Free Speech and Islam.
By Paul J Cella Posted in free speech | sedition | the Jihad | War — Comments (214) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We must allow for the possibility that Islam as such is a threat to this country. Even more bluntly: The question of the character of Islamic doctrine — whether it can be tolerated without fatal exposure to its war-making titles — must remain an open question if we are to remain a free people.
Here is the enigma with this whole business. Most Americans, Right and Left, will profess belief in a very robust principle of Free Speech. Thus the idea of curbing discussion on an important topic will arouse their repugnance. I have argued in the past for legislation embracing certain aspects of Islamic doctrine — the dogmas, specifically, of Holy War (jihad), Holy Subjugation (dhimma) and perhaps Sharia law itself — into our current sedition law: in other words, outlawing the promulgation of these dogmas. Even among people favorably deposed toward an aggressive posture vis-à-vis Islam, this is met with suspicion and hostility.
Fair enough — but why abandon this Free Speech principle when it comes to the character of the Islamic religion? There is the perplexity and the frustration. People jealous to preserve a “marketplace of ideas,” where true ideas will “out-compete” false ones in the end, while understandably hostile toward my proposal to proscribe certain forms of Islamic speech, yet exhibit an apparent insouciance about proposals (less overt than mine, to be sure) to proscribe certain forms of speech about Islam.
Read on.
Now it is a fact that in parts of the Western world (for instance that obscure bastion of the West known as the United Kingdom), it is well nigh illegal to speak ill of Islam as such. Virtually the entire Fourth Estate, including the American press, preferred to sit idly, or worse, when the fury of the Islamic world was aroused against a Dutch newspaper’s chosen manner of Free Speech.
Bruce Bawer’s recent essay can be perused for more examples: the Liberals of the West (not exclusive to Europe) are right now busy throwing away their inheritance of principled Free Speech on the subject of Islam. They want to preclude public discussion on whether Islam as such is a threat to the West. Perhaps the reader will forgive me my impatience with this position.
The question of whether Islam is a threat is among the most pressing of all questions right now. The pressure or urgency of this question is, to take but one example, the primary impulse behind efforts to firmly unite the Republican Party behind John McCain. In my judgment it will press upon us for quite some time; likely it will only press harder upon our children and grandchildren. The war made by the Jihad is a very long one indeed. Ask Charles Martel. He was born in 688.
So even if you want no part of my Jihad-sedition law; even if this sort of talk of outlawing speech makes you instinctually wary — I beg you to consider, on your own principles, the damage that could be done, were a regime of stifling PC orthodoxy to confirm its mastery over public debate on the nature of the Islamic religion.
A republic is a bold and wonderful thing: the assertion that even questions as hard as this one, can be properly, wisely, justly decided by the people themselves. No one ever said it would be easy.
« Betraying Free Speech. — Comments (12)
Free Speech and Islam. 214 Comments (0 topical, 214 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Of course, free speech also protects David Duke's right to say that blacks are an inferior race. I hope talk about Islam itself being anti-American and trying to outlaw it becomes just as unacceptable in polite society as David Duke is.
You have free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen and people can judge you based on what you say. And your effort to outlaw my friend's religious views definitely affects my view of you.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Let me just quote Paul, because I think it's an important limitation on his argument:
I have argued in the past for legislation embracing certain aspects of Islamic doctrine — the dogmas, specifically, of Holy War (jihad), Holy Subjugation (dhimma) and perhaps Sharia law itself — into our current sedition law: in other words, outlawing the promulgation of these dogmas. Even among people favorably deposed toward an aggressive posture vis-à-vis Islam, this is met with suspicion and hostility.
Insofar as this constitutes an effort to "outlaw [your] friend's religious views," you really find this troublesome?
------------
Many, maybe most, Muslims see jihad as an internal struggle about faith, not a militant struggle against America.
Regardless even if you're talking about Muslim nationalists, the law allows black nationalists to exist... because of its commitment to free speech.
