New York City Bans Subway Ads Critical Of Islam


In 1942 the Supreme Court, in the Chaplinksy vs. New Hampshire ruling, upheld the notion of a “fighting words” exemption to the First Amendment. “There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” wrote the court in that ruling. “These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

That’s the standard the Metropolitan Transit Authority has invoked in New York City in the wake of pro-Israel ads that have inspired protests and vandalism.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for advertisements on Thursday, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

The 8-to-0 vote by the authority’s board came three days after pro-Israel ads characterizing Islamist opponents of the Jewish state as being “savage” began appearing in subway stations, setting off vandalism, denunciations of the authority and calls for the ads’ removal…

“We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today,” Joseph J. Lhota, the authority’s chairman, said at a news conference on Thursday.

The MTA had previously tried to deny the ads, and a court ruled that they were protected free speech. By carefully wording their new policy to reflect legal precedent for a “fighting words” objection, the MTA probably has a better case.

Which doesn’t make the MTA’s decision to try and censor provocative ads any better.

The problem with the “fighting words” precedent is that it hinges freedom of speech on public reaction. You have free speech unless something you say creates outrage among the public at large, in which case the government can invoke the “fighting words” standard and silence you.

Which is exactly what the Islamists are doing. They want to silence critics of their religion. So they murder and riot and vandalize citing speech critical of their religion as justification.

The response from our government officials should be to condemn the intolerance of those who would turn to violence and other criminal behavior in response to free speech, but instead the response to these most recent examples of Muslim violence in the middle east, and the vandalism in New York, has been to try and silence the speakers.

President Obama demanded that all criticism of religion stop at the UN. In New York, the MTA wants to censor controversial ads.

The lesson for the enemies of free speech is that if they react to speech they want silenced with violence and rioting America’s leaders, instead of defending the speech, will look to silence it.

That’s a dangerous trend. Sadly, it’s one we’ve been on for some time. Laws outlawing “hate speech” and “bullying” have been written so broadly that, in some instances, merely saying something that makes somebody else wrong makes the speaker a criminal.

The freedom of speech wasn’t created to protect speech about the weather. The test of a society’s dedication to free speech lays in whether or not that society will protect the most controversial sorts of speech. And, increasingly, it seems America is unwilling to do that.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • fendell

    I assume a lwasuit is coming over this.

  • fendell


  • stan25

    SCOTUS going to get involved in this one. The ruling will be one of the most watched after ObamaCare.

    • Rob

      It would actually be great to get SCOTUS to overturn the “fighting words” precedent for this very reason. If all it takes is a riot to from those being criticized to undermine our speech, then we don’t have free speech at all.

      • $8194357

        Womans sufferage would have been shot down as well, huh.
        They got kinda rowdy…
        Or was that those anti liquer women?

  • $8194357

    And as the MSM provides false morality cover of
    the islamophobia bread and circus?

    September 28, 2012:
    This Week’s Headlines

    JW Sues Secret Service for Records Detailing Security Costs for Obama Daughter’s Spring Break Trip to Mexico

    Inside the Maxine Waters Ethics Committee Debacle

    JW Pushes for State Ethics Investigation of Maryland Governor O’Malley

    Corruption in DC is at an all time high..
    No federal budget for three plus years
    And Barry and his Czars continue the EO end run around our
    Constituional Republican form of government..

    go figure, huh….

  • $8194357

    ANY critizism of Islam is Islamaphobia…

    The koran really doesn’t say to submit
    or kill all infidels…

    Relax and let the global
    Pravda worry about all this for you…

    Arab spring huh..

    Funny thing about that…
    Muslim Brotherhood drew up these
    exact scenieros to advance islams
    global agenda in 1983….

    To the dotted i
    and crossed t..

  • Mildred Littlebottom

    Perhaps buses should be forced to carry Klan adds Rob? If you check most of the Republican facebook sites you will find they do not permit criticism of the greed dogs they love. Isn’t that about the same thing Rob? As usual you have a double standard.

    • jl

      What greed dogs, and why?

      • $8194357

        The straw man greed dogs…
        They been barkin in the hood, huh..

    • sbark

      still advocating breaking the 10th commandment i see……..

  • JustRuss

    You know…demanding that all critiscism of religion stop, is a good step toward a one-world secular religion that respects all faiths…and is mandatory. But I won’t go quoting End Times stuff from the bible, or compare Obama to Nicolae Carpathia again…nope. That would be crazy.

    • $8194357

      For the common good, huh..
      Where’s my tin foil hat?

  • $8194357

    (Notice “where” the Nazi Jeuden star came from.)

