Anti-Islamic Group Sues Claiming Federal Law Shields Social Media Censorship

Yesterday the American Freedom Defense Initiative, its President Pamela Geller, its Vice President and the organization Jihad Watch sued the federal government contending that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Facebook, Twitter and YouTube when they censor anti-Islamic postings by plaintiffs.  The complaint (full text) in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch, (D DC, filed 7/13/2016), alleges that censorship and discrimination by social media outlets violate California anti-discrimination laws, but the CDA section on "Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material" allows Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to engage in discriminatory conduct. Among the allegations in the complaint against the social media sites are:

The discriminatory way in which Facebook applies its restrictions is evidenced by the fact that Facebook allows vicious posts and pages against Israel to stand, but when Plaintiff Geller and others expose the truth behind that Islamic hatred, the speech is prohibited.,,,

The Twitter policy, in effect, mirrors Islamic blasphemy standards as applied to censor speech critical of Islam, such as Plaintiffs’ speech.

The Center for Security Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New York MTA Accepts Controversial Anti-Mosque Ad After Lawsuit Is Filed

After a lawsuit was filed on Friday, the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority agreed to permit a banner ad on its buses, sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative opposing the proposed mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. (Press release from David Yerushalmi law firm). The ad (photo) reads "Why There?",  and equates the"WTC Jihad Attack" with "WTC Mega Mosque". The federal lawsuit (full text of complaint in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (SD NY, Aug. 6, 2010), alleges that MTA's objections to the ad for equating the proposed mosque with the 9-11 attack amount to content- and viewpoint-based censorship in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The complaint includes examples of other controversial religious and political ads accepted by MTA. Exhibits to the complaint also show various amended versions of the ad submitted during negotiations with MTA-- each changing the way in which the Twin Towers and the plane attack on them are depicted.

Lawsuit Challenges Detroit Area Bus Authority's Refusal of Ad Aimed At Muslims

A federal lawsuit was filed yesterday against the Detroit-area transportation authority challenging its refusal to accept a bus ad directed at Muslims leaving their faith. The ad, sponsored by the Freedom Defense Initiative, read: "Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!" The complaint (full text) in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation ("SMART"), (ED MI, filed 5/27/2010), claims that refusal to accept the ad for display on SMART buses amounted to a content and viewpoint based restriction on free speech in a public forum, as well a a denial of equal protection of the law. Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing filing or the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

State Department Releases 2009 Report On International Religious Freedom

The State Department yesterday submitted to Congress its 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom as required by Section 102(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. At a press conference announcing release of the report Secretary of State Clinton (full text of remarks) said in part:

The President has emphasized that faith should bring us together, and this year's report has a special focus on efforts to promote interfaith dialogue and tolerance..... I obviously believe that our country has been strengthened by its long tradition of religious pluralism. From the largest denominations to the very smallest congregations, American religious bodies and faith-based organizations have helped to create a more just and compassionate society. Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.....

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.

After Secretary Clinton's remarks, Assistant Secretary of State Michael S. Posner answered extensive questions from the press (full text of press conference). Posner clarified that information in the report being released would be used over the next few months to make judgments on which countries should remain on, be taken off or be added to the list of "countries of particular concern"(CPC) -- those with particularly problematic religious freedom records. This report did not make those designations.

The U.S. Helsinki Commission issued a release praising the State Department's report. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was more critical, issuing a statement urging the Obama administration to take stronger steps than it has so far. USCIRF Chairman Leonard Leo said: "Both Democratic and Republican administrations have underutilized the 'country of particular concern' designation." He emphasized differences between USCIRF and the State Department, and called for stronger action than in the past against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Vietnam.

The Washington-based Institute for Religion & Public Policy issued a release that applauded Secretary Clinton's statements but strongly criticized the Obama Administration for not yet appointing an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

10th Circuit Upholds Bald Eagle Protection Regulations Over RFRA Challenge

In a complicated opinion yesterday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the current federal regulations that implement the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act against a claim that they infringe the religious freedom of adherents of Native American religions who are not members of federally recognized Indian tribes.  In United States v. Wilgus, (10th Cir., March 29, 2011), the court gave this background:

16 U.S.C. § 668, prohibits possession of the feathers or parts of eagles, but contains an exception to the ban when the feathers are possessed "for the religious purposes of Indian tribes." Id. § 668a. The regulations implementing the exception limit its scope to members of federally-recognized tribes only, who are allowed to apply to the government for permits. 50 C.F.R. § 22.22. Wilgus is a follower of a Native American faith, but is not a member of a federally-recognized tribe, nor is he Indian by birth.

