American freedom defense_initiative_group_2_final paper

American Freedom Defense

Initiative

Freedom of Speech Battleground

12/13/2012

SIS 640 Final Group Paper

Group 2

Amber Massey, Curt Devine, Jamie Schlesser, Una Hrnjak

GROUP 2: AFDI: FREEDOM OF SPEECH 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4

American Freedom Defense Initiative Background................................................................................. 6

Top Twenty Sites Linking to AFDI Blog ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Controversy in US Cities from NYC, DC, to San Francisco ................................................................. 11

New York City sets the stage for the First Amendment Battle with AFDI .......................................... 11

National Security Matters Cited to Delay Ads in Washington, DC .................................................... 13

San Francisco Learns from DC and NY ............................................................................................. 16

NGOs Conducting Counter Campaigns in the Virtual and Public Sphere ......................................... 17

The Campaign of Shoulder to Shoulder .............................................................................................. 18

The Campaign of Jews Against Islamophobia (JAI)........................................................................... 19

The Campaign of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) ...................................................................... 19

The International Communication Challenge: American Advertising, Hate Speech, and the
Explanation of Free Speech Abroad........................................................................................................ 23

Out-of-home (OOH) Advertising ........................................................................................................ 25

Are Ads Protected by the First Amendment? ...................................................................................... 26

Is Hate Speech Protected by the First Amendment? ........................................................................... 27

America’s Exceptional Speech Tradition Informs the Global Debate of Free Speech ....................... 29

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 33

Works Cited............................................................................................................................................... 34


Executive Summary

This paper explores the controversial ads placed by the American Freedom Defense

Initiative (AFDI) in transit systems of New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco in early

fall of 2012. These ads contain controversial language often associated with anti-Muslim hate

speech in American and international discourse. Since the launch of this campaign, AFDI’s

campaign has been challenged and criticized online, in the court room, and through counter-ad

campaigns and activities launched by non-governmental organizations and individual activists.

This paper seeks to contextualize the controversy in respect to America’s free speech tradition. It

will explore the history and free speech activities of AFDI and discuss the recently-filed court

cases in New York and Washington, DC that solidified AFDI’s rights under free speech to post

their controversial ads in transit systems. It will also explore how transit system companies, non-

governmental organizations, and individuals are challenging the message of AFDI’s ad campaign

online, in the courtroom, and in privatized transit system advertising space throughout the US. In

addition, the paper will present a discussion on the domestic and international implications of

America’s protection of political speech and demonstrate the country’s free speech

exceptionalism in comparison to other influential nations, including France, Cuba, Brazil and

China.


Introduction

Anyone who watches the news knows that religion and culture remain passionate topics

and potential sources of conflict among groups with different backgrounds. The recent media

coverage of the controversy surrounding the posting of advertisements critical of the extremist

minority of Muslims actively carrying out a mission of jihad by a purported pro-Israel advocacy

group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), illustrates a major shift in how cross-

cultural difference is negotiated in contemporary society. What were once primarily localized

conflicts—verbal or perhaps physical disagreements between groups with clear historical or

geographical ties—have become global concerns thanks to the free flow of information and ideas

across mostly borderless networks made possible by the Information and Communication

Technologies (ICTs). The AFDI example also shows a shift toward locating this discord in the

realm of mass media and advertising. These outlets can become proxies for conveying particular

interpretations of events, promoting a positive or negative image of particular religious or

cultural groups, and countering assertions made about those groups by others.

Similarly, the media increasingly play a role in magnifying local events and clashes

between groups for the global stage. Finally, in America’s public sphere, which is protected by

free speech tradition, political opinion can become just another product that can be marketed

using advertising and public relations campaigns. Using the ongoing AFDI campaign as a case

study, this project seeks to answer the following questions: why are individuals and non-

governmental organizations negotiating cross-cultural conflicts through advertisements in the US

public sphere; how are national and international individuals and organizations challenging this

campaign online, in American courtrooms, and in transit systems throughout the U. S; and


finally, what are the domestic and international implications of America’s free speech tradition

for the age of globalization?

One important factor that must be considered in answering these questions is the impact

of globalization. Scholars of this phenomenon have argued that globalization has unsettled the

traditional dominant position of the nation-state and allowed for greater emphasis on other forms

of group affiliation, including religious and/or cultural identity (Karim, 2009; Sinclair, 2004;

Thussu, 1996). Some have also suggested that the greater mobility made possible through

transportation technologies, the establishment of vast diasporic communities, and the growth of

cosmopolitanism, or the idea of being a citizen of the world rather than tied to a particular

geographical space, have changed the scope and scale of cultural identity (Karim, 2009;

Waisboard, 2004). The end result is a greater need to negotiate difference on a global scale and

the transportation of conflicts from their traditional physical spaces to new realms. In the case of

the AFDI campaign, a conflict that originally began as a cross-cultural division between

supporter of Israel and the populations of Islamic states is now escalating within the public

transit systems of the United States thanks to the increased role NGOs are taking in the

negotiation of complex social issues.

Another factor that may help explain why the AFDI chooses to use advertisements as

their medium for communicating their controversial message is the increasing emphasis on the

role of non-governmental groups in influencing policymaking and the shift toward the public

relations-style soft diplomacy of noopolitik, whether among civil society actors, traditional

nation-state international relations efforts, or supranational organizations (Ronfeldt & Arquilla,

1999/2007; Raboy, 2004). Finally, to answer the question of why this cross-cultural negotiation

is taking place in America, we can look to the role of American exceptionalism as it relates to the


unique history of free expression and the protection of even the most controversial political

speech under specific language found in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

American Freedom Defense Initiative Background

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) is a New York-based, conservative

advocacy organization founded by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in 2010 that seeks to,

“fight the good fight in the information battle-space” against what AFDI calls political Islam

(“AFDI,” 2012). The organization carries out blogging and ad campaigns throughout the United

States to thwart the perceived threat of Sharia law, which they deem will destroy American

democracy and diminish free speech and religious freedom in America and around the world.

AFDI has recently launched controversial ad campaigns in the transit systems of major U.S.

cities like New York City and Washington, D.C., posting controversial ads to promote a Pro

Israel agenda under what some critics call “Islamophobia” (“Islamophobic,” 2012). Although

AFDI continuously proclaims the organization’s mission is to promote human rights, the

Southern Poverty Law Center labels AFDI a Muslim-hate group. The criteria to be labeled a

Muslim-hate group by the Center includes exhibiting extreme hostility toward Muslims and

Islam as fundamentally negative; depicting Muslims as irrational, intolerant, and violent; and

holding conspiratorial views that American democracy and Western civilization are in danger of

being replaced by Islamic despotism (“Anti-Muslim,” 2012).

Both founders of AFDI connect the organization’s mission to their personal diaspora-

group identities, creating an underlying assumption that the organization’s controversial ads

represent the interests and perspectives of the diaspora communities of which they claim

membership. Pro-Israel Pamela Geller was born into a Jewish family in 1958 and was raised in


Long Island, New York. Before becoming an activist and blogger, Geller worked in marketing,

media, and publishing at the New York Daily News and the New York Observer. (“Pamela

Geller,” 2010) Robert Spencer is a The New York Times best-selling author and blogger, whose

books and blogs criticize Islam. Spencer is a practicing Melkite Greek Catholic and claims his

grandparents were forced to immigrate to America from Turkey because of their Christian

beliefs. He has recounted his grandparents’ forced immigration as an example of Islamic

intolerance to religious differences. (“About” 2012). Spencer spends less time than Geller

advocating for ADFI; his primary focus is his blog Jihad Watch, which often positions Islam and

Islamic concepts as dangerous and counts Islamic supremacism a real threat to American society

and a free, globalized world.