    The status of People of the Book (Jews and
    Christians) unders Islamic rule.

    anti-Christian legislation

    Systematic oppression of the Bahai community

    Murder and enslavement of Black Africans

    Saudi Arabia:
    Apartheid for all non-Muslims

    Terrorizing of Christian minorities

    Oppression of Coptic Christians

    Terrorizing of Hindu and Christian minorities by Islamic radicals


    7th-21st century.
    The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to
    non-Muslims under Islamic rule—whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan.

    Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the
    Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to
    accept a pact (“Dhimma”) which rendered them inferiror to their Muslim
    conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a
    formal system of religious apartheid.

    Institutionalized apartheid.
    In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi,
    such as the poll-tax or jizya.

    No legal rights.
    Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal
    right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims.
    There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman;
    there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew
    (at most, it can be manslaughter).

    In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.

    Humiliation and vulnerability.
    Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils
    identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews
    had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe.
    It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the
    apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

    Conditional protection.
    The protection of the Dhimmi is withdrawn if the Dhimmi rebels against
    Islamic law, gives allegiance to non-Muslim power (such as Israel),
    refuses to pay the poll-tax, entices a Muslim from his faith, or harms a
    Muslim or his property.

    If the protection is lifted, jihad resumes.

    For example, Islamists in Egypt who pillage and kill the Copts do so
    because they no longer pay their poll-tax and therefore are no longer

    End quote

    They want to be protected from “hate speech”?

  • Nothing2seehere

    Exactly how is a sign that calls Jihadists savage hate speech? It’s called truth and the underlying agenda is censorship here! To appease the liberals who can’t handle the truth

    • $8194357

      To fullfill Scripture..
      When the Truth becomes a lie and lie the truth.
      When evil is called good and good evil…..
      Woe to that generation for the Day of the Lord is soon at hand…

  • $8194357

    (And they are gaining strength here in America every dang day..)
    Can they pledge alligence to our Constituion? NO…
    Yet they demand we give up the first Amendment..
    Look how they treat folks in countries they are the majority in..

    Dhimmi Victims Gallery

    These Bangladeshi women are just some of the countless Hindu rape victims terrorized by Muslim militants in Bangladesh. As members of the Hindu minority community in Bangladesh they are subject to systematic terror, torture, abuse, and violence.

    The Hindu and Christian minorities in Bangladesh are under increasing
    pressure exerted by Muslim militants in Bangladesh. The growing strength of
    Islamic extremists in the country is leading to increased oppression and
    persecution of the minority populations. As a result of this campaign of terror,
    the Christian and Hindu populations of Bangladesh are becoming an endangered
    people at risk of extinction. Without the help of the international human rights community the religious minority populations of Bangladesh will soon succumb to the creeping genocide of Islamic extremists.

    This young African Sudanese was kidnapped, and enslaved by radical Muslim raiders. Subsequently, his arm was chopped off by his master for the “crime” of losing a goat. To date, the Jihad in Sudan has claimed the lives of two million African
    Christians and animists. Thousands of other have been enslaved, raped, and
    maimed. Today there is a creeping genocide that threatens the people of Southern

    Mona Mahmudnizhad was one of ten Bahai women executed in June, 1983. Her crime? Teaching her faith to Bahai schoolchildren. She was 17 at the time of her
    murder.The Bahai community constitutes Iran’s largest religious minority
    group. Today they are facing a creeping genocide, as the Islamic fundamentalist
    regime in Tehran seeks to systematically intimidate, suppress, convert, and
    murder members of the Bahai faith.
    A secret Iranian government document, discovered in 1993, reveals the government’s attempt to slowly and steadily decimate the Bahai community, by rendering them second-class citizens through a system of apartheid which the New York Times compared to the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany. Today, the Bahai of Iran are an endangered people.
    Without the help of the international human rights community, this vital religious community will soon become extinct.

    Sutarsi is a Christian, an Indonesian, and a victim of the
    creeping genocide against the Christian community in the Moluccas islands,
    Indonesia. Her village was attacked by Jihadist militants. In the ensuing
    battle, Sutarsi was shot in the face by a Muslim militant. She survived. Many of
    her fellow Christian villagers were not as fortunate.

    Nearly 50% of the population of the Moluccan islands is Christian. But they are now under siege. They face an onslaught perpetrated by the Laskar Jihad Islamic fundamentalist group, and ignored by the Indonesian government. The 1 million Christians of the Moluccas islands are fast becoming an endangered people. They face a systematic campaign of terror, torture, murder, and forced emigration. Without the help of the international human rights community, they will soon become extinct.

