Skip to comments.A Tale of Two Ads: Govt Accepts Anti-God ad in Michigan Same Ad with Muhammad, DENIED
Posted on 01/31/2013 6:54:57 AM PST by Perseverando
Look at these two ads. The same but for a word, no? One ad ran, one ad was denied.
This is what sharia in America looks like. The Blaze has the story.
This ad ran on Detroit SMART buses here
Crains Business wrote this:
While the ads may offend some, SMART's Beth Dryden tells Shea they met the system guidelines and were vetted by their legal department.
March 3, Crain's: Additionally, because the ads are what SMART considers viewpoint-neutral content the agency can't reject them, she said. That's because a government agency cannot censor such content, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Got that? Good.
We submitted the ad below to this same transit agency in Detroit/Dearborn, SMART, and we were DENIED. This ad was rejected:
SMART ad copy Here's what SMART said:
The proposed advertisement submitted by Pamela Geller has been reviewed under SMARTs content policy. SMART, consistent with its review process, also reviewed the referred-to website: thetruthaboutmuhammed.com. Consistent with its policy, with the Sixth Circuit opinion in AFDI v SMART, and consistent with other law, SMART declines to post the advertisement.
Our message parallels the atheist ads. Since they were accepted, I modeled this ad after theirs, to see if the freedom of speech applied to criticism of Islam in our cowardly and politically correct age. This is the same government agency that refused to run our "Leaving Islam?" ads that were designed to help Muslim girls who wanted to lead more Western lives escape dangerous devout households. SMART refused. My legal team, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center and I sued. We won. They appealed to the 6th circuit court (a sharia-sensitive court). The Sixth
(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com ...
Honest to God! Sorry, sorry SOB’s! PC goes only ONE way.
Government preference of one religion over another is a textbook case of a 1st Amendment violation. Has Mark Levin and Landmark Legal Foundation been made aware of this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.