In 2010, AFDI launched its first initiative, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA)—the

American affiliate to the Stop the Islamisation of Europe organization that originated in Europe.

Through this initiative came AFDI’s first ad and political campaign, primarily against the

building of an Islamic community center called Park51 near the former site of the World Trade

Center (“How,” 2012). AFDI’s recent ad campaigns began in summer 2012 in New York, with

AFDI submitting requests for ad space to the New York Transit Authority (MTA). One of the

ads submitted stated, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized

man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” (“Islamophobic,” 2012).

Over the last 700 years, European colonialists and imperialists have used the word

“savage” to denigrate and dehumanize the cultures and populations they sought to colonize,

oppress, or exploit (“Stay Civilized,” 2012). This word, too, has an undeniably oppressive place

in American history, evoking memories of the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of

Native populations on the American continent. Both of these groups were systematically referred


to as “savages” in colonial America to maintain European imperialistic power in social,

economic, and political life (“D.C. Metro,” 2012). MTA was sensitive to the use of “savage” in

historical hate speech, giving it credence to deny AFDI space under MTA’s “no-demean” rule.

Irrespective of the ad’s inflammatory language, Geller claimed that MTA’s refusal to run the ads

violated First Amendment rights.

A similar scenario played out when AFDI expanded their campaign to Washington, D.C.

in early September. Geller met resistance from the Washington Area Metro Transit Authority

(WMATA) who enlisted the involvement of the Department of Homeland Security to assess the

ad’s risk of escalating protests in the Middle East. September was a precarious time in American

diplomacy as the State department was dealing with two recent events that caused significant

national security issues and damage to American national image including the release of the

American-made movie trailer that disgraced the Prophet Mohammad, anti-American

demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa as well as a terrorist attack on the U.S.

Consulate in Libya.

As was the case in New York, the WMATA’s battle against the ads spilled into the

courtrooms. And, as in New York, WMATA was eventually ordered to allow the ads to display

at Metro stops. The ads in D.C. have received much attention and criticism from nonprofit

organizations representing the interests of diaspora and religious groups. These nonprofits are

carrying out counter-ad campaigns to balance what they deem as hate speech.. This nonprofit

competition for ad space is quickly transforming the Washington, D.C. transit system into an

ideological and visual battleground between organizations championing diaspora interests in a

very public sphere. In response to the surging counter-ad campaign, AFDI is currently rallying

support to extend the campaign in Washington, D.C. (“Anti-Muslim,” 2012). The AFDI website


aggressively features several prominent donation avenues above the blog’s left navigation. All

avenues link to a Paypal payment page. Although no funding data has been discovered at this

time, ABC Online reported in a recent article that AFDI has over 30,000 supporters, Facebook

friends, and participants in their events (“New York,” 2012). It’s safe to deduce that the ad

campaign and the increased media the organization is receiving is serving as an effective vehicle

for AFDI to expand their support base.

This media coverage might also improve AFDI’s network strength on the Internet.

Manuel Castells, in his study of social movements, asserts that networking, a de-centered form of

organization and intervention, is characteristic of new and global social movements as they

mirror and counteract the networking logic of domination in the information society. (Castells,

1997, p.362). A glance at AFDI’s inbound links speaks to this phenomenon as higher numbers of

inbound links improve rank in search engines and usually indicates a measure of a site's

networking power (“Alexa results,” 2012). However, the recent spike in inbound links to AFDI

might be less representative of the blog’s increasing network worth and more an indicator of the

success of AFDI’s campaign to establish a greater presence in the World Wide Web and to

spread their organization’s viewpoints and perceptions within the virtual and public sphere.

On November 11, 2012, the blog is seeing inbound links from major hubs in internet

news, social online forums, and the blogosphere, as aggregated by Alexa.com. The top twenty

sites linking to the AFDI blog include the websites of major media outlets including BBC, The

Guardian and the Business Insider.


Top Twenty Sites Linking to AFDI Blog

1. bbc.co.uk 2. Tumblr
3. Guardian.co.uk 4. Blogspot.de
5. Businessinsider.com 6. Elmundo.es
7. Elpais.com 8. Theblaze.com
9. Scoop.ot 10. Gawker.com
11. Topix.com 12. Npr.org
13. Blogspot.nl 14. Thedailybeast.com
15. Beforeitsnews.com 16. Lexpress.fr
17. Xmarks.com 18. Dailykos.com
19. Hotair.com 20. Abclocal.go.com

Figure 1: This figure lists the 20 top and most influential online social forums, media websites, and blogs that

linked to AFDI on November, 11, 2012 (Alexa, 2012).

Another interesting mention and trend to watch is the media attention’s effect on the

networking power of Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencer’s personal blogs. Technorati, an online

tracking system that predicts the network worth and popularity of blogs through several

indicators, ranks Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs blog at 11 in World Authority as of November,

11. Her blog also makes the Top 100 Politics, Top 100 U.S. Politics, and Top 100 World Politics

lists (“Technorati Atlas shrugs,” 2012). Robert Spencer’s personal Jihad Watch blog is also

ranked highly, coming in 45 in the World Authority indicator, and making the Top 100 World

Politics list (“Technorati Jihad Watch, 2012). AFDI’s website is neither listed nor ranked by

Technorati at this time. However, their highly-ranked personal blogs might indicate their ability

to reshape discussions and debates within and across groups on the Internet (Aday, 2010).

The mission of AFDI’s ad campaign is ambiguous, but given the networking and blogging

power of both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, the ads are certainly strengthening their

notoriety and perhaps expanding their global online and political network. Their ability to


transfer their “netwars” with nonprofits into the public sphere is critical to their ability to

produce and transform public attention and discourse, in addition to improving their personal

networking power online. With the help of Geller and Spencer’s personal networking strength,

AFDI’s global movement communications infrastructure satisfy Jeffry Juris’ three planes of

influence and strength of networked social movements; AFDI has the technology, the

organizational structure, and political and financial support to focus public and global discourse

on their interests and perspectives. (Jarvis,2008).

Controversy in US Cities from NYC, DC, to San Francisco

AFDI is attempting to expand to this ad campaign to other cities across the United States,

and transportation agencies, organizations, and residents are contesting the ads’ controversial

language and appropriateness for the public sphere. In response to courts upholding the

constitutionality of the ads’ political speech, organizations and civil society actors in New York,

Washington, D.C., California, Michigan and other states are fighting the ads by public displays

of protests or counter-ad campaigns.

New York City sets the stage for the First Amendment Battle with AFDI

As discussed previously, this ad campaign was not the first time that AFDI contacted

CBS Outdoor Group, the corporate advertising specialist of New York’s MTA, to place their ads

in New York transit system. (American Freedom Defense Initiative v. New York City

Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2012). Back in 2010, CBS Outdoor Group and MTA approved

the following ad of AFDI’s early SOIA program: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or

community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers!” This ran from May

of 2010 on NYC buses and the other which depicted the World Trade Center buildings burning –


and pointing to a mosque reading, “September 11, 2001 / WTC Jihad Attack and “September 11,

2011 / WTC Mega Mosque” followed by the words ““Why There?” and “Ground Zero”

(American Freedom Defense Initiative v. New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2012).