    Dr. Yusef is a Pakistani Christian being prosecuted under Pakistan’s Blasphemy laws. These blasphemy laws are used by the Pakistani government to intimidate and oppress the Christian minorities of Pakistan. School teachers and adolescent boys are often charged with blasphemy for practicing and teaching their faith. Amnesty International has called on the Pakistani government to repeal the blasphemy laws and halt the prosecution and execution of minors and the mentally challenged charged with blasphemy.

    The Pakistani Christian community is subject to constant harassment and
    discrimination by the Muslim government and local tribal rulers. They are
    becoming an endangered people as their numbers dwindle in the face of
    persecution, intimidation, and intermittent violence. Without the help of the
    international human rights community this minority group, its culture and way of
    life, will soon become extinct.

    This picture of a highway sign outside of Mecca is symbolic of the system of
    Apartheid that distinguishes Muslims and non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Much like
    the Jim Crow laws of the old South, Saudi law creates a two-tier society in
    which non-Muslims are denied the right to practice their religion, travel
    freely, and even be buried on Saudi soil.

    Christians living in Saudi Arabia are subject to violence, intimidation, and imprisonment. The victims of this government-sponsored discrimination are often Christian migrant workers, who are unable to protect themselves from the government’s programmatic discrimination.

    Without the help of the international human rights community, the Christians of
    Saudi Arabia will continue to be the victims of religious apartheid.

    This young girl was one of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians murdered
    during the Al-Kosheh riots in January 2000. The Egyptian police sat and watched
    as she and her fellow Christian victims were terrorized by an Islamic mob during
    three days of rioting around the New Year’s celebration.

    There are an estimated 12 million Coptic Christians in Egypt. They are an ancient community indigenous to Egypt. They lived in Egypt centuries before the Muslims invaded from Arabia. Today they are one of the world’s endangered people. Subject to official and unofficial oppression, they endure sustained discrimination and
    occasional outbreaks of violence designed to slowly eradicate this ancient
    community. Without the help of the international human rights community, this
    religious minority group will soon become extinct.

    In Israel over a thousand Jews have been killed by a suicide
    bombing campaign launched by Muslim radical groups such as Hamas and Islamic
    Jihad. Pizzerias have been bombed at midday. Even the mulitcultural campus of
    Hebrew University, home to Jewish and Arab students, was targeted by Jihadist
    radicals. Amnesty International has termed these suicide bomibngs a “crime
    against humanity.” The very survival of Israel is threatened by these random
    acts of violence designed to terrorize the Israeli public.

    Siham Qandah, a Jordanian Christian risks losing her children
    because she is not a Muslim. Jordanian courts have granted custody of the
    childen to their Muslim uncle. To avoid losing her children, Qandah has gone
    into hiding. Jordan’s Christian minority is subject to a system of religious
    discrimination imposed by Islamic courts that oppress this small and shrinking
    religious minority.

    Read more about Qandah’s story.

    (Coming to a theater near you soon….)

  • $8194357
  • $16179444


    Atheist Billboards Call Jesus a ‘Useless Savior,‘ Bash a ’Sadistic God’ & Mormon ‘Bigotry’

    not a peep.

    • headward

      Just wait the muslims to be offended and then they come down.
      Liberal Logic:
      Speech against Christians and Jews = OK
      Speech against islam and muslims = Hate speech.
      Looks like Liberals are racists which isn’t anything new.

      • two_amber_lamps

        Somethings never change….

        • $8194357

          Still is IMO..
          They just tied more causes and people to the plantaion.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Interesting isn’t it?
            Claim to represent everyone’s (contradictory) interests and who’s interest are they (democraps) really representing?

            No one but the party’s…..

          • $8194357

            “communist objective”

            Main lineing the “party line”
            into the “mainstream”…

            They have done better than “anyone” could have hoped, huh..

            The “soviet corperate structured” buisness
            world has us all blind as capitalist bats……

            Vision statements.
            Mission statements
            Corperate Ethics
            Corperate citizenship/Duty

            Pre-determined matriarchail majority rule
            conscensus by steering committee…

            Everyone of the soviet satelites
            reporting up the pyramid to the main soviet
            comprised of the ruling elitie….

            All just coincidense that the Constituional Republic was
            “INCORPERATED” IN THE LATE 1800’S
            as marxist ideolgy flurished the world over huh…

          • two_amber_lamps

            yupper… tell the unwashed masses what they wanna hear!

      • $8194357

        And they have infiltrated our military with the leftist PC
        cultural terrorism as well…
        From sexual orientation to islamic supremacy…

        Following marxist political correct deconstruction
        and diversity ideologies to Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda.