Faced with prosecution, Wilgus interposed as a defense the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the religious freedom of individuals, unless it does so to forward a compelling governmental interest via the least restrictive means. Wilgus argues that the government’s choice to limit legal possession of eagle feathers to members of federally-recognized tribes substantially burdens his religious exercise which, he claims, requires him to possess eagle feathers.

In an earlier en banc decision, the 10th Circuit had held that defendant's religious exercise was substantially burdened, but that the government had two compelling interests for doing so. In yesterday's decision, the 10th Circuit dealt with the remaining issue-- whether the current regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interests in protecting the bald eagle as our national symbol and in fostering Native American  culture and religion. It held that it is.

In the course of its decision, the court refined the articulation of the government's compelling interests. It concluded that the interest was one of protecting the culture of federally-recognized Indian tribes, not protecting Native American religion more generally. It said that the broader formulation would run afoul of the Establishment Clause:

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality...." [citation omitted]. If we were to hold that the federal government has a compelling interest in fostering Native American culture generally by providing special exceptions to criminal laws for Native American religious practices, we are concerned this might run up against this principle.

By adopting the federally-recognized tribes version of the interest, however, we remain on safe ground, based on the Supreme Court’s conclusion that federally recognized tribes are political—rather than religious or racial—in nature.

AP reports on the decision.

DC Transit System Carries Competing Controversial Ads Sparked By Middle East Rivalries

The Washington Post reported last week on the latest round of competing advertising on the sides of Washington, DC's Metro buses.  In mid-March to mid-April, the Illinois-based group American Muslims for Palestine bought advertising space on the sides of 20 buses for an a banner ad featuring a drawing of Uncle Sam waving an Israeli flag, and reading: "We're Sweating April 15 So Israelis Don't Have To! Stop US Aid To Israel's Occupation!" In response to those ads which it described as "Jew-hating,"  the pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative has purchased a month's worth of ads on the side of 20 buses beginning last Monday. Those ads feature a photo of Adolph Hitler with the mufti of Jerusalem who supported him, and read: "Islamic Jew-Hatred: It's In The Quran.Two-Thirds Of All US Aid Goes To Islamic Countries. Stop Racism. End All Aid To Islamic Countries."

New York Subways Must Run Satiric Ads For Film Portraying Muslim Comedians

In Vaguely Qualified Productions LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (SD NY, Oct. 7, 2015), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to display plaintiff's advertising campaign for its film The Muslims Are Coming! in the New York City subway system. The film is the story of a group of American Muslim comedians who travel across the country performing stand-up comedy.  The advertising posters use comedic satire to attract the reader's attention and refer the reader to the film's website.  For example, one ad reads: "The Ugly Truth About Muslims: Muslims have great frittata recipes."

After initially accepting the ads, the MTA later refused them under a revised policy that barred ads which are political in nature.  The policy change came in response to a court order requiring the MTA to accept an anti-Muslim ad from the American Freedom Defense Initiative. (See prior posting.) In yesterday's decision, the district court held that VQP's proposed ads are commercial, and not political in nature:

...[T]o "prominently or predominately" advocate or express a political viewpoint, an advertisement must do far more than refer to a subject about which there is a lack of national consensus.

The court went on to hold that the MTA's determination that VQP's ads were political is not a viewpoint neutral decision:

To suggest, as the MTA's actions do, that an advertisement for the Republican presidential debate with photographs and quotes from candidates is somehow less "political" than humorous statements about the Muslim population's dislike of both terrorism and insufficient bagel schmear is, quite clearly, not viewpoint neutral.

Wall Street Journal reports on the decision. Muslim Advocates' press release on the decision also includes a link to the original complaint in the case.

