Thursday, October 4, 2012

US District Judge Rosemary Collyer eviscerates the 1st amendment, regards free speech as hate speech

om Jihad Watch

UPDATE: Judge Collyer was not able to find a way to uphold her own beliefs that the first amendment needed to be censored.  She gave her ruling today, and we can rejoice; the absolute right of free speech is upheld!  Bravo to Pamela Geller and the rest who did not stop until this case was seen through to the end.  Read the actual judgement (from Jihad Watch) here.  It's a good day for the constitution!
DC: Free speech victory for AFDI -- against all odds

Judge Collyer should be immediately removed from the bench.  She knows nothing of the first amendment and has shown, by her words and actions that she is a threat to the freedoms we hold sacred.  She knows nothing of Islam, or jihad or anything pertinent to understanding the motives of the enemy.  Clueless dhimmi, and too dangerous to be left to adjudicate anything beyond school yard scuffles.

Judge Collyer is another judge in a growing line of judges who are actively trying to destroy the freedoms and liberties they should be actively defending.

From Atlas Shrugs October 4 by Pamela Geller


Today was a dark day in American history, but you'd never know because the media is complicit in this sharia enforcement. I had a front-row seat to witness the rape of the First Amendment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Rosemary Collyer, presiding. Robert Spencer and I went down to Washington as defenders of America's most fundamental and unalienable right. And in return, we had the sad misfortune of watching a U.S. District Court Judge discard, denigrate, downplay and dismiss our most basic law of the land: the freedom of speech.

The Judge went out of her way to validate and substantiate the ridiculous premise of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), that the AFDI pro-freedom ad would endanger passengers on the D.C. subways and thus must not be posted, or at least delayed until some (fanciful) time when the jihad threat would subside. It was painful to watch Judge Collyer almost physically wrestling with the First Amendment, trying to tackle it and pin it to the floor. But the First Amendment was much too wily for the wrongheaded, utterly subjective, and clueless judge.

Philip Staub, the lawyer for WMATA, invoked the international Muslim riots that have been blamed (falsely) on the Muhammad video, and said the WMATA had received an email threatening them if they posted our ad. He was, in other words, counseling submission to violent Muslim intimidation, and the curtailing of the freedom of speech to appease savages. He made the laughable argument that if the ad ran after November 1, the threat would have subsided by then, and would be well -- as if the jihad terror threat would completely die down by then. Judge Collyer then asked him if the ads could be posted sooner if they were moved away from the train platforms, so that passengers would be less likely to get caught up in fights or terrorist attacks over them. He seemed open to that idea.

The whole issue about moving the ads represented the judge’s attempt to find a way to accommodate the WMATA’s fearmongering argument that the ad would endanger passengers. And is that now the American response to threats of violence from a fascist ideology – to accede and submit to that very same fascist ideology? The judge was an embarrassment to every proud American who understands what is at stake. I can’t speak for our lawyer, Robert Muise, but his frustration was palpable.

Staub also argued that the ad constituted fighting words, but here even Judge Collyer couldn’t go along with what he was saying, although she struggled mightily to do so. She gently pointed out to Staub, whom she treated with kid gloves and like a special-needs child the whole afternoon, leading him by the hand to the disbelief of the open court (in sharp contradistinction to her frequent interruptions and contradictions of Robert Muise – stop making sense!), that for the ad to constitute fighting words, there had to be an imminent threat of violence. But the ads have run without incident in San Francisco and New York – they were vandalized in New York in an attempt to shut down free speech, but there was no violence aside from Muslim Brotherhood poster girl Mona Eltahawy’s pink spray can) – and so it was impossible for Staub or Collyer to sustain the idea that they constituted an imminent threat to the safetyof the passengers. But Collyer certainly tried, coaching and coaxing Staub, and at one point saying to him, “The imminence issue is hard for me to get to. Just trying to tell you where I am going.” She never gave Muise any such hints.

Collyer further coached Staub by saying that she assumed – assumed! – that he was arguing (since he was so inept at actually doing so, the point wasn’t clear) that the government’s “compelling interest” in refusing or delaying these ads was concern for the safety of the passengers. She then said, with obvious reluctance, that against that concern there had to be balanced “the very broadly read First Amendment,” and asked him how he thought this could be done.

Staub answered that the safety of the passengers could be balanced against the First Amendment by delaying the ads. He said that he thought things would cool down in Africa, Asia and the Middle East by November 1, and that the ads could run then. Remember, guys, we’re talking about four little ads here, and the WMATA is talking about unrest on two continents. That’s how paralyzed with fear of savages the U.S. Government has become.

There is much more, read it all


Anonymous said...

The Koran don't believe in free speech. So, don't respect that book:

Robert4 said...

You know that the self-proclaimed "free speech activist" Pam Geller is now on her blog FIGHTING free speech?

Apparently Pam doesn't think Muslims should have the same rights she does.

Barry Sommer said...

The article on Atlas Shrugs this AM does not deny Muslims the right to free speech. CAIR is demanding free ad time to respond to the AFDI ads posted recently. Pamela Geller is saying no one should get ads free, everyone should pay the same rate. It is not about censorship, it is about Islam demanding special treatment, which needs to be denied.