        57 Muslim pressure groups force U.S. Military to purge important teaching materials about Islam, and fire the instructor, an outstanding Army officer
        by BareNakedIslam

        A letter dated October 19, 2011 signed by 57 Muslim organizations,
        was sent to the White House with copies to other federal officials responsible for national security, including Secretary of the Department of Defense, Leon Panetta.

        The letter demanded that all training materials that they judge to be offensive to Islam be “purged” and instructors “are effectively disciplined.”

        (I’d like to know how all these Muslims got access to US Military training materials in the first place)

        Because many reporters and citizens have asked for a copy of the letter, TMLC is linking to the 7-page letter here:

        and attaching it to this press release as well.
        You may also view it by going to the TMLC website at:
        Note the highlighted areas on page 5 of the letter.
        This letter was referred to in a previous Thomas More Law Center press release.
        Click here:

      • Meow6985

        So true

    • $8194357

      These are the folks need “global hate speech laws”
      to protect them from us “western infidels”..


      How fast can we produce another film that will cause Muslim
      ragheads all around the world to explode again?
      by BareNakedIslam

      At 2:35, the reporter says:

      “There has never been a case anywhere in the world that a Muslim has
      disrespected Christianity or Judaism.”

      The demonstrators called for immediate punishment of all those who
      tried to mock the prophet Mohammad.
      They are also demanding that the UN make disrespect of
      religion an international crime.

      End quote

  • $8194357

    One more for tonight…
    Some “very interesting” reading for the “non ideolog” to grasp huh..
    The Growth of Dhimmi Doctrine
    The contribution of dhimmi

    Christian collaborationism to Islam is even more important.
    It satisfies three objectives:
    1) its propaganda shores up the mythology of past and present peaceful Islamic-Christian coexistence and confirms the perfection of Islam, jihad, and Shariah;
    2) it promotes the demographic expansion and proselytism of Islamic propaganda in the West;
    3) in the theological sphere it eliminates the Jewish Jesus and implants Christianity in the Muslim Jesus, in other words it facilitates the theological Islamization of all Christendom.
    See: Bat Yeor writing in the National Review on September 18, 2003, Eastern Christians Torn Asunder.

    Liberation Theology and Marxism
    In the days when the Superpowers were locked in a Cold War, Latin America seethed with revolution, and millions lived behind an iron curtain, a group of theologians concocted a novel idea within the history of Christianity. They proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism.

    Religion will become obsolete, when humanity rejects the supernatural G-d of antiquity for the new dialectical deity, fathered by historical forces, leading its chosen to the land promised by Marx and Lenin. In this secular messianic vision, clearly there is no place for Judaism or Christianity, with its insistence on a G-d above and outside of history and obedience to His dictates, revealed in the Oral and Written Law.

    Liberation theologians agree with Marx’s famous statement:
    “Hitherto philosophers have explained the world; our task is to change it.”

    They argue that theologians are not meant to be theoreticians but practitioners engaged in the struggle to bring about society’s transformation. In order to do this liberation theology employs a Marxist-style class analysis, which divides the culture between oppressors and oppressed.

    This conflictual sociological analysis is meant to identify the injustices and exploitation within the historical situation. Marxism and liberation theology condemn religion for supporting the status quo and legitimating the power of the oppressor.

    But unlike Marxism, liberation theology turns to the Christian faith as a means for bringing about liberation. Marx failed to see the emotive, symbolic, and sociological force the church could be in the struggle for justice. Liberation theologians claim that they are not departing from the ancient Christian tradition when they use Marxist thought as a tool for social analysis. They do not claim to use Marxism as a philosophical world view or a comprehensive plan for political action. Human liberation may begin with the economic infrastructure, but it does not end there.

    The biblical notion of salvation is equated with the process of liberation from oppression and injustice. Sin is defined in terms of man’s inhumanity to man. Liberation theology for all practical purposes equates loving your neighbor with loving God. The two are not only inseparable but virtually indistinguishable. God is found in our neighbor and salvation is identified with the history of “man becoming.”

    The history of salvation becomes the salvation of history embracing the entire process of humanization. Biblical history is important insofar as it models and illustrates this quest for justice and human dignity. Israel’s liberation from Egypt in the Exodus and Jesus’ life and death stand out as the prototypes for the contemporary human struggle for liberation.
    These biblical events signify the spiritual significance of secular struggle for liberation.

    The church and the world can no longer be segregated. The church must allow itself to be inhabited and evangelized by the world. “A theology of the Church in the world should be complemented by a theology of the world in the Church” (Gutierrez). Joining in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressors is an act of “conversion,” and “evangelization” is announcing God’s participation in the human struggle for justice.

    In an article by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger – Benedict XVI,
    Liberation Theology written in 1984, he commented.