This argument starts with the assumption that Muslim doctrines mean what anti-Muslim scholars say and then wants to outlaw Muslim's views and free speech. And it comes from someone who thinks we shouldn't allow people to immigrate to the US from Muslim countries. Yes, I hope that kind of bigotry against one religion is unacceptable in polite society.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Was an attempt to charitably describe the doctrine of dhimmia. Why is that? I think it's because, as you know, any anti-sedition law which would be unconstitutional as-applied to jihad as you've described it, even under the older Supreme Court precedents, because such speech presents no danger at all, much less a clear and present danger. And I think it's clear that by lumping jihad in with dhimmia, Paul is conveying his meaning with sufficient clarity that you could have understood his point, if you chose to. Your deliberate obtuseness on this point is not helping your case.
------------
I am all for Free Speech but when you incite violence against a anyone than your FREE speech ends....I give you an example
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2862
Here is a excerpt from the link and for those in the DC area this is quite disturbing.
On 29 April 2008, I shopped at Halalco to verify the book is still available. It is located in the “Jihad” section of the bookstore. The manager ‘Tariq’ can show you the book and it is available for $12.95.
Following are some of the quotes:
1. “It is, in short, time to identify the enemy and declare the Jihad. Identify the enemy. Declare the Jihad. define its parameters. Indicate its opening statements. Delineate its outcome and indicate its end”.
2. “The enemy is not merely a personnel but a method, a deen, with its Temples, the banks; with its holy places, the Stock Exchanges of the world; and its false scriptures, the data banks of figures, these magical millions and billions that hold the world’s poor to ransom for the sake of a small elite of kafir power brokers, their core jewish, their allies the lawless Christians. It is with these the war must be waged”.
3. “He who equips a fighter in the way of Allah, or looks after a fighters family at home is as good as one who fought”.
4. “Priests in their churches, unlike recluse worshipping monks, should, of course be killed without any exception. Nuns along with Monks, deserve killing even more”.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
surely. I'm not sure we can afford to take so long though.
That's all I will post though lest I be called a bigot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
replacing all the Christian/Western secular references with Islamic/Muslim cultural references I would be declared guilty of "hate speech"!! I would also have to be in fear for my life because I'm sure that some Imam would issue a 'fatwa' to have me killed! Tolerance is acceptable, appeasement is not, dhimmitude is to be fought tooth and nail!
As one of the posters here says:
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
terror exporting nations. that would not be all Muslim nations, I don't think we ever had any terrorists from Morocco, but it would be most. Is it racist, no it's prudent.
Does it have an adverse impact on some proabaly nice people? Yes, so what?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
it is, far more importantly, the view of the very people who have visited violence on the United States and its citizens and allies at home and abroad. These guys do mean business, and they do by all means believe in the obligation to make war on non-believers in Islam, to subjugate them, to execute those who convert away from Islam. Like you, I'd like to believe that this is a distinctly minority and incorrect reading of Islamic doctrine, but it is one with a very venerable history. I give you Thomas Jefferson (that right-wing bigot!), describing in 1786 the response from Tripoli's ambassador as to why the Barbary pirates were attacking American ships without provocation:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Yes, and we should be targeting "these guys." That isn't all Muslims. And trying to outlaw parts of Islamic religious views is a great way to drive normal, American Muslims toward feeling aggrieved and discriminated against. I don't see why we'd want to help radicalize the 5 million Muslims in America who generally have assimilated just fine.
It's not like we don't have a bunch of domestic and foreign anti-terror efforts. We are looking for "these guys" already. Outlawing talking about what many Muslims see as an internal struggle with faith would not help those efforts. And it would be a step toward making this a Christianity vs. Islam war, which I think is at the heart of Paul's efforts and I think is a horrible idea.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
We'll never see eye to eye on these matters, but I do hope we can restrain ourselves from ugly insinuations. For instance the insinuation of religious warmongering.
The "heart of [my] efforts" is to avoid war, specifically, bloody civil war, which is already in the offing in Europe, and has attended confrontations between Islam and, well, pretty anyone else since the dawn of the Islamic era.
I want to apply the tradition of my country, in cracking down on sedition and revolutionism before it gains strength enough to force us into even worse methods.
I don't see why we'd want to help radicalize the 5 million Muslims in America who generally have assimilated just fine.
If a simple sedition law is sufficient to radicalize them, then maybe my mistrust is more justified than you let on.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
You are advocating changing current sedition laws to specifically outlaw speech about specific portions of a specific religion. That will enrage the practitioners of that religion and would be likely to start just the war you saw you're trying to prevent.
