Court compels Philly transit agency to run Hitler ads
A federal judge in Philadelphia says the region’s transit authority must run advertising on buses featuring Adolph Hitler despite its objections to the promotion’s content, which equates Muslims with Nazis.
In a 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg said the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, or SEPTA, violated the First Amendment rights of the American Freedom Defense Initiative by refusing to place the ads on its buses.
The Initiative, a New Hampshire-based non-profit, submitted an ad to the agency that handles SEPTA’s advertising, which read: “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran.” The ad featured a picture of Hitler meeting with Haj Amin Al-Husseini, a controversial Arab figure, in 1941 after Al-Husseini fled to Germany from Palestine.
In June 2014, SEPTA rejected the advertisement for violating its anti-disparagement guidelines. The Initiative then filed a civil lawsuit, claiming its First and 14th Amendment rights had been violated.
At a preliminary hearing, Judge Goldberg rejected SEPTA’s claim that the suit should be dismissed because the information in the ad might not be historically accurate. In his final ruling, Goldberg found that the advertisement was protected free speech because it had references about foreign aid and the Quran.
He also said SEPTA’s policies indicated that the bus advertising spots were used as public forums and SEPTA’s anti-disparagement policy was a content-based viewpoint restriction that selectively prohibited free speech.
Specifically, Goldberg said the SEPTA’s anti-disparagement guidelines allowed ads praising the same groups that could be insulted in banned advertisements, making the policy “viewpoint based and unconstitutional.”
SEPTA also had allowed ads in the same locations that dealt with issues such as animal cruelty, teacher seniority, contraception, religion and hydraulic fracturing.
“I conclude that SEPTA’s anti-disparagement standard violates the First Amendment. I reach this conclusion because I am compelled to do so under established First Amendment precedent,” said Goldberg.
“That said, based on the evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, it is clear that the anti-disparagement standard promulgated by SEPTA was a principled attempt to limit hurtful, disparaging advertisements. While certainly laudable, such aspirations do not, unfortunately, cure First Amendment violations.”
SEPTA is pondering an appeal of Goldberg’s decision.