    “The moral challenge of poverty and oppression presented itself in an ineluctable form at the very moment when Europe and North America had attained a hitherto unknown affluence. This challenge evidently called for new answers which were not to be found in the existing tradition. The changed theological and philosophical situation was a formal invitation to seek the answer in a Christianity which allowed itself to be guided by the models of hope — apparently scientifically grounded — put forward by Marxist philosophies.”

    “[In] the new philosophical climate of the late sixties… the Marxist analysis of history and society was largely accepted as the only “scientific” one. This means that the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and Marxism. It also means that all reality is political and has to justify itself politically. The biblical concept of the ‘poor’ provides a starting point for fusing the Bible’s view of history with Marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the Marxist sense and thus justifies Marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics for understanding the Bible.”

    Liberation Theology and Nazism

    In the U.S. elections cycle, we are seeing an increase in the influence of religiosity, however simultaneously we are seeing many diverse positions presented. Bruce Walker writing in his November 17, 2007 article on American Thinker, The Nazis and Christianity comments that: “Many atheists presume that the Nazis were a weird variation of Christianity.”

    ”Christianity had declined severely in Germany at the time the Nazis came to power, which is why the Nazis were able to come to power. In his book, The Dictators, Richard Overy states that in the decades preceding the First World War Germany was becoming increasingly secular, and that after that war, from 1918 to 1931, 2.4 million Evangelical Christians formally renounced their faith as well as almost half a million Catholics. In Prussia, only 21% of the population took communion and in Hamburg only five percent of the population took communion. Before Hitler, German religious leaders were publicly condemning the rise of moral relativism and decline of traditional religious values.”

    “Weimar Germany largely had abandoned Christianity and increasingly was embracing hedonism, Marxism and paganism.

    There, decline of Christianity in Germany led directly to the rise of Nazism.

    Professor Henri Lichtenberger in his 1937 book, The Third Reich, describes the religious life of the Weimar Republic as a place in which the large cities were “spiritual cemeteries” with almost no believers at all, except for those who were members of the clergy. The middle class went through the motions, but lacked all living faith. The workers, influenced by socialism, were suspicious of the church. Even in the countryside, preachers had little influence on the people. In the 1938 book, The War Against God, by Sidney Dark and R.S. Essex, describes pre-Nazi antipathy toward Christianity by noting that churches had lost all their vitality and that their services were lifeless.

    Mower, in his 1938 book, Germany Puts the Clock Back, wrote that by 1920, God and Christianity had been in steady decline, a process that had begun in 1860.

    Mower talks about a culture not so much casual as vicious about sexuality. He writes of art sickened into atonal music, about the absence of any sense of sin, about entire graduating classes in high school turning up for birth control devices, and about the commonplace occurrence of abortion.”

    Within a year of taking power, Hitler was saying:

    “Christianity was incapable of uniting the Germans, and that only an entirely new world-theory was capable of doing so.”

    Also within a year of the Nazis taking power, The Twenty-Five Theses of the German Religion, a conscious modeling of the twenty-five points of the Nazi program, was published in Germany.
    Thesis XV of that Nazi publication states:

    “The Ethic of the German Religion condemns all belief in inherited sin, as well as the Jewish-Christian teaching of a fallen world. Such a teaching is not only non-Germanic and non-German, it is immoral and nonreligious. Whoever preaches this menaces the morality of the people.”

    Liberalism and Fascism

    To quote Daniel Pipes in his article from the Jerusalem Post of January 10, 2008:

    Fascism’s Legacy: Liberalism,

    “Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.”“

    “Jonah Goldberg points out in his brilliant, profound, and original new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday),

    First, he offers a “secret history of the American left”“:

    Woodrow Wilson’s Progressivism featured a “militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist” program, enabled by the exigencies of World War I.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “fascist New Deal” built on and extended Wilson’s government.
    Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society established the modern welfare state,
    “the ultimate fruition” (so far) of this statist tradition.

    The youthful New Left revolutionaries of the 1960s brought about
    “an Americanized updating” of the European Old Right.

    Hillary Clinton hopes
    “to insert the state deep into family life,”
    an essential step of the totalitarian project.

    End quote

    And i didn’t even get into islams ties to Hitler tonight…

  • mikemc1970

    Leave it NYC to not only look over the edge of the slippery slope, but go barreling down it.

    • $8194357

      Right coast brother to San Fran….

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Eventually, this web site will be banned. Give it time. If the muslim in the WhiteHouse is reelected it will be sooner than later.

  • $8194357

    They can’t/won’t assimilate.
    The civil law and Constitution mean nothing to them..
    But our “laws” vilotlate “his” first ammendment rights…
    The very same first amendment that they are banning as insulting to islam..


