Judges likely to torpedo ban on religious speech

A free speech case that has gone on for a decade could be coming to a close.

Courthouse News Service reported the American Freedom Defense Initiative appeared successful at persuading the 6th Circuit that Detroit's Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation cannot ban its anti-Muslim ads for being overtly political, based on First Amendment protections.

Rather than being "anti-Muslim," the AFDI argued, the ads offer help to Muslims.

The ads were to state: "Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers! RefugefromIslam.com."

AFDI has been forced into several court fights to place the ads in various U.S. cities.

"Note the media coverage – helping Muslims in dangerous situation is, according to the media, 'anti-Muslim.' We have been fighting this one in Detroit for a decade," ADFI said in the CNS report.

AFDI sued SMART in 2010 for refusing to allow its "Refuge" ad on transit vehicles even though it allowed similar ads.

It's the second time the 6th Circuit has heard the dispute. The court previously ruled the censorship was "reasonable and constitutional." But lawyers for ADFI argue Supreme Court opinions favor the ads.

AFDI's Robert Muise explained to the appellate panel that while banning campaign ads is an objective standard, SMART's sliding restrictions on what constitutes political speech is subjective and illegally allows "unfettered discretion."

While no time frame was announced for a court decision, Muise said after the hearing that he would be surprised if the ads are not protected by the First Amendment.

AFDI also has used a "Faces of Global Terrorism" poster for transit system advertising campaigns.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a thumbs down to censorship of that ad.

The ad is based on an image created by the State Department that previously was run on county buses in the Seattle area.

The ad was rejected by King County Metro Transit officials who claimed it disparaged some people and might disrupt the system.

Those are both lofty ideals, but unconstitutional in this case, the court ruled.

"We conclude that Metro's disparagement standard discriminates, on its face, on the basis of viewpoint," the panel said. The ruling said Metro requires the refusal of ads that disparage people, but "giving offense is a viewpoint, so Metro's disparagement clause discriminates."

As for the disruption?

The transit system previously had run the largely similar ad presented by the State Department with no ill effects.

"It is settled law that, in a nonpublic forum, regulations must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral," the court said. "Government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject."

That ad was modeled after an advertisement submitted by the federal government and accepted for display by the county in 2013. The State Department ad depicted the "Faces of Global Terrorism" in an effort to "stop a terrorist" and "save lives." The advertisement offered an "up to $25 million reward" for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

AFDI's ad campaign also has been opposed by New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.