Muhammad Drawing Exhibit In Texas Ends As 2 Gunmen Attempt Attack and Are Killed

In Garland, Texas Sunday night, a controversial Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest sponsored by Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative ended in violence as two gunmen opened fire outside the event venue, wounded a security guard, and were killed in return fire by police.  According to the Dallas Morning News, the guard who was shot was released from the hospital after being treated for a leg wound. The identities of the two gunmen had not yet been made public late Sunday. According to an earlier report by the Dallas Morning News, the Exhibit was booked at Garland's Curtis Cultural Center after the Center hosted Sound Vision Foundation’s Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect event.  The contest offered a top prize of $10,000 for the best drawing, and received around 350 entries. (Depicting Muhammad is seen as offensive by some schools of Muslim thought.) The winner of AFDI's contest was cartoonist Basch Fawstin who has posted his winning cartoon on his website. The keynote speaker at the event was right-wing Dutch politician  Geert Wilders who told the audience: "We are here in defiance of Islam to stand for our rights and freedom of speech."

Federal Circuit Denies Trademark Registration For "Stop the Islamisation of America"

In In re Geller, (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Office's refusal to register "Stop The Islamisation of America" as a trademark to be used in connection with understanding and preventing terrorism.  The appeals court agreed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion that the phrase contains matter which may disparage a group of persons. Under 15 USC 1052(a), this is a basis for refusing registration. The court said in part:

The political meaning of Islamisation does not require violence or terrorism, and the Board properly found that associating peaceful political Islamisation with terrorism would be disparaging to a substantial composite of American Muslims.

Appellants in the case, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Nicole Stelle Garnett, Religious Charter Schools: Legally Permissible? Constitutionally Required?, (Manhattan Institute Policy Report (December 2020)).
• Stijn Smet, Toleration and the Law, (AOV of chapter published in Mitja Sardoč (ed), The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021)).
• Ram Rivlin, The Morality of “Get-Threats”: Withholding Divorce as Extortion, (I·CON - International Journal of Constitutional Law 18(3) 849–869 (2020)).
• Andrew R. DeLoach, What's the Use of Religious Freedom?,  (Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 10, No. 2 (2020).
• Barbara P. Billauer, Fundamentalism in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo: The Court’s Farrago of Religious Freedom, Public Health Law, and Scientific (Il)Literacy, (February 17, 2021).
• Christopher C. Lund, Sex Offenders and the Free Exercise of Religion, (Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 96, p. 1025, 2021).
• Mark D. Martin, Bradley J. Lingo & Michael Schietzelt, A Center Dedicated to Preserving a Constitution Designed for a Moral and Religious People, (Regent University Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 1 (2020)).
• Abigail Burman, Abortion Sanctuary Cities: A Local Response to The Criminalization of Self-Managed Abortion, (California Law Review, Vol. 108, No. 6, 2020).
• Kyle Velte, Mitigating the 'LGBT Disconnect': Title IX’s Protection of Transgender Students, Birth Certificate Correction Statutes, and the Transformative Potential of Connecting the Two, (American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, Vol. 27, No. 29, 2019).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Hannibal Travis, Ethnic Cleansing and Genocidal Intent: Conceptualizing Destruction of Local Populations, (Global Studies Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 4).
• Virginia Beard, Demanding Democracy and Rejecting Autocracy in Africa: The Role of Religion and Regime Experience,  (February 5, 2021).
• Abdullahi Abdulquadir, An Examination of the Methods of Revenue Generation by Kwara State Internal Revenue Service (KWIRS) from Islamic Law Perspective, (August 14, 2019).
• Md Tasnimul Hassan, Is India Demonizing Muslims in the Name of Freedom of Speech and Expression?, (November 12, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Symposium on Catholic Legal Education, Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, Vol. 58, No. 1.
• Maja Munivrana Vajda, The Right to Mock, Ridicule and Criticize Religion—Exploring the Limits of Free Speech in a Democratic and Just Society, 55 Gonzaga Law Review 273-290 (2019-2020).
• Rodrigo Cespedes, A Comparative Case Law Analysis of Religious Speech, Academic Freedom, and Religious Institutions' Autonomy on a Global Scale, 55 Gonzaga Law Review 291-308 (2019-2020).
• Laura De Pasqual, Freedom of Religion in a Multicultural Europe: The Achbita and Bougnaoui Cases, 55 Gonzaga Law Review 309-330 (2019-2020).
• Charles Adside III, It's a Blowhorn, Not a Dog-Whistle: How President Trump's Travel Ban Orders, Not His Statements, Are Enough to Establish a Violation under the Religion Clauses, 47 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 267-302 (2020).
• Gilad Abiri, Divisiveness, National Narratives, and the Establishment Clause, 40 Pace Law Review 399-457 (2019).
• Joseph J. Martins, Losing Liberty: A Biblical Defense for the Freedom of Speech on Campus, 32 Regent University Law Review 345-386 (2019-2020).

