Free speech is often positively associated with anti-censorship rulings, the right to seek and receive information, and national pride. But what happens when that same right is granted to those directly related to a hate group? A recent district court ruling in Detroit brings up this very discussion. Earlier this month, District Judge Denise Hood granted a preliminary injunction against SMART, or the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation in Detroit, Michigan. SMART refused to run an advertisement on one of ts buses for the American Freedom Defense Initiative that encouraged Islamic people who are questioning their faith to turn to the nonprofit organization for help. The text read: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers! RefugefromIslam.com.” The nonprofit claimed a violation of both its First and 14th Amendments. Although SMART cited that its policies were not to run religious or politically fueled advertisements, the group had previously run a pro-atheist ad and had few substantial guidelines for determining what could and could not run. This brings up quite a few interesting topics in terms of freedom of speech protection.
Unlike the recent Supreme Court case regarding the Westboro Baptist Church (which ruled to uphold the congregation’s freedom of speech while protesting at soldiers’ funerals), the advertisement is not explicitly and outwardly offensive. Superficially, it is no worse than your average advertisement for help hotlines regarding suicidal teens or those who have experienced physical abuse in their relationships. And it certainly does not graphically offend members of the community, such as the Westboro Baptist protests.
Although it would be easy to say that since the Supreme Court recently upheld a worse offense in the Westboro Baptist example, and therefore this case must certainly be legal, I think there was much more to Judge Hood’s decision than mere politics. One of the considerations cited in her ruling was the lack of a captive audience. As we learned in Law and Communications, a captive audience refers to a situation in which people have gathered in a place and are subject to provided information that they cannot necessarily escape from. The captive audience theory has long been an aspect of media law, especially in terms of broadcast media. However, since the advertisement would be running on the external sides of the bus, this theory is not applicable in the SMART case. In addition, SMART had few guidelines that described when and how ads could be rejected, leaving its decision-making process to seem arbitrary to a court. Also, despite the defense’s argument of increased racial tension and fear in an emotionally charged time, the judge ruled that the censorship of the ad could result in a biased marketplace of ideas, resulting in a public that was not properly informed about the entirety of the issue. This again favors the running of the advertisement in hopes of providing full and exhaustive outlets of information and the hopes of sparking robust societal debate, and ultimately, a more enlightened citizenry.
What I think is most interesting about the case however is the background behind the organization. Although the advertisement itself is not an example of “hate speech,” the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Pamela Geller, is also the executive director of a group known as Stop the Islamization of America (it’s unclear from my research exactly how closely these two groups are linked, but on Pamela Geller’s blog-news site, AtlasShrugs2000.typepad.com, the two organizations seem to be grouped as one). Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) was recently noted as an active anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which manages files and records on hate groups throughout America. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, the SIOA is likened to the Ku Klux Klan.
With this advertisement, those who are experiencing issues in their own religious faith may turn to a group that is not only biased, but also actively pursuing a hate-fueled agenda. Muslim people who are looking for help may only be met with a thinly veiled tirade against their religion. In cases like Westboro Baptist, the explicit nature of the church’s protests ensures that potential members know what they’re getting. In this case, though, innocent and discouraged individuals may find themselves in the hands of those who are only there to pursue their own beliefs. This is a dangerous line to tread; however, the court system (in its ruling) apparently believes that citizens must be able to recognize and pursue the truths and falsehoods that present themselves in such a Mill-based society as ours. It is in this marketplace of ideas that citizens can decide for themselves the path they choose to follow, whether it is toward tolerance and acceptance or hatred and bigotry. Although we may not fully know the complete outcome of such rulings for years, I personally believe that, in the end, the majority of an enlightened society will choose what it believes to be the best representation of democratic, ethical and just ideals, helping to further both free speech rights and our nation as a whole.
Sources:
The judge's ruling reminds me a lot of the libertarian point of view that we discussed in Law and Communications. Like you said, it's the idea that if we have a full marketplace of ideas, people will act rationally and will choose what is best for themselves and society.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with this ruling. Clearly, SMART had no clear-cut rules set in place for which ads could and could not run, so to simply pick out this add and say it can't be run is unjust. Muslims-Americans have the same rights as everyone else.
I believe that by creating that marketplace of ideas, people will ultimately be better off. This ad is no obscene, it's not advocating any illegal activity -- it's simply providing relief for troubled Muslims and there is no constitutional injustice in that.
I think the advertisement itself is fine. The group's background seems troubling, but as was ruled in the case it's important to provide citizens with multiple outlets — the "marketplace of ideas," as it may be.
ReplyDeleteThe ad itself is not blatantly offensive and it isn't threatening anyone. Perhaps if the director of the group had been more extreme, this would be a different case ... I think that the situation is unsettling, but I can't find any reasons to justify not running that ad in this context. If we want free, open and honest debate in this country, we need to accept that not all viewpoints are going to be exactly what we agree with and should be allowed as long as it is not obscene or there aren't any direct threats involved.
I think that if SMART had actually followed through on its policies in the past and not run religiously and politically fueled ads in the past (as with the pro-atheist) ad, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem in not running it ... but with that criteria set it's hard to justify cherry picking advertisements like this. Perhaps that's a policy issue that they need to revisit.