This ad was in response to the building of Park51 near Ground Zero.

According to MTA, although these ads were controversial, they did not violate MTA’s

advertising “no-demeaning} policy which states that ads may not “contain images or information

that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national

origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.” (American Freedom Defense

Initiative v. New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2012). The use of the word “savage”

in the latest campaign took a different consideration. MTA explained that the ad sought out a

group of people in a negative manner, citing one particular policy which reads, ads may not

“contain images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of

race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation”

(American Freedom Defense Initiative v. New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2012).

MTA recommended that CBS Outdoor Group work with AFDI to change the language of the ad.

AFDI automatically refused to do this and shortly after filed a lawsuit against MTA for violation

of their First Amendment constitutional right to freedom of expression (American Freedom

Defense Initiative v. New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2012).

In April 2012, following months of motions and paper filing, the Federal District Court

Paul A. Engelmayer heard the case. The court ruled that MTA did not properly protect the first

amendment right of the AFDI and indicated that the “no demeaning” language standard was

actually unconstitutional and recommended to MTA to change its policies and protect the ad

proposed by AFDI. Judge Engelmayer was quoted, “The AFDI Ad is not only protected


speech—it is core political speech” (American Freedom Defense Initiative v. New York City

Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2012). Judge Engelmayer explained that AFDI’s ad showed the

organization’s pro-Israel stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The judge justified the ads

going up as they are “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” (American Freedom Defense Initiative v. New York City Metropolitan

Transit Authority, 2012). New York City MTA has been working since the ruling to change its

policies and accepted the placements of AFDI’s ads on New York City buses. Following the

controversy in New York City, a similar battle between the Washington D.C. Metro Authority

began when AFDI proposed placing similar ads in Washington

When the ads went up in New York City, the public responded with vandalism,

criticisms of the authority on the internet and requests for the ads’ removal, MTA responded by

explaining that their “hands were tied (Flegenheimer 2, 2012)” because of the court’s ruling.

Joseph J. Lhota, the authority’s chairman explained that MTA will “deal with a free-speech issue

with more free speech (Flegenheimer 2, 2012)”. The court’s ruling was a mere reflection of the

unique system that exists in the United States, where freedom of expression must be protected

and upheld.

National Security Matters Cited to Delay Ads in Washington, DC

Shortly after the ruling in New York City, a similar battle between AFDI and the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) began in September 2012. When

the request from AFDI came to WMATA, WMATA and the Transportation Security

Administration (TSA) of the Department of Homeland Security were concerned about Anti-


Americanism abroad In particular the administrations cited the release of the American-made

movie trailer that went viral on the Internet; entitled “The Innocence of Muslims” the trailer

disgraced the Prophet Mohammad and caused large and dangerous anti-American

demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa (American Freedom Defense Initiative

et al. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2012). Around the same time and in

connection with these protests, an attack on the United States Consulate compound in Benghazi,

Libya ended with four Americans dead, including the Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens

(“Six Things,” 2012). In tandem, these events handicapped America’s soft power throughout the

Middle East, and forced the State department to answer to a frenzy of media and political

accusations that American hard power and intelligence were compromised in the region. -

Following the terrorist attack on the US embassy in Libya and continued outrage in the Middle

East, TSA expressed concern about the timing of the ad and the chance for an increased terrorist

attack considering world events – especially in highly targeted areas like the Washington DC

metro system. WMATA and concerned parties recommended that the ads be postponed to ensure

public safety in the D.C. metro area (American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2012).WMATA explained that the ads could threaten the

safety of their passengers in two ways: “(1) inter-passenger disputes on subway platforms that

could result in passengers falling into the tracks or (2) a terrorist attack.(American Freedom

Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2012).

AFDI did not agree with WMATA’s decision, Pamela Geller, the executive director of

the American Freedom Defense Initiative, responded quickly to Washington authorities in an

email saying she would not be, “kowtowing to the threat of jihad terrorism (Flegenheimer 1,

2012)”. She concluded that recent Anti-Americanism in the Middle East did not make her think


twice for posting AFDI ads, indicating, “I will never cower before violent intimidation, and stop

telling the truth because doing so is dangerous. Freedom must be vigorously defended

(Flegenheimer 1, 2012)”. Shortly after WMATA tried to delay the ads AFDI filed suit alleged

that WMATA was depriving them of their right to engage in protected speech in a public forum

– and this was once again a violation of their First Amendment (American Freedom Defense

Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2012).

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority, the court agreed that WMATA’s concern for their passengers and employees was

compelling but ultimately the court explained that the First Amendment protects “obnoxious and

offensive speech” (American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority, 2012). Judge Mary Collyer’s ruling echoed similar reasoning’s as Judge

Engelmayer’s in New York. Federal Judge Coyer explained that WMATA had 48 hours to allow

the posting of the ads throughout Washington. The ads were posted to U Street, Georgia Avenue,

Takoma Park, and Glenmont Metro stations the last week of October. (“Anti-Jihad,” 2012) In

her ruling she indicated that, “there is no doubt that content-based restrictions can rarely pass

constitutional review” (American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority, 2012). The American Freedom Law Center, which filed the cases in New

York City and in Washington D.C. on behalf of

AFDI considered both D.C. and NYC cases a

“victory” (Tucker, 2012). David Yerushalmi, a

lawyer representing the American Freedom

Defense Initiative noted, "The result is

absolutely correct. There simply was no way
Source of Photo: Tucker


under the First Amendment jurisprudence that we have today that this ad should not have gone

up when contracted (Tucker, 2012)." Just as it was for the case in New York, the ruling by the

Washington DC federal judge reflected the unique rights Americans have to be able to express

themselves freely in a public space. This form of speech is protected under the US Constitution.

San Francisco Learns from DC and NY

AFDI is currently targeting west coast cities like San Francisco, California. In the midst

of the summer’s controversies around MTA’s responses in New York City and Washington,

D.C. San Francisco authorities allowed the placement of the ads on the city’s Muni bus system

without protest. Metro Authority in San Francisco explained that the ads were protected under

the First Amendment and began placing them on buses in August 2012 (Reisman, 2012). The

President of the San Francisco Transportation Board, Tom Nolan, said in an interview with the

San Francisco Examiner that, “What could happen here if we take them all down [is] we could

be taken to court and [there] would be a big cost associated with that and we could be forced— I

guess like New York, to put them back up anyway (Reisman, 2012).”

The Board has also publically stated that its members find the ads “offensive” and has

requested to place a disclaimer under each ad to indicate that the agency does not support the

ad’s viewpoints. (Reisman, 2012). In San Francisco, public reaction has been extensively carried

out by residents and supported by national NGOs or community organizations, stirring much

debate among residents and tourists visiting the area. The public has defaced the ads, trying to

remove the controversial language. Organizations are also not completely absent from the debate

and since the ads have gone up, one grassroots organization in particular called Change.org

circulated a petition requesting for the ads to be removed (Reisman, 2012). Change.org and its


followers believe that, “Declaring a whole people “savages” belongs in the dustbin of 19th

century colonial racism, not on a city bus in the 21st Century of a progressive city like San

Francisco (Reisman, 2012).”

