A judge has denied the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s latest motion that would have required the MBTA to display a modified version of a controversial ‘pro-Israel’ advertisement.

In a seven-page court document provided to BostInno, U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton found the AFDI  “acted in bad faith” and failed to demonstrate that the T acted unreasonably when it denied the group’s third version of an advertisement, which read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Defeat violent Jihad. Support Israel.”

Last fall, the AFDI submitted the first of three ads to the MBTA reading: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” The MBTA rejected the ad, finding it was “demeaning or disparaging.”

In December, the court declined to enter a preliminary injunction that would require the MBTA to display the advertisement, on the basis of an earlier court ruling.

In January, the AFDI submitted a second version of the ad, which stated: “In any war between the civilized man and those engaged in savage acts, support the civilized man. Defeat violent Jihad. Support Israel.” The MBTA reviewed the second version and determined that it met its advertising standards.

On January 7, Scott Goldsmith, a representative of Titan Outdoor LLC, the T’s advertising contractor, notified the AFDI that the modified version had been accepted and asked the group “to provide specifications,” according to the court documents.

Rather than provide specifications, AFDI co-founder Pam Geller sent an email to Goldsmith the following day proposing a “tweak” to the advertisement – a combination of the previous versions: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Defeat violent Jihad. Support Israel.”

This tweaked version was reviewed and subsequently denied by the T, which found it to be demeaning or disparaging. The AFDI was informed of the decision on Jan. 17 and requested a “formal determination” of the T’s ruling.

MBTA General Counsel Paige Scott Reed, on Jan. 29, provided the formal determination in a letter, explaining that the third version was “very similar to the rejected ad.” However, Reed wrote, the T would be willing to display the second proposal.

In February, the AFDI filed another motion for preliminary injunction that would require the T to display the third version of the advertisement.

In an email, T spokesman Joe Pesaturo noted Judge Gorton denied the motion on the basis that “Such blatant gamesmanship and deliberate confrontations” didn’t warrant granting relief.