Jim Boyle Sep. 19, 2014, 8:38am


A New Hampshire-based non-profit organization says that officials from SEPTA

unlawfully refused to post advertisements on transit vehicles and other region-wide property that sought to spread a controversial call for the end of U.S. aid to Islamic countries, according to a lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Pamela Geller, the president of American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and the group's vice president Robert Spencer, say that SEPTA is a government entity and has an obligation to respect their organization's First Amendment right to free speech. They claim that Joseph Casey, general manager of SEPTA, arbitrarily rejected the advertisement because he disagreed with the message, and not because it violated their standards of use.

According to the complaint, SEPTA and its advertising management agency, Titan, have accepted all forms of politically and religious motivated advertisements in the past, including a campaign for a Christian radio program and ads for a push to end teacher seniority preferences in the public school program.

On May 27, 2014, AFDI submitted an advertisement that read, "Islamic Jew-Hatred: It's in the Quran. Two Thirds of All US Aid Goes to Islamic Countries. Stop the Hate. End All Aid to Islamic Countries."

On June 3, 2014, SEPTA's Chief Commercial Officer told the plaintiffs that the advertisement had been rejected, saying that SEPTA's standards prohibited, "Advertising that tends to disparage or ridicule any person or group of persons on the basis of race, religious belief, age, sex, alienage, national origin, sickness or disability."

After reviewing SEPTA's policies, the plaintiffs claim that their ad met the same standards  achieved by past politically charged campaigns and that the rejection constitutes censorship by SEPTA officials who disagree with AFDI's message. The denial was motivated by animosity toward the plaintiffs and their views on Islam, the suit claims.

"[SEPTA's] speech restriction offends the First Amendment by granting a public official unbridled discretion such that the official's decision to limit speech is not constrained by objective criteria, but may rest on ambiguous and subjective reason," the complaint says.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that makes clear SEPTA violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, plus an injunction against SEPTA's rejection of the AFDI advertisement, plus nominal damages from the restriction.

AFDI, Geller and Spencer are represented by Jason Gosselin of Drinker Biddle & Reath in Philadelphia.

The federal case ID is 2:14-cv-05335-AB.

More News