation.
@ Bernard Ross:
Yes, it will amount to nothing because constituencies DO COUNT. Just watch the present candidates for president falling all over each other trying to attract the Latino vote, the senior vote, etc. Afro-Americans are barely 13% or so of the total population, but they’re well organized and extremely vocal, and they exert an influence that’s way out of proportion to their numbers. Muslims are coming as immigrants and asylum seekers in droves and having lots of babies. Readers can google “Dearborn Michigan” for an idea of what’s the next stage as this population increases in size and influence in the US.
Challenging creeping sharia is fine as an affirmation of freedom of speech, but these victories are purely short term. In the long term they will amount to nothing but a romantic memory of bravery and awareness while the rest of the population slept.
The Muslim demographic threat is irreversible. You can fight sharia as long as authorities will allow you to, but you won’t be able to reverse Muslim influence based on their numbers. Much as we all love Pamela Geller and others who are at the frontlines, it’s important to point out the first priority needs to be to promote immigration reform through education. Posters need to do more than call them names. They need to raise awareness about their beliefs, the way they govern themselves, their history, the koran, their family values, and what happens in countries where Muslims live with people who profess other religions.
Canadian Otter Said:
Dont think so. Much of the damage results from funding arriving from abroad(saudis,etc). Also, to say her efforts amount to nothing is arrogant and inaccurate. Hers is one approach, and you can expend your efforts on your approach. Israel needs help from many sources and approaches, not just one.
Canadian Otter Said:
This is a great idea that would be convincing and easy to produce: why dont you get started on it?
It has long been noted that the First Amendment’s provisions for free speech MUST be exercised. And by its very nature, speaking freely is bound to offend someone. It ‘s “use it or lose it.” (I don’t believe it’s possible to speak, without potentially offending someone — saying “good morning” could be interpreted as an “affront.” Yesterday, Global News ran a story about a group of academics who are monitoring what they claim are homophobic insults on social media sites, such as twitter. They’re keeping a tally. Of course, to maintain the appropriate level of outrage, the tally number must be kept high. So, to accomplish their mission, they adopt an ever expanding definition of what constitutes a homophobic “insult”. The number of homophobic insults is now reaching into the thousands. Tomorrow it’ll be in the millions. Now they’re claiming that any child who opines, “that’s gay!” Is engaging in a homophobic slur. (Do you see where this is going? Yeah, it’s what George Orwell called “thought crimes.” It’s like that old joke about someone whistling a tune, and a listener becomes outraged by the obscene lyrics.) And this genius-level endeavor at monitoring the commission of public thought crimes has been initiated by a so-called “university.” Tragic. Even more tragic — it’s being supported by Global News — another so called media outlet which apparently has no clue about free speech.
DEAR PAMELA: While asserting the right to free speech is brave and commendable, it will all amount to nothing in the end unless there is pressure to amend immigration policies. Muslims don’t need to be 51% of the population to dominate. They are doing it already with just a fraction of that. They do it by clustering in districts and electing public officials, by bribing academia, the media and other institutions, and by financing politicians’ campaigns. And if all that is not enough, by threat and intimidation.
Pamela, make your next set of posters truly informative. Show how Muslims’ own actions speak for themselves.
And please let Americans know, using the Muslims’ own words, that democracy and Islam are incompatible. There is no such thing as “moderate Islam”. True Islam is Sharia. A true Muslim cannot respect the Constitution and basic democratic and humanitarian principles. A true Muslim is obligated to follow the koran.