NGOs Conducting Counter Campaigns in the Virtual and Public Sphere

NGOs and civil society actors across the US are coming together against AFDI and

building a larger community based on a shared understanding to object “hate speech” utilized by

AFDI. Ronfeldt and Aquilla shared in their research that in the current state, organizations will

continue to utilize various communications vehicles to relay a specific message that persuades

and invites people to a larger global community. Various groups think that language used by

AFDI is hate speech, and are using information communication technologies (ICTs) such as

Facebook, blogs, Twitter, and ad space to challenge AFDI on the Internet and in Transit Systems

across the country. The internet in particular is serving as a valuable platform to organizations

and individuals to strengthen and galvanize support against the AFDI ads (Jarvis ). An electronic

and hard petition in San Francisco started by Change.org is just one of many examples of NGO

outcry to the AFDI ads. The ads have caused heated conversations on D.C.’s metro system,

campaigns on social media, student protests, and counter-ads to bring down AFDI’s message.

NGOs and civil society actors are increasingly involved in shaping public opinion about

controversial topics. This section will cover the various campaigns supported by increasingly

powerful actors in an attempt to unify groups and people against the AFDI ads.

In response to in the placements of the AFDI ads in New York City, a Twitter campaign was

started by the general public titled #mysubwayad to combat AFDI’s hate speech (Barooah,


2012). A collection of tweets denounced the demeaning nature of the AFDI ad and encouraged

religious tolerance. Tweets included:

1. “In NYC We Speak 140 Languages
and Hate Isn't One Of Them. #MySubwayAd
#antihate” (Barooah, 2012)

2. “Hatred won't ever work as a
solution, but it will always be a part of the
problem. Don't fight hate with hate
#MySubwayAd #AntiHate” (Barooah, 2012) Source of Photo: Barooah

3. “Imagine being an American in a country with billboards on public transportation
calling you a savage #mysubwayad” (Barooah, 2012)

Similar postings on Facebook and other means of social media have continued throughout the

country to fight hate speech – in particular citing anti-Muslim messages as hate speech when one

group of people is negatively targeted.

The Campaign of Shoulder to Shoulder

Shoulder to Shoulder is a Washington-based coalition of religious groups that include 28

member groups representing Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They have launched an ad campaign

of their own in response to the controversial ads. The ads have gone up in numerous Washington,

D.C. metro stops and read, "Hate speech is not civilized. Support peace in work and deed.

#mysubwayad” (Tull, 2012). In an interview with D.C.Ist, the organization’s campaign Director

Christina Warner explained that Shoulder to Shoulder bought the Metro ads to "provide local

clergy with an opportunity to speak out in an organized way. The hash tag is a way for people to

get involved in conversation. It's allowed people who want to speak out against the ad a way to

do so (Freed, 2012)." The coalition has also asked for WMATA to donate all profits from the

AFDI ads to charity (Tull, 2012). This request was also made in San Francisco where the


transportation authority was asked to donate its proceeds to the Human Rights Commission for

an educational campaign about the issue (Reisman, 2012).

The Campaign of Jews Against Islamophobia (JAI)

Other groups like the Jews Against

Islamophobia (JAI) Coalition claim that AFDI

ads and their views are “islamphobic,”

particularly because of the inclusion of

Source of Photo: CAIR “savage” (Moscow, 2012). JAI member Elly Bulkin

explained that, “This message denigrates Muslims, Palestinians, and other Arabs. Its use of the

term ‘savages’ has resonance for all communities of color in this country that have faced a long

history of racism and discrimination against them (Moscow, 2012).”Additional groups in the

Washington, D.C. metro area such as the Christian group “Sojourners” are placing ads with more

tolerant language throughout the metro. Ads are reading, “Love Your Muslim Neighbors" in an

attempt to counter the AFDI ads (Freed, J, 2012). The group plans to expand counter-ads in New

York City, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Missouri (Freed, J, 2012).

The Campaign of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

A Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group, Council on American-Islamic Relations

(CAIR) is also responding. The council is placing 16-foot banners geared towards promoting

mutual understanding and respect for the Muslim religion. The council hopes that the counter-

ads will challenge the hateful ads placed by AFDI (Associated Press, 2012). The banners cite the

Quran, reading, "Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant (Associated Press,


2012)." Posted in a blog post on the CAIR website, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad

Awad noted, "We hope, inshallah, to expand this anti-hate campaign in the nation's capital and

throughout the nation. We need the community's help to challenge the growing propaganda

campaign of anti-Muslim hate in our society with positive messages of what Islam is and who we

really are (CAIR, 2012)." The Council on American Islamic Relations is Washington, D.C.-

based non-profit organization with offices around the country, defines its mission as "to enhance

understanding of Islam, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice

and mutual understanding (ADL, 2006).” CAIR aims to continue a counter-ad campaign for the

following year and encourages other groups to help CAIR with balancing the negative speech by

not blocking it but by minimizing the harm (CAIR, 2012). Ibrahim Hooper, a representative from

the Council on American Islamic Relations told WTOP-FM in a radio station interview that,

"The answer to hate speech is not censorship. The answer to hate speech is more civil speech

promoting mutual understanding and tolerance (Silverberg, 2012).” In New York and across the

country other groups continue to take action, such as a group of rabbis and Christian leaders who

have combined efforts in the fight against AFDI ads by utilizing counter-ads. The group’s ads

read, "In the choice between love and hate, CHOOSE LOVE. Help stop bigotry against our

Muslim neighbors (Mathias, 2012).”

While NGOs are using social media campaigns, protests, boycotts , and counter-ads to

response to the AFDI ads, some individual dissenters

have turned to vandalism in response to the campaign

including, Journalist Mona Elthawy who was arrested for Source of Photo: Oh

spray-painting the anti-jihad posters in the New York City subway Source of Photo: Oh

area (Oh, 2012). While Eltahawy claims that her act of defacing of the subway ad and the


subsequent tense physical struggle with the camerawoman standing in her way was a form of

non-violent protest and an equivalent expression of free speech, the subway police did not agree

and Elthawy was arrested (Oh, 2012). In response, Elthawy posted the following Tweet on

Twitter “I don’t do peace & love when it comes to racist & bigoted shits like Pam Geller & co.

There r some who do. Move on & look elsewhere (Oh, 2012).”

Acts of vandalism continue throughout the country where artists are removing words or

spray painting over words or adding “HATE

SPEECH” on top of the ads to send a message to

AFDI (Barrows-Friedman, 2012). In San Francisco

for example, bloggers and activists have become

increasingly involved with the fight against the AFDI

ads. Bloggers have actively written about the need

for the ads to be removed and have begun a Source of Photo: Mackey

campaign that fights the ads through editing or removing words from the ads on the Muni bus

system (Barrows-Friedman, 2012). One example shared by Robert Mackey, a New York Times

blogger, links to an activist’s Facebook page where the ad has been altered. The ad was changed

to read, “In any war between the colonizer and the colonized, support the oppressed. Support the

Palestinian right of return. Defeat racism (Mackey, 2012).” Nora Barrows-Friedman, a staff

writer for Intifada and contributor to Al-Jazeera posted on her blog the way artists throughout

San Francisco are responding to the ads. According to Barrows-Friedman’s blog, anonymous

artist’s wheat pasted over the ads with an image of a hand and a stamp with the words “HATE

SPEECH ((Barrows-Friedman, 2012).” Groups and individuals will continue to battle AFDI in


cyber space and through peaceful protests given the large distaste in the public about the

language used by AFDI.