    Court tells Muslim to take the rag off his head, so he sues
    by BareNakedIslam

    Khalil Fareed is Muslim and wears a schmatta on his head called a kufi to symbolize his religious faith, but he says his religious freedom was violated when he tried to attend a hearing at 36th District Court.

    FOX (H/T Rob E)

    “The security guard told me you can’t wear that rag in here. So I said this is not a rag, it’s a kufi. It’s for religious purposes.”
    Fareed said the security guard told him to leave, even got her supervisor involved and they insisted he remove his kufi while in the courtroom.

    “Fareed was discriminated upon, harassed, intimidated and made to feel like less than a human being simply because of wearing his kufi, his religious attire,” said attorney Nabih Ayad.

    He has filed suit in federal court against G4S Secure Solutions, the company that employs the two security guards in questions. He alleges they violated Fareed’s First Amendment rights.

    • realitybasedbob

      “They can’t/won’t assimilate.
      The civil law and Constitution mean nothing to them..
      But our “laws” vilotlate “his” first ammendment rights…”

      One can only imagine how a pious Jew or even the vigin Mary would fare with today’s right wing extremists.

      • $8194357

        Forever the marxist political correct apoligist creating the manufactured narrrative of false moral outrage…Tail a waginn..Lucifer sayin…
        Good dog good dog…Boob the usefool idiot…

        • realitybasedbob

          So you don’t like Jews or the Virgin Mary either, Gun Nut?

          • $8194357

            A$$-umption from the leftist apoligist.

          • Ralph

            “So you don’t like Jews…”

            Says the member of the anti semetic, godless, communist party.

          • $8194357


      • $8194357

        For your “continuting education” fellow traveler….


        Are Muslims permitted to lie?

        Summary Answer:

        Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each
        other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

        There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under
        certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances
        are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the
        trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat

        The Qur’an:

        (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a
        Muslim to tell a lie.

        (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as
        friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”

        (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the
        idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at
        Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

        (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his
        faith” among those who are not believers.

        (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your
        oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is
        marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the
        greater good.

        (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your

        (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against
        them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for
        scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is
        deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that
        Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30
        and 10:21)

        Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are
        circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater

        From the Hadith:

        (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this
        is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by
        Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes

        (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good
        information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when
        the end justifies the means.

        (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms
        that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”

        (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything
        what the people speak
        as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst
        persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the
        narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to
        bring reconciliation between them).”

        (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s
        insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to
        gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew
        the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite
        putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

        From Islamic Law:

        Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 –
        8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy
        aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to
        accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible
        to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible
        to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is
        to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible),
        and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously
        precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading

        “One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to
        those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the
        truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

  • Neiman

    The Supreme Court is not a Divine Tribunal, it is in matter of fact, a small group of power mad lawyers (bottom dwellers) that carved out a massive role for themselves in government that did not exist originally; and, everyone seems to ignore that fact that they are a separate and equal branch of government, not a superior branch that may dictate to the other two or even the states or people. That is said to put the errant 1942 Decision above in its proper perspective, that decision perverted the Bill of Rights and emasculated (to deprive it of its strength and vigor) the First Amendment.

    What bothers me is that once we consider such limitations, we must ask who gets to decide what is or what is not permitted as free speech, it now being a highly subjective and arbitrary standard. The problem is that it is liberals, people that are mostly interested in placing limits on speech, any speech which is not liberal, tolerant or which hinders their socialist agenda in the slightest that, decide what or what is not allowed as semi-free speech.

    The danger of this mushy First Amendment and wholesale submission to the nine black robed (black robes, interesting, no?) jurists is demonstrated clearly by their allowing anti-christian speech without any real limits, while they will allow dictatorial restrictions on offending Islam, such a system can never be fair or just.

  • $8194357

    Mean while…
    Across the pond where the jihad is several decades ahead of America….

    They‭ ‬are being manipulated to disengage from civil society,‭ ‬to isolate themselves and start to assert Islamic fundamentalist behaviours towards the host population of Walsall.‭ ‬As has happened in Muslim dominated inner-city areas and central town areas up and‭ ‬down the country,‭ ‬the Muslim community is becoming increasingly less‭ ‬integrated:‭ ‬they are‭ ‬deliberately setting up Muslim-only areas.‭ ‬Although there‭ ‬are‭ ‬no similar no-go zones in Walsall yet as in say Sparkhill in Birmingham or Bury Park in Luton,‭ ‬over the last couple of years‭ ‬we have seen a steady increase in assaults on innocent non-Muslim people just going about their business and a steady increase in crimes against‭ ‬women,‭ ‬including rape.


