District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer’s Ruling for Pro-Israel/Anti-Jihad Bus Advertisement

Education and Legal Career

Judge Rosemary Mayers Collyer serves the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She was born in Port Chester, Maryland. The future judge received a B.A. from Trinity College and earned a J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law.


After law school, Collyer launched her legal career as a private practice lawyer and joined the law firm of Sherman and Howard in Colorado. In 1981, Collyer became Chairman of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. By 1984, she was General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. From 1989 to 2002, Collyer returned to private practice and was working for Crowell and Moring LLP in Washington D.C.

On August 1, 2002, Collyer was appointed by the 43rd United States President, George W. Bush, to serve as United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On November 14, 2002, the United States Senate confirmed Collyer's position.

Collyer Orders Metro to Exhibit Anti-Jihad Ads

Collyer has been featured in the news recently for ordering the D.C. transit system to display a pro-Israel ad that associates Muslim extremist with savages. According to The Wall Street Journal's editorial, “Judge: DC Metro must allow anti-jihad ads,” Judge Collyer stated on Friday, October 5,, 2012, that the ads have to be exhibited by 5 p.m. on Monday, October 8.

The WND article, “Judge Tells Transit Agency To Post Anti-Jihad Message,” reported that American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) Co-founder and attorney Robert Muise disputed that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) rejection to run the ads because of fear of Muslim resentment infringes AFLC's client's right to freedom of speech. Muise is representing his clients, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who are sponsoring the pro-Israel/anti-Jihad advertisement.

According to the WND editorial, Muise stated, “Today, Judge Collyer affirmed that our fundamental right to freedom of speech cannot be suppressed by mob rule. This is not only a victory for our clients, but it is a clear victory for all freedom-loving Americans.”

The New York Times column, “Judge Orders Metro to Display Provocative Ads,” mentioned that Muise's clients sued for the right to run the advertisement.

The Wall Street Journal's article discussed that WMATA officials had postponed displaying the ads because of the hostile response in the Middle East to the film called the “Innocence of Muslims.” The video did not portray the prophet Muhammad in a sacred manner.

What is so controversial about the advertisement? The WND feature revealed that the ad states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel, Defeat Jihad.”

The pro-Israel/anti-Jihad advertisement was displayed on the West Coast, where San Francisco transit administrators had to deal with some commotion over the ads. Perhaps the WMATA wanted to avoid the same ruckus that the San Francisco transit officials had endured.

The WND piece acknowledged that a New York federal judge demanded New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYCMTA) to exhibit the same pro-Israel/anti-Jihad advertisement after the MTA had first declined to run it in 2011. The MTA claimed they were against advertising “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.”

According to The Wall The Wall Street Journal's editorial, Dan Stessel, a Washington D.C. metro spokesman, declared that the transit system will obey Judge Collyer ruling and run the advertisement before October 8.

AFLC co-founder David Yerushalmi told the WND that “Under the First Amendment, speech cannot be punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob. The WMATA's speech restriction is based on the perceived negative response that Spencer and Pamela's message might receive from certain viewers based on its content and viewpoint. However, a viewer's reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. This is known as a ‘heckler's veto,' which is impermissible under the First Amendment.”

The WND reported that when the pro-Israel/anti-Jihad advertisement was permitted to run on NYCMTA, a pro-Islamic protester was taken into custody for defacing the ad with spray paint. Mona Eltahawy, who used to work for MSNBC, was charged with criminal misbehavior after she was caught for damaging one of the pro-Israel/anti-Jihad ads.

Conclusion

Some people will probably agree with the NYCMTA policy since they are against advertising “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.” Others will concur with AFLC co-founders Muise and Yerushalmi because the First Amendment cannot be ignored for fear of Muslim retaliation.

Will the ad offend Muslims and individuals like Eltahawy? Most likely, which is probably why the WMATA did not want to run the advertisement. The WND article also stated that the WMATA decided to postpone running the pro-Israel/anti-jihad ads on its transit system until another time because they were worried about “the situations happening around the world,” “world events,” and the “security and safety” of their customers. The WMATA are concerned about the constant violence in Libya, Egypt, Syria and around the world in dissent with freedom of speech in the United States that is critical of Islam. Violence can quickly break out like it did over the “Innocence of Muslims” video. The WMATA cannot deal with that type of upheaval.

However, a New York federal judge and Judge Collyer have ruled in favor of freedom of speech and believe it shouldn't be censored because of fear of mob violence.