False Anti-Muslim Speech Protected By 1st Amendment

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA"), (ED PA, Nov. 25, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court granted a motion to exclude expert testimony on the falsity of language in an anti-Islam ad which an advocacy group wants to place on public buses. SEPTA refused to accept the ad under its policy to refuse copy that, among other things, disparages on the basis of religious belief.  AFDI sued claiming this rejection violates its free speech rights.  In the lawsuit, SEPTA sought to offer expert testimony that the ad's referring to Haj Amin al-Husseini as the “leader of the Muslim world” is false and that the statement “the Quar’an teaches Jew-Hatred” is “unfair and erroneous.” The court concluded however that the proposed testimony is irrelevant because the 1st Amendment protects false speech as well as accurate expression. The court also rejected as too attenuated the argument that the ad amounts to a fraudulent charitable solicitation.  The website listed in the ad links to a second website at which charitable contributions can be made. WND's report on the decision includes a photo of the disputed ad.

Supreme Court Denies Cert In Challenge To Bus Ad Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, (Docket No. 18-1000, certiorari denied 6/3/2019) (Order List).  In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded  a challenge to WMATA's guidelines on advertising that may be displayed on buses and in rail stations.  At issue is the constitutionality of a ban on "advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions." AFDI wanted to rent space to display ads that decry supposed Sharia adherent Islamists who want to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws in the United States. (See prior posting.)

6th Circuit: Transit System Can Refuse Anti-Muslim Ad

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), (6th Cir., Oct. 25, 2012), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a public transit system could refuse an ad that read: "Fatwa on your head?  Is your family or community threatening you?  Leaving Islam?  Got Questions?  Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com."  Holding that the district court should not have granted a preliminary injunction, the 6th Circuit said:

Since the advertising space on SMART’s vehicles is a nonpublic forum, the content restrictions imposed on that space are constitutional as long as they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.....  SMART could reasonably view the fatwa advertisement as falling within the prohibition against political advertisements, and AFDI is unlikely to succeed with its counterarguments that these rules are unconstitutional or merely a pretext for SMART’s disagreement with AFDI’s viewpoint.

The Wall Street Journal reports on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Suit Challenging Social Media Policing of Anti-Islamist Posts Is Dismissed

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch, (D DC, Nov. 9, 2016), the DC. federal district court dismissed a suit against the federal government by two anti-Islamist organizations and their leaders, including well-known activist Pamela Geller.  The groups complain that Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have repeatedly removed their postings.  They sue the U.S. Attorney General seeking a declaratory judgment that Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional.  That section protects social media sites from liability for policing content to remove objectionable material.  Plaintiffs contend that if Sec. 230 were held unconstitutional, the sites would no longer censor their posts.  The court dismissed for lack of standing, holding that any impact of a declaratory judgment here is speculative, and at most would only indirectly affect the behavior of social media companies.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Bus Ad Case; Thomas Dissents

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, Washington, (Docket No. 15-584, cert. denied 3/7/2016). However Justice Thomas wrote an 8-page dissent to the denial of cert.  Justice Alito joined the dissent. (Order List at pg. 59).  They urged the Court to use the case to resolve the split among Circuits on whether advertising space on public buses should be categorized for First Amendment purposes as designated public forums or limited public forums.  Transit authorities have greater control over content in limited public forums.  AFDI, the appellant in this case, has been involved in a number of the other cases raising the same issue, and some of its ads in other cases have been attacked as anti-Muslim. (See prior posting.)