    End quote

    Look at the different way English protestors are handled from when the
    “PC islamist vitims” riot..
    This was a protest..
    Not a riot..
    Protect islam at all costs and eat your own..

  • $8194357

    Look here what ya get when ya kick out a friendly dictator
    for the muslim brotherhood in Egypts new government..
    In the name of “arab spring “democracy” movement” !

    Some “cleric/imam” who reads the koran and prays five times a day untill he gets a callous on his head gets the “message” from god….It’s ok to marry a one year old girl if ya hold off on the sex for a spell..
    Mark of the beast I tell ya..
    And they want global blasphomsy laws to “protect them from HATE speech” all the while destroying the same first ammendment rights for us….

    Sick times we are living in..


    Egyptian ‘shit-stain-on-his-head’
    Cleric says girls should start birthing babies at age 14
    by BareNakedIslam

    An Egyptian cleric and member of the Constituent Assembly tasked with drafting Egypt’s new constitution has said that girls 14-years-old are permitted to have sexual relations under Islam and has proposed reducing the marriage age limit as a result.

    Bikyamasr “It is permissible for the girl of 9 or 10 to marry,”
    Yassir Barhami said in discussing a woman’s sexual reproduction and his interpretation of Islam.

    The Salafist ultra-conservative preacher claimed that under Islam when a girl begins to ovulate she is ready for marriage.
    He added during a television debate on Dream TV last Tuesday that “marriage of a girl would not be a supplement for education,” but added that it “was better” to marry a girl young “than falling into sin with customary marriage.”

    The cleric cited the Qur’an in arguing that any girl who is menstruating should be married and begin having children.

    Manal al-Taibi, a now resigned member of the Constituent Assembly, said that this call is the promotion of child marriage and is akin to rape. She has resigned her position on the assembly in protest to the overuse of Sharia law, or Islamic law, permeating the drafting process.

  • Meow6995

    NOTHING wrong is being said in this billboard. ARE ALL MUSLIMS IN SUPPORT OF JIHAD? no…. What pamela geller is saying is to not be supportive of those who ARE. Jihad is the belief that lies behind all terror attacks because it advocates violence. Not all muslims are violent but those that support jihad obviously are. Pamela geller is the first to say she is in support of having friendly muslim neighbors, just not violent ones. Everyone
    Needs to stop playing the race card its sickening. Its an excuse used when someone cant come up with a good reason as to why they dont like something. Look at the bigger picture here, FREEDOM IN SPEECH IN AMERICA is being violated and suppressed.

  • $8194357

    In the relgion of peace and tolerance,
    Tolerance always has a “price”.


    Does Islam require people of other faiths to pay money to support the Muslim

    Summary Answer:

    Absolutely. Muhammad very clearly established that people of other religions
    have to pay a poll tax to Muslims called the jizya, as a reminder of
    their inferior status. This abrogates an earlier verse stating that there is
    “no compulsion in religion” and destroys any pretense that Islam is
    merely a religion and not a political system.

    The Qur’an:

    (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold
    that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
    acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book,
    until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves

    From the Hadith:

    (19:4294) – There are many places in the hadith where Muhammad tells his
    followers to demand the jizya of non-believers. Here he lays down the
    rule that it is to be extorted by force: “If they refuse to accept Islam,
    demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold
    off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight

    (53:386) – The command for Muslims to spread Islamic rule by force,
    subjugating others until they either convert to Islam or pay money, is eternal:
    Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you
    worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed
    us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go
    to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever
    amongst us remain
    alive, shall become your master.” This is being recounted during the reign
    of Umar, Muhammad’s companion and the second caliph who sent conquering armies
    into non-Muslim Persian and Christian lands (after Muhammad’s death).

    Ishaq 956 & 962 – “He who
    withholds the Jizya is an enemy of Allah and His apostle.” The words of

    Additional Notes:

    According to the esteemed historian Ibn Kathir, Muhammad
    established the jizya as a means of compensating the “converted” Meccans
    for their loss of revenue following the total ban of other religions from the
    Kaaba. This ended the centuries-old tradition of pilgrimages by people of all
    faiths during the holy months, on which the local economy depended:

    Allah, most high, ordered the believers to prohibit the
    disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred mosque. On that,
    [Muhammad’s home tribe of]Quraysh thought that this would reduce their profits
    from trade. Therefore, Allah, most high, compensated them and ordered them to
    fight the people of the Book until the embrace Islam or pay the jizya. Ibn
    Katheir, The Battles of the Prophet, p. 183-184