Building Power in the Network against AFDI
Ronfeldt and Aquilla shared in their research that in the current state, organizations will

continue to utilize various communications vehicles to relay a specific message that persuades

and invites people to a larger global community. NGOs and civil society actors across the US are

coming together against AFDI and building a larger community based on a shared understanding

to object “hate speech” utilized by AFDI. Through a powerful network of actors, NGOs and civil

society have been able to escalate the conversation about whether or not the ads are “offensive”

and what the implications of these ads may be here in the United States and abroad. If their

network continues to grow stronger, more action may be taken to bring down AFDI ads across

major US cities.

Nevertheless, given the unique press system that the US has where freedom of speech is

protected, NGOs and civil society will continue to fight an uphill battle against AFDI on this

matter given that their ads have been protected under the First Amendment. AFDI has stated

repeatedly that the organization will continue to take legal action to protect its’ constitutional

right. In an interview with, AFDI Executive Director Pamela Geller argued, “We will pursue this

gross violation of our First Amendment rights” (Childress, 2012). Opposing actors will continue

to raise the question about whether or not the language used by AFDI is “hate speech” in the

hopes of calling to question the court’s rulings on the matter. Already, groups like CAIR are

trying to bring in politicians like Mayor Bloomberg to provide even more power to their network

– urging people to sign a petition that would ask the Mayor to remove the ads (CAIR 2, 2012).


At this time, political figures are slowly sharing their feelings about the ads and utilizing

their power to encourage constituents to boycott metro systems that are keeping the AFDI ads

up. Representative Mike Honda from California explained, “The right to free speech is a right I

will defend to my grave. These are rights, however, that come with great responsibility and I

hope that Americans will always use them responsibly. The right to not support hate speech is

also a right, which is why I encourage people to boycott (Greenwood, 2012).” Representative

Honda has asked other members of Congress to join him in changing the current outlook (Honda,

2012). Representative Honda wrote in a blog featured on the Huffington Post, “Protecting free

speech is, without question, an essential cornerstone of this country, but so, too, is responsibility.

Our founding fathers didn't fight for free speech so that Americans could proudly and

vehemently use hate speech on each other, inciting fear of each other. This is not the America

they helped build or foresaw for the future (Honda, 2012).” Debating whether or not to censor

the type of language used by AFDI is important to discuss – as the US system was designed to

protect even the most marginal viewpoints. Americans across the country are taking action to

voice their concern with the AFDI ads – from tweeting about it, to writing Letters-to-the Editor,

to non-violent protests. The unique right to protect speech and freedom of expression in the

United States is unique to this country alone; this is not the same approach in other democracies.

The International Communication Challenge: American Advertising, Hate Speech, and the

Explanation of Free Speech Abroad

Numerous factors contribute to the negotiation of complex and controversial issues like

cultural and religious differences through advertisements placed in American subways. Whether

due to global migration, a rise in global social networks and global perspectives, or a growing

emphasis on advancing ideas through public relations-based soft diplomacy, none of this would


be possible without the unique discursive aspects of the American public sphere. The

constitutional protection of each citizen’s right to free expression—established by the First

Amendment and guided by Supreme Court interpretation of legal challenges testing that

provision’s limits—is a legal right that sets this country apart from the rest of the world. This

case study is exemplary of Americans ability to say things through spoken word, text, and

images that would in other countries would result in imprisonment, exile, or even execution. As

this greater latitude for controversial expression tends to attract extreme examples like the

AFDI’s purported campaign against jihad – perceived by many as culturally divisive hate speech

– the biggest international communication challenge facing the US hinges on finding a way to

clearly convey to the world what free speech entails, why it is so passionately embraced here,

and what value comes from letting everyone have their uncensored say no matter how

objectionable some may find the content of the speech of others.

Free speech is a sufficiently tangled and nuanced area of study that innumerable scholars

of discourse, political science, and law have made lengthy careers out of attempting to synthesize

precise answers to those same questions with slow progress. The case study at hand illustrates

just a few ways that free expression can quickly become difficult to explain on a world stage or

even understood domestically to laypeople not immersed in First Amendment history and

debates. The case study also confluents two important variables: it deals with political speech

conveyed through commercial means; and the ads dance a fine line between defensible

expression and outright hate speech, capable of inciting violence against a particular group of

people based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or culture. Hate speech that incites violence is

legally restricted. Before addressing these two important facets of free speech as they relate to

the AFDI controversy, the next portion of this paper will review how and why public spaces like


the transit systems of New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC are targeted by

groups like Geller’s through advertisements.

Privatized transit ads are a communications vehicle that easily transmits messages into the

public sphere. Privatized transit ads, like the ones financed by AFDI, are a form of out-of-home

(OOH) advertising. Unlike radio or television ads, which typically reach consumers inside their

homes, outdoor advertising like content found on billboards, buses, and benches are visible to a

larger audience for a longer period of time. According to industry magazine Adweek, consumers

spend more than 70 percent of their time outside the home, between commuting and working,

running errands, and participating in other outdoor activities (“Immersing,” 2012). While

billboards are the most common form, transit ads comprise 17 percent of the total market

(“Immersing,” 2012). Industry experts suggest that OOH advertising has also demonstrated

stronger growth and greater impact than other forms of marketing over the past decade

(“Immersing,” 2012). OOH advertising in train stations and on buses becomes even more

important when you consider the number of people who depend on public transit for their daily

commute. While the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey Report on

Commuting in America found that only 5 percent of Americans use public transportation to

travel to work each day compared to more than 74 percent who drive, those numbers are

disproportionately higher in dense metropolitan areas (McKenzie & Rapino, 2011). The Metro

system, administered by the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA), covers more

than 1,500 square miles and serves a population of over 5 million across Maryland, Virginia, and

the District (“Vital signs,” 2012). In FY 2011, the Metro system—including rail, bus, and Metro

Access—provided 344 million rides (“Vital Signs,” 2012). This adds up to a significant audience

for ads placed within the web of public transportation. As the D.C. metro area has the second


longest average commute time in the country at over 33 minutes, that audience is even more

desirable because it is generally captive (McKenzie & Rapino, 2011). There is little opportunity

for movement away from advertising messages without leaving the system and there is less

competition for passengers’ attention from other sources. While ads placed in the subway system

may only reach commuters, ads placed on buses and in bus shelters have an even larger potential

audience of pedestrians and drivers of private automobiles.

WMATA’s Metro advertising is managed through CBS Outdoor. A subsidiary of the CBS

Corporation, this global media company posts revenues of over 2 billion dollars worldwide by

focusing exclusively on OOH (“About,” 2012). Because pricing is contingent on so many

factors, including location, average number of passersby, and more, it is impossible to estimate

what AFDI has invested in order to place their ads across the Metro system. Metro accepts or

rejects advertisers wishing to place ads within the system using a one-page set of guidelines

originally adopted in 1972 and updated in 2003. This document, known as “Guidelines

Governing Commercial Advertising,” lays out a few key rules relevant to this project: 1) ads

must adhere to the local jurisdictional statutes across all three service areas whenever possible; 2)

ads cannot be false, misleading, or deceptive; and 3) “advertisers shall avoid illustrations or

references which disregard normal safety precautions” (“Guidelines,” 2003). This last guideline

likely drove Metro’s decision to drag its feet in rolling out the campaign AFDI had purchased

and led to the subsequent court battle.