Meanwhile Reuters reported yesterday:

Humorous ads for a documentary film that aims to promote understanding and tolerance of Muslims went up in New York subways on Monday after the movie's production company won a legal battle with the city's transit authority....

The advertisements debuted after a federal court in Manhattan ruled in October that being Muslim was a religious, not a political, identity. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a policy prohibiting political speech in ads on public transportation.

Suit Challenges MTA's Rejection of Anti-Hamas Ad

Reuters reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative claiming that its civil rights were violated when the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority rejected its city bus ad that included the line: "Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah - Hamas MTV". The MTA says they rejected the ad because it may incite violence.

DC Circuit Remands Suit On Anti-Sharia Bus Ads

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (DC Cir., Aug. 17, 2018), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded for further development of an argument based on a intervening Supreme Court decision a challenge to WMATA's guidelines on advertising that may be displayed on buses and in rail stations.  At issue is the constitutionality of a ban on "advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions." AFDI wanted to rent space to display ads that

make the point that the First Amendment will not yield to Sharia adherent Islamists who want to enforce so-called blasphemy laws here in the United States, whether through threats of violence or through the actions of complicit government officials. 

In a 2-1 decision, the majority held that WMATA did not engage in viewpoint discrimination in rejecting the ad. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2018 decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky , according to the majority, raised an additional issue that the parties should have the opportunity to brief:

whether the discretion vested in a government official to permit or prohibit speech is “guided by objective, workable standards.” Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1891.... We must determine whether Guideline 9 is so broad as to provide WMATA with no meaningful constraint upon its exercise of the power to squelch.....

The parties’ briefs predate the decision in Mansky. Yet Mansky invites arguments about whether Guideline 9 is capable of reasoned application.

Judge Henderson dissented, arguing that the suit should be dismissed on mootness grounds. WTOP reports on the decision.

Court Requires NY Transit Authority To Accept Anti-Islam Ads

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (SD NY, April 21, 2015), a New York federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to a pro-Israel advocacy group requiring the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority to accept the group's anti-Islam ad for display on the back of New York City buses. The ad included a picture of a man with his face largely covered by a keffiyeh and the language "Killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah.  That's his jihad.  What's yours?"  The court found a likely infringement of plaintiff's free speech rights in a designated public forum.  It rejected the MTA's argument that the ad could be refused under its standards barring ads that will incite or provoke violence, saying that the MTA had not produced evidence that it would incite imminent violence. Reuters reports on the decision.  Last month, a Pennsylvania federal district court reached a similar conclusion regarding a different anti-Islamic ad from AFDI. (See prior posting.)

6th Circuit: Bus Ad Ban Is Unconstituitonal

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), (6th Cir., Oct. 23, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a Detroit public transit authority's rejections of an ad aimed at Muslims considering leaving Islam. The ad read:

Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got Questions? Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com.

The ads were rejected under rules banning political ads and ads that hold up a group of people to scorn or ridicule.  The court said in part:

SMART’s ban on “political” ads is unreasonable for the same reason that a state’s ban on “political” apparel at polling places is unreasonable: SMART offers no “sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out.” Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1888. Likewise, SMART’s ban on ads that engage in “scorn or ridicule” is not viewpoint neutral for the same reason that a ban on trademarks that disparage people is not viewpoint neutral: For any group, “an applicant may [display] a positive or benign [ad] but not a derogatory one.” Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

2nd Circuit: MTA Rule Change Makes Challenge To Rejection of Anti-Muslim Ad Moot

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (2d Cir., March 3, 2016), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on mootness grounds of a suit against the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority challenging the MTA's refusal to accept an anti-Islamic ad that a pro-Israel group wished to run on the back of MTA buses.  The ad which portrayed a menacing‐looking man with his face mostly covered by a head scarf included the quote:  "Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah." Then beneath the quote, the ad stated:  "That’s His Jihad.  What’s yours?"  While the case was pending, the MTA changed its property from a designated public forum
to a limited public forum and barred any ad that is "political in nature." (See prior related posting.) New York Post reports on the decision.