    This practice enabled Muhammad and his successors to fund
    Islamic military expansion and the lifestyle of the religious class through
    extortion from non-believers. In 630, the prophet of Islam first marched an
    army into Christian lands in what came to be known as the “Battle of Tabuk.” In
    fact, there was no battle because there was no opposing army. The residents
    were taken by surprise. Some were killed, and the survivors were forced to pay
    protection money to Muhammad. (Clearly abrogating the previous rule of “no
    compulsion in religion” that contemporary apologists are so fond of

    Only eleven years after Muhammad’s death, his companions
    swept through North Africa, putting to the sword those who would not submit to
    Islamic rule. In 643, Tripoli was conquered and the native Christian Berbers
    were forced to give their wives and children to the Muslims as slaves to satisfy
    the jizya.

    This lucrative extortion racket was practiced down through
    the centuries and was a part of the brutal Ottoman rule over Christians, Jews
    and others. The Serbs of Europe were particularly hard hit and often had to
    hand over their children to satisfy the collector. The children were then
    converted to Islam and trained as Jihad warriors for use in foreign campaigns
    (the so-called Janissaries).

    In India, well into the 17th century, Muslim tax collectors
    would also take the wives and children of impoverished Hindus and sell them into
    slavery for the jizya requirement. The only way for many to avoid losing
    their families was to convert to Islam. This tremendous discrimination is how
    Islam made inroads into populations that wanted nothing to do with it.

    Technically, there is no such thing in Islam as an
    innocent non-Muslim, which makes those ballyhooed condemnations of
    “terror against innocent people” even more useless. There is a basis for
    protecting the “People of the Book” (originally Jews and Christians, but later
    extended to Hindus when Muslim leaders realized that killing them was not as
    profitable as taxing them). These would be those who place themselves
    completely under the rule of Muslims, relinquishing all rights and agreeing to
    finance the Muslim expansion. Unfortunately, even this has not been enough to
    spare religious minorities from extreme persecution and massacre.

    Traditionally the collection of the jizya occurs at a
    ceremony that is designed to emphasize the subordinate status of the non-Muslim,
    where the subject is often struck in a humiliating fashion. M.A. Khan recounts
    that some Islamic clerics encouraged tax collectors to spit into the mouths of
    Hindu dhimmis during the process. He also quotes the popular Sufi teacher,
    Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:

    “The honor of Islam lies in insulting the unbelief and the
    unbelievers (kafirs). One who respects kafirs dishonors Muslims… The real
    purpose of levying the Jizya on them is to humiliate them… [and] they remain
    terrified and trembling.” Islamic

    The Qur’an makes it clear that the collection of jizya
    is is the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. The verse
    mandating this (9:5) occurs much later than the verse stating that there is
    “no compulsion in religion” (2:256), meaning that it takes precedence and
    abrogates what came before. Therefore, Islamic purists such as Hamas and the
    Taliban wish to reinstate the jizya.

    Contemporary Muslim apologists rely greatly on the earlier
    “no compulsion in religion” verse when attempting to portray Islam as
    peaceful, and are thus reluctant to admit that the jizya is a penalty for
    not being Muslim. They usually fall back on claiming that the jizya is
    merely a tax paid to the government – glossing over the fact that this “tax” was
    imposed on the basis of religious status and was nearly always a much greater
    burden than that required of Muslim citizens. The interesting thing about this
    rhetorical strategy is that it directly contradicts any pretense that Islam is
    merely a religion and not a political system.

    Tolerance in Islam isn’t free. The jizya is money paid
    by non-Muslims so that they can keep practicing their religion. Under Islamic
    law, if the money is not paid, the people are to be killed or enslaved.

  • $8194357

    ISRAEL needs to be critical of islam…

    Chosen People Ministries

    Last week, both President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel addressed the United Nations General Assembly – as did the President of United States.

    One of the most critical issues under discussion was whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, how soon they will be developed and ready for use, and when and how the world community – especially United States and Israel – might respond. The discussion focused on whether Israel would perform a “first strike” or wait for sanctions and other behind-the-scenes strategies countering the potential nuclear threat in Iran to have an effect.

    Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his speech, used a picture of a bomb and drew a red line showing the point of no return regarding Iran’s progress in producing a nuclear bomb. He argued that once Iran passed this line, any military response from the Israel or any other Western power would be ineffective. Therefore, he argued, time is running out for a more decisive solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran. President Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, again assured the United Nations that their goal was not to develop nuclear weapons but to use nuclear energy in a peaceful way.

    It really comes down to this – do you trust the president of Iran, and you believe he is telling the truth when he says Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons?

    This seems to be the question everyone is asking..