But what's worse is it opens the door for others to outlaw the discussion of certain Christian topics in MY church.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Your posts continually single out Muslims indiscriminately for discrimination. The two most prominent are legal migration and now expression of religious views.
I think a federal policy of singling out all Muslims for limitations in their migration and religious views is a great way to escalate a fight against terrorist groups into a religious war.
I don't know how many Muslims you work with or talk to. But the ones I know are busy raising their children, taking them to the best school possible, working for a living, and creating a community. Why you want to tell them they can't talk about their religious views or that they aren't allowed to have their brother legally migrate to the US, I don't understand.
By presuming that most or many Muslims are harboring violent tendencies and recommended government intervention in religious discussions, you contribute to the escalation of tensions.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
No, my posts continually single out Muslims discriminately for discrimination. They discriminate according to whether or not any given Muslim embraces the doctrines of jihad and dhimma. Abandon those doctrines and the legal sanctions would vanish.
It seems to me that few things are more likely to escalate tensions than the constant conflation of doctrine and religion, or even doctrine and people, so that the critic of Doctrine A becomes, perforce, Hater of People X or Religion X.
In my judgment jihad and dhimma are wicked doctrines, and we should have no truck with them. The latter may be properly conceptualized if we call it, say, "Jim Crow from infidels." Wicked and intolerable.
How these judgments can be interpreted by you as bigotry against whole peoples or a whole religion, is perhaps best explained by the personal considerations involved here.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
does help explain why I don't think outlawing religious views is a good idea. I also oppose efforts to take away religious tax exemptions from churches for arguing for traditional marriage. But I know plenty of people who want the government getting involved in those religious views too because they are "harmful ideologies."
If you want to change sedition laws to make them stricter, that should apply to extremist Christians and others too. Singly out your interpretation of certain Muslim doctrines (along with your support for ending immigration from Muslim countries) would rightfully be seen as an anti-Muslim effort.
You are targeting Muslims and Muslim religious views for specific scrutiny. I know you think that is justified, but I think it's a dangerous escalation of the US v. Muslim worldview that would make things much worse, not better.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
We are paying for ME tv that is used to broadcast communcations from Hezbo's leaders without interruption
We are giving government money to groups domestically in the name of community outreach that are tied to terrorist groups (e.g. groups officially designated as unnamed conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case)
We are using referrals from people with ties to terrorist groups to appoint Muslim chaplains to US prisons
We do know of compounds on US soil in which there is paramilitary training going on, and where local police are too scared to go.
Nobody is saying all Muslims are this or that.
We are saying that Muslim theology contains things that are used by Islamo-Fascists to form their worldview.
We are not radicalizing anyone.
So many things happened before most people in the US cared much about Islam one way or the other.
Iran hostages.
Cole bombing.
1st World Trade Center bombing.
and so on and so forth
Even on this site, it is not possible to really discuss the motivations of our enemy without getting stuck in the quagmire of "you are going to radicalize" or "not all Muslims are terrorists" straw men.
Nobody is supporting the straw men, so there is no reason to defeat those arguments. I don't agree with the use of sedition laws for reasons of practicality and lack of public support. However, the war against Islamo-Fascism is not being won on the domestic front, which should be concern to everyone.
`
the nail would come crashing through Redstate :-) 5 to infinity!!!!!!!!!!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
and I'm not taking Paul's position here, but since when is advocating violence against non-Muslims "what many Muslims see as an internal struggle with faith"? It is not at all difficult to distinguish between advocacy of violence and a guy meditating in his room.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
it's not a word with one definition unless you've only read anti-Muslim polemics on it. The word means struggle. Some use it to mean violent struggle. Many use it to mean the internal struggle with faith. Outlawing "jihad" is just opening the doors to putting cameras in mosques and rushing in when they speak of jihad.
If there is organizing to overthrow the government, we don't need new laws to combat it. We don't need anti-Muslim specific sedition laws. It's not like there aren't Christian Separatists out there who rail against "evil government."
If you want to pass stricter sedition laws, do it in a way that applies to all religions. Picking on Islam is a great way to make this into a religious war.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
they won't come for you...they will just save you for last!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
but one of those meanings is quite violent.
Have you ever read ME media sources?
