We went to court Tuesday to argue our temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction went to court in Boston. The American Freedom Law Center represented AFDI in our lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA). Joining us was by our local counsel Robert Snider.
Abusive violations of our freedoms such as that perpetrated by the MBTA have become catalysts for historical resistance and actions in the defense of freedom.
Truth is hate speech in the wreckage of what is left of America in the wake of the left's decades-long war on Americanism and individual rights.
Our message is that any war on innocent civilians is savagery. 9/11 was savagery. 7/7 in London. March 11th in Madrid. The jihad against the Jews is savagery.
The Boston Marathon bombings were savagery.
"The Court Battle Over ‘Pro-Israel’ Billboards Could Be a ‘Tough Win’ For the MBTA" Boston Magazine, December 3, 2013
Watch this FOX News video: Dr Matt Sienkiewicz of Boston College discusses the case in this news segment.
Lawyers for the MBTA railed against the demeaning nature of our ad, while poo-pooing the demeaning and disparaging content of the anti-Israel ad that it ran, which it took down after public outrage against its disparaging and demeaning nature -- only to restore it.
The AFLC's David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise argued our case masterfully before Judge Nathaniel Gorton. The judge was well-prepared, having read all the documents relating to the case. He sounded reasonable and judicious.
Judge Gorton pressed the lawyers on both sides to explain what they thought a reasonable person would understand by the word "jihad." The MBTA's lawyer argued that many Muslims believed jihad was an inner struggle, and that therefore our ad demeaned all Muslims.
But our ad is not calling those Muslims who believe that jihad is solely an inner struggle "savages." The ad specifically says, "In any war..." So clearly, we are talking about jihad as warfare. And as Robert Muise so brilliantly pointed out, how would the reasonable person on the train perceive or interpret the word "jihad," particularly in the wake of the Boston Marathon jihad bombing that murdered three people and wounded over 250?
Below is the $40,000 vicious anti-Israel ad campaign that the MBTA restored
It was the MBTA that invited the debate on this issue by accepting the anti-Israel ad. And then they turn and say our ad is objectionable? They accepted an ad on the same subject that was so genuinely demeaning and disparaging that it had to be taken down after numerous complaints, only to be restored later, and then they had the audacity to reject our ad? That is viewpoint restriction, and that is unconstitutional.
Jihad in our ad meant those who wage terrorist war against innocent civilians. That disparages no one.
We will win, and we will match what the Jew-haters buy.We need at least $50,000. Please contribute.