As in the case study, advertisements are a type of speech that is either commercially-focused

or commercially-facilitated. While the AFDI campaign is clearly not designed to sell something

outright like cars or prescription drugs, it is still a persuasive attempt made possible through the


exchange of money for the ability to post materials in a controlled public space. As such, it is

regulated in the same way as other forms of commercial speech.

Advertising, however, has not always enjoyed the privilege of free expression. As suggested

by Cohen (1978), language in the Supreme Court decision regarding the 1942 case of Valentine

v. Chrestensen, a dispute over an anti-littering ordinance designed to circumvent handbilling,

effectively classified commercial speech as fundamentally different from other forms and denied

it protection under the First Amendment. For the more than 30 years, this precedent was essential

in determining the practice and legal definition of the limits of free expression possible through

advertising. In the mid-1970s, a series of Supreme Court rulings turned away from the standard

set by the 1942 case. Two of those important cases, both of which had close ties to the Mid-

Atlantic region, were Bigelow v. Virginia in 1975 and Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v.

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council in 1976. The first case, a fight over whether an abortion

services ad published in a Virginia newspaper was subject to a local ban or qualified as protected

speech, opened the door to the possibility of advertising falling under the umbrella of the First

Amendment but placed a heavy emphasis on the provision of useful information and service of

the public interest (Cohen, 1978). A year later, the second case, a battle over whether or not

pharmacists should be able to include price information in ads, ushered in sweeping protections

for speech conveyed through advertisements. It is this precedent that informs the courts’ rulings

to protect AFDI’s legal right to use private ad space to sway public discourse.

The other major gray area of free speech protections raised by the AFDI controversy is the

issue of hate speech, as many read AFDI’s pro-Israel and anti-Jihadist positions as an overt

attack on all Muslims and Islam. In American history, offensive speech has traditionally been

granted protection under the First Amendment, barring a direct incitement of violence. This is


because interpretations of that constitutional right have typically assumed that any significant

censorship could jeopardize the tenet of free expression entirely. Instead of limiting hateful

speech directly, scholarly understandings of free expression find balance in a kind of equilibrium

system in which objectionable speech from one party, group, or individual is naturally countered

by a combination of oppositional speech and public outcry. Legal scholars trace the principle of

believing in the power of “more speech” back to judicial opinion in the 1927 case of Whitney v.

California (Downing, 1999). Critics of this stance, sometimes called “First Amendment

absolutism,” argue that framing the issue of free expression in these all-or-nothing terms is

dangerous and shortsighted (Downing, 1999; Gelber, 2010). According to critics, allowing hate

speech protection under the First Amendment, there is no limit to escalating rhetoric, no

opportunity for the kind of informed debate that inspired these protections in the first place, and

no protection from global criticism of US free speech policies when inflammatory content is

distributed worldwide through seemingly borderless Internet networks. This is particularly true,

as Gelber (2010) argued, when other liberal democracies like Canada, Australia, the United

Kingdom, Germany, and other European nations have managed to uphold some semblance of

free expression while simultaneously clamping down on objectionable and hateful speech. It

remains unclear whether or not the distinctly American interpretation of free speech will shift

toward evolving models in other nations on the issue of hate speech. Whatever the domestic

position will be in the future, international communications practitioners tasked with conveying a

clear understanding of the American system will increasingly be required to contextualize that

stance in light of global expectations for what is appropriate and what is not or continue to

respond to requests for censorship from outside groups that do not understanding the limitations

as they are currently defined.


America’s Exceptional Speech Tradition Informs the Global Debate of Free Speech

The discussion of AFDI has a domestic and global context. Domestically, recent U.S.

Supreme Court rulings create the current precedent for dealing with controversial speech in the

U.S. legal system. AFDI’s ad campaign also earns its place among other recent international

events that contribute to the global debate of free speech. These events show the way in which

many governments continue to suppress dissenting speech, and in turn, how many networked

citizens defy this suppression by speaking through alternative channels (particularly through

U.S.-owned Web avenues). In combining these analyses, this paper will see how globalization

has led to an increase in cross-cultural conflict and a heightened debate in free-speech rights

around the world.

Perhaps the most popular recent cases of media controversy are those surrounding the

low-budget film and Youtube trailer “The Innocence of Muslims.” While the nations mentioned

previously have ideological reason for censorship within their communistic frameworks, the

following democracies interestingly suppress certain speech in order to prevent backlash before

it begins. Brazil's government ordered the arrest of the country’s Google president Fabio Jose

Silva Coelho for his refusal to remove the video portraying the Prophet Mohammed from

Youtube. When the French magazine Charlie Hebdo published crude caricatures of the prophet

in order to mock the controversy of the video and its resulting violence as a whole, the French

government asked chief editor Gerard Biard to remove the cartoons. Although Biard legally

refused, the French government then banned any protests against the cartoons (New York Times,

1). Although the press was not censored in this case, the government outlawed a form of public

speech, showing that censorship remains a viable option for the French government.


Other states have recently restricted speech in cases not involved with this YouTube

video. For example, Cuba arrested a group of 75 governmental dissidents, including popular

blogger Yoani Sanchez, who recently became a delegate for the Inter American Press

Association. The dissidents had gone to a police station in Havana to inquire about others who

had been arrested for governmental opposition and to call for their immediate release

(Washington Post, 1). This demonstrates the way in which Cuban governmental officials assume

the right to silence dissidents through imprisonment without formal charge. Other reports show

how the current Castro-regime has a zero-tolerance policy for requests of free speech and

democracy. As another example, China has a legacy of not only suppressing speech that opposes

the communist party, but also paying thousands of commentators who pose as ordinary Web

users to write pro-government materials. Recently, the Chinese government censored Twitter by

hacking into the website and disabling the accounts of popular political commentators ahead of

the Chinese Communist elections. The government has even admitted to training a force of

cyber-hackers called the “Blue Army,” who specialize in national defense but also suppress

controversial voices (Policy Mic, 1). This shows that while digital mediums allow for greater

access and distribution of dissenting opinions, censorship techniques also increase and allow for

new forms of suppression.

From these examples, we see that governmental suppression of speech continues to

hinder the global market place of ideas within both democracies and communist regimes. As

Manuel Castells notes, “The state remains a critical actor in defining power relationships through

communication networks... by criminalizing unhindered communication and prosecuting the

messenger” (Castells, 264). Whether in communist China or democratic France, most nation-


states assume the right to limit the public sphere in order to prevent political backlash and/or

public violence.