Most of the time they use the word jihad, it is in the context of physical violence.
Spend some time at www.memri.org. Take a month to digest as much as you can, and then get back to me.
have ever attempted to kill me. So already we have a meaningful distinction from the jihadists.
Look, I agree that we need to be specific when we take on the concept of violent jihad and the related doctrines Paul speaks of. You can't just say "jihad" and leave it at that; on that we agree. But the people already making war on us already do regard this as a religious war, and we need to combat their doctrine, and while I think that is to a large extent a political battle (on this, Paul and I have disagreed at length), I agree with Paul (and, increasingly, with McCain) that we can't ignore the religious component of their political ideology.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
in the religous aspect of it. It is absolutely a religously fueled conflict, but the government shouldn't be in the realm of combating ideas. Ideas by themselves don't hurt anyone except in the mind and spirit - a realm the government has no business entering. Ideas certainly can lead to bad actions, and that's when the government should get involved is when actions are involved, not ideas.
political one. I think Paul's idea for outlawing the discussion of portions of Islam would actually cause us to lose significant ground in the battle of ideas.
I know his goal is good, it's just his proposed method I disagree with.
And I applaud McCain for talking the right political stand on the issue.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
that I was happy to read it even though I don't fully support it.
The State Department recently issued a memo instructing government employees to not use the word jihad or any other terminology that suggests OBL et al. are motivated by religion.
We are going so far from combatting Islamo-Facism that I want to stand up and cheer anytime someone proposes more than repeate the mantra of appeasement --i.e. we don't want to radicalize those who would otherwise be on our side.
How can someone who would otherwise be on our side turn to supporting the death of innocents upon our use of words?
Because they never perceived us innocent (we are infidels, in rebellion against Allah) in the first place.
We are fighting blind and handcuffed. At some point the gloves will come off, after Eurabia happens and people are horrified by the result.
I do have a serious disagreement with the double standard you are advocating, the consequence of which is to outlaw free discussion such as we have here. Your key sentence:
And trying to outlaw parts of Islamic religious views is a great way to drive normal, American Muslims toward feeling aggrieved and discriminated against.
The problem is that you're moving from disagreeing with efforts to "outlaw parts of Islamic religious views" - which I would also tend to oppose - to wanting to suppress the freedom of people to advocate passing such laws (which is a prerequisite in a republic to actually getting legislation submitted and passed).
That is your line of argument starts by saying 1) by advocating such laws, people will hurt the feelings of Muslims (i.e. victimize them), 2) in response to these hurt feelings, Muslims will become radicalized and (by implication) more likely to try to bring down the current American system, commit political violence, etc. and 3) by logical extension, responsibility for this radicalization and subsequent acts rest not on the Muslims but on those who hurt the feelings of Muslims.
I utter reject this line of reasoning. Regardless of how others may hurt my feelings by their speech or actions, I (and every other individual) am still responsible for how I act on my feelings - that is, I am the one who chooses (for instance) whether to try to change the other's opinion of me by trying to "meet them halfway" and demonstrate why their perception of me is flawed; or whether I choose to use that as a justification for striking back at them or to forcibly silence them; or whether I try to get others to try to silence them by telling them they will be responsible if I strike back.
Our society hasn't bought this argument when certain extremist "Christians" employ this line of reasoning; how does "minority" status (whether Islam, being black, etc,) confer legitimacy on this argument. (Not to mention that these days, virtually all of us, including Christians, could lay claim to membership in some minority group.)
lifted from Voltaire saying I would fight for Paul's right to advocate for his position. I just hope it is so far from acceptable that it will be received just like someone advocating for Jim Crow today. They have the right to advocate for it, but that doesn't mean we have to give it legitimacy.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
shifts from challenging it on its "demerits" to condemning it because it you believe it will offend and radicalize Muslims. You thereby anathematize his position on the basis of the reaction it may evoke (and implicitly shifting responsibility/blame for that reaction from the people reacting to the position to Paul and other advocates of his position).
It sure sounded like you were changing Voltaire's statement to "I will defend you right to say it - so long as it doesn't offend too strongly the feelings of a certain group".
I oppose the nonexistent effort to silence Paul's views. I hope that spouting those views is seen as unacceptable in society just like spouting