Despite these restrictions, modern media phenomena increasingly reveal governmental

inabilities to limit speech, regardless of the form of government. The recent emergence of e gao

Internet spoofs in China provides a telling example of this phenomenon. These subliminal forms

of political commentary often mock institutions by taking advantage of the transformative

capabilities of digital media to portray them through humor, revelry, subversion or grassroots

spontaneity (Meng, 34, 35) For example, some e gao spoofs used material from the popular

Hollywood film “The Matrix” along with the Soviet film “Lenin in 1918” to scrutinize

corruption in China and the war in Iraq (Meng, 37) This form of messaging works as a defiance

of authority, because while the government may attempt to limit this speech, its below-the-

surface commentary often proves too subliminal to restrict. Therefore, the ‘Great Firewall’ of

China proves insufficient to fully block controversial speech in China because sooner or later,

dissenting opinions find a way to squeeze through the cracks. When speech from a foreign nation

seems too controversial for its particular public sphere, however, U.S. publication often becomes

a viable alternative. Continuing with China as an example, The New York Times recently

published an op-ed titled, “Unwelcome at the Party,” written by Chinese author Wang Lixong

who denounces China’s Communist Party for asking his wife to leave Beijing because of the up-

coming coronation of new party leaders. He writes, “I have replied to State Security that a party

conclave is no reason to disperse a family. They, in turn, threatened that if I refused to leave,

things would become uncomfortable for me” (New York Times, 2). Here, we see that the free-

speech policies of the U.S. provide a platform for foreigners to voice opinions that would be

censored under different governments. Interestingly, The New York Times has a substantial


global audience; therefore many Chinese citizens more than likely read this article, despite its

denouncement of the Chinese government.

This analysis demonstrates the unique quality of U.S. free-speech policy against the

backdrop of international censorship, which further illustrates the popular notion of American

Exceptionalism. While both authoritarian regimes and democratic governments continue to

restrict dissenting opinions around the globe, the U.S. holds the most “free” standards in order to

diversify and strengthen the market-place of ideas as much as possible. If the U.S. begins

limiting speech by the AFDI or any other organization that borders on hate-speech, our public

sphere will shrink in its scope by criminalizing voices of dissenting opinion. Time and time

again, our Supreme Court upholds the right of citizens to say the most controversial, upsetting

and denigrating statements, so long as this speech does not incite violence, inflict extreme

emotional distress or cross the line of obscenity. As an extreme example of defended hate-

speech, members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of fallen U.S. soldier

Matthew Snyder who was killed in the Iraq war. Church protestors held up sings that said Snyder

would “Burn in hell” and that God “hated” him, but when Snyder’s family tried to sue the

church, the U.S. Supreme Court defended their right to picket (Snyder v Phelps, 5-9). From this,

we see that America provides the highest freedom for speech, even when that speech has

malicious intent and increases controversy or unrest in society. In the age of globalization, other

nations have begun utilizing this freedom through Web avenues. Although this may increase

cross-cultural conflict, our public sphere continues to provide a foundation for dissenting

opinions, alternative viewpoints and controversial ad-campaigns.


Conclusion

The study of AFDI’s ad campaign lent exploration into the complexity of America’s free

speech tradition in a globalized world, where no country, however influential, is exempt from

international criticism and participation in the global debate on free speech. America’s free

speech tradition and multicultural citizenship makes the country a unique and unprecedented

battleground not only for diaspora and religious perspectives, but also the very existence of the

discursive public sphere that America’s free speech tradition has helped to create and protect.

Individuals, NGOs, and other interest groups are free to use various communications channels –

on the internet and on the street – to project their messages and perspectives.

AFDI’s campaign is as controversial as it is exemplary of America’s unique position on

freedom of expression – a tradition that sets it apart from any other country in the world. Only in

America can any individual, group, or entity with the means to buy OOH advertising use it for

political or personal gain, regardless of how controversial the language of the ad or risk it might

present to national image or security. And, only in America can this space be used by

organizations to debate ideological differences and perspectives that affect national and

international discourse.

America’s free speech tradition protects even the most marginalized perspectives, regardless

of how controversial or offensive that perspective might seem to other groups or oppositional to

majority opinion. AFDI proves that organizations and individuals in America can use their easy

access to ICTs to further their cause, while leveraging globalized communications vehicles like

transit ads to extend the impact of their campaigns on discourse in America and around the

world.


Works Cited

About Robert Spencer (2012). Jihadwatch.org. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html

About us (2012). CBSOutdoor.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
https://www.cbsoutdoor.
com/aboutus

ADL. (2006, December 1). Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Anti-Defamation
League. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.adl.org/Israel/cair/default.asp

AFDI Inbound Links (2012). Alexa.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
https://alexa.com/inboundlinks/Freedomdefense.typepad.com

AFDI information wars continue at NY train stations (2012). Freedomdefense.typepad.com.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/fdi/2012/08/index.html

American Freedom Defense Initiative et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., 11 F.
Supp 11 Civ. 6775 (S.D. New York 2012)

American Freedom Defense Initiative et al. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
et al., 12-1564 f. Supp 1 (U.S. D.C. 2012).

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority. Case
1:11-cv-06774-PAE Document 29 Filed 07/20/12. (1-35).

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Case
1:12-cv-01564-RMC Document 18 Filed 10/12/12. (1-17).

Anti-Muslim Ad War Escalates In D.C. Metro (2012). Thinkprogress.org. Retrieved November
10, 2012, from http://thinkprogress.org/tag/islamophobia/?mobile=nc

Anti-Muslim Overview (2012). Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved November 10, 2012,
from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-muslim

Associated Press. (2012, October 11). Muslim Advocacy Group Launches Its Own Metro Ad
Campaign. NBC4 Washington. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.nbcwashington.com/
news/local/Muslim-Advocacy-Launches-Its-Own-Metro-Ad-Campaign-173824811.html

Atlas Shrugs Technorati profile. Technorati.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://technorati.com/blogs/www.jihadwatch.org


Barnes, A. (2012). Anti-Jihad poster going up in DC Metro stations. Myfoxdc.com. Retrieved
November 10, 2012, from http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/19759501/anti-jihad-posters-
going-up-in-dc-metro-stations?clienttype=printable

Barooah, Jahnabi. (2012, September 24). #MySubwayAd: People Respond To Anti-Islamic
Subway Ads. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2012/09/24/mysubwayad-muslims-respond-to-anti-islamic-subway-ads_n_1910652.
html#slide=more252568

Barrows-Friedman, Nora. (2012, August 18). Artists alter Islamophobic ads on SF buses, MUNI
adds disclaimers. The Electronic Intifada. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora/artists-alter-islamophobic-ads-sf-buses-muni-
adds-disclaimers

Burke, Daniel (2010). Pamela Geller at Center of N.Y. Mosque Debate. Huffington Post.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/20/pamela-
gellerqueen-of-mus_n_689709.html

CAIR 1. (2012, October 12). Help CAIR Counter Anti-Muslim 'Savage' Ads in D.C. Metro.
Council on American-Islamic Relations. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.cair.com/
ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26984&&mid1=763&&currPage=1

CAIR, 2. (2012, October 11). Bloomberg Sign-On. Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.cair-
ny.org/resource/signon_letter_mayor_bloomberg.html

Castells, Manuel (2009). Communication Power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Childress, Gregory. (2012, October 23). Town suspends bus advertising policy. The Herald-Sun.
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/20614305/article-Town-suspends-bus-
advertising-policy

Cohen, D. (1978). Advertising & the First Amendment. Journal of Marketing, 42(3), 59-68.

Curry, Colleen (2012). New York City subway ads calls jihadists savages (2012). ABC News.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-city-subway-ads-
calls-jihadists-savages/story?id=17280805#.UKA5gKM8DTo

DC Metro Anti-Muslim Ads to be Posted Monday (2012). Huffington Post. Retrieved November
10, 2012, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/metro-anti-muslim-
ad_n_1947796.html


Downing, J. D. H. (1999). ‘Hate speech’ and ‘First Amendment absolutism’ discourses in the
US. Discourse Society, 10, 175-189.

Elliot, Justin (2010). How the “ground zero mosque” fear mongering began. Salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/

Flegenheimer, Matt (2012, September 18). Ad Calling Jihad ‘Savage’ Is Set to Appear in
Subway.
The New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/
nyregion/ad-demeaning-muslims-to-appear-in-new-york-subway.html?_r=0

Flegenheimer, Matt (2012, September 27). M.T.A. Amends Rules After Pro-Israel Ads Draw
Controversy. The New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.nytimes.
com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html

Freed, Benjamin. (2012, October 15). Religious Groups Buy Metro Ads to Counter Anti-Jihad
Posters. Dcist. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://dcist.com/2012/10/religious_groups_
buy_metro_ads_to_c.php

Freed, John. (2012, October 10). Christian Group Buys Metro Ads Opposing Anti-Muslim
Campaign. Dcist. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://dcist.com/2012/10/christian_group_buys_
metro_ads_oppo.php

Gelber, K (2010). Freedom of political speech, hate speech and the argument from democracy:
The transformative contribution of capabilities theory. Contemporary Political Theory,
9(3), 304-324.

Greenwood, Arin. (2012, October 10). D.C. Metro Anti-Muslim Ads Spur Rep. Mike Honda To
Call For Boycott. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2012/10/10/dc-metro-anti-muslim-ads-mike-honda_n_1955092.html

Guidelines governing commercial advertising (2003, November). Wmata.com. Retrieved
November 10, 2012, from
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/Advertising_Guidelines.pdf

Honda, Mike. (2012, October 12). Anti-Jihad Ads Reminiscent of McCarthyism, 1950s Fear
Mongering. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-mike-honda/anti-muslim-subway-
ads_b_1961463.html

Immersing consumers in OOH: OAAA looks for ways to boost out-of-home’s share of overall ad
spend (2012, April 30). Adweek. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.adweek.com/sa-article/immersing-consumers-ooh-139881

Islamophobic ads to appear on New York subway (2012). Jerusalem Post. Retrieved November
10, 2012, from http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=285542

Jihad Watch Technorati Profile. Technorarti.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://technorati.com/blogs/atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

Juris, Jeffry (2008) “Networked social movements: global movements for global justice.” The
Information Revolution and World Politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Karim, K. H. (2009). Re-viewing the ‘national’ in ‘international communication’ through the
lens of diaspora. In D. K. Thussu (Ed.), International communication: A reader. London,
UK: Routledge.

Mackey, Robert. (2012, August 21). Anti-Islam Ads Remixed in San Francisco and New York.
New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/anti-islam-ads-remixed-in-san-francisco-
and-new-york/

Mathias, Christopher. (2012, October 5). Pro-Muslim Subway Ads In New York City Going Up
Next To Anti-Jihad 'Savage' Ads. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2012,
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/pro-muslim-subway-ads-new-york-
city-anti-jihad_n_1942009.html

McGoldrick, Cyrus. (2012). Stay Civilized NYC: a ‘civilized’ response to MTA hate ads. CAIR
for NYC. Retrieved from http://www.cair-
ny.org/blog/stay_civilized_nyc_a_civilized_response_to_mta_
hate_ads.html

McKenzie, B. & Rapino, M. (2011, September). Commuting in the United States: 2009.
American Community Survey Reports. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.census.
gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf

Meng, Bingchun. “From Steamed Bun to Grass Mud Horse: E Gao as alternative political
discourse on the Chinese Internet.” New Media and Society 7(1), 33-51.


Moscow, Jon. (2012, September 12). JAI Condemns Ads Promoting Hate and Anti-Muslim
Bigotry. Jews Against Islamphobia. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.jewsagainstislamophobia.
org/?p=412

Oh, Inae. (2012, September 27). Mona Eltahawy Arrested For Spray-Painting Anti-Jihad
Subway Poster. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2012/09/26/mona-eltahawy-arrested-for-spray-painting-anti-jihad-subway-
poster_n_1915832.html

“Prophet Muhammad” by Stephane Charbonnier. The New York Times. Retrieved November 10,
2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/world/europe/french-magazine-
publishes-cartoons-mocking-muhammad.html?_r=0

Raboy, M. (2004). The WSIS as a political space in global media governance. Continuum:
Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 18(3), 345-359.

Reisman, Will. (2012, August 14). ‘Savage’ ads stir debate. San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved
November 10, 2012, from
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/08/savage-ads-muni-stir-debate

Ronfeldt, D. & Arquilla, J. (1999/2007). The Promise of Noopolitik. First Monday, 12(8).
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/
article/view/1971/1846

Silverberg, Hank. (2012, October 8). Anti-Muslim ad creates more controversy. WTOP.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.wtop.com/41/3068925/Anti-Muslim-ad-
creates-more-controversy-

Sinclair, J. (2004). Globalization, supranational institutions and the media. In J. D. H. Downing
(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of media studies (pp. 65-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

“Six things to know about attack that killed Ambassador Stevens” (2012). CNN.com. Retrieved
November 10, 2012, from http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/six-things-to-know-
about-attack-that-killed-ambassador-stevens/

Snyder v. Phelps (2011) The U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

The New York times (Sept. 19, 2012) “French Magazine Runs Cartoons That Mock


The Washington Post (Nov. 9, 2012) “Cuban police briefly detain group of dissedents” Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/cuban-police-briefly-detain-
group-of-dissidents-including-blogger-yoani-sanchez/2012/11/09/9cca8e24-2a7d-11e2-
aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html

Thussu, D. K. (2006). Approaches to theorizing international communication. International
Communication: Continuity and Change (pp. 40-65). USA: Bloomsbury.

Thussu, D. K. (2009). International communication: A reader. London, UK: Routledge.

Tucker, Eric. (2012, October 6). DC transit system must allow anti-jihad ads; says ads must be
posted by Monday evening. Associated Press. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://bigstory.
ap.org/article/judge-dc-metro-must-allow-anti-jihad-ads-0

Tull, Tony. (2012, October 16). New Metro Ads Protest 'Hate Speech'. NBC4 Washington.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/New-
Metro-Ads-174184471.html

Vital signs report: A scorecard of Metro’s key performance indicators (KPI) 2012 second quarter
results (2012, August). Wmata.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.wmata.
com/about_metro/scorecard/documents/Vital_Signs_%20August%202012%20QTR%202
.pdf

Waisboard, S. (2004). Media and the reinvention of the nation. In J. D. H. Downing (Ed.), The
SAGE handbook of media studies (pp. 375-389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weiser, Benjamin. (2012, July 20). M.T.A. Violated Rights of Group, Judge Says. New York
Times. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/nyregion/mta-violated-rights-of-pro-israel-group-
judge-says.html

American freedom defense_initiative_group_2_final paper

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (17)

Similaire à American freedom defense_initiative_group_2_final paper

Similaire à American freedom defense_initiative_group_2_final paper (20)

American freedom defense_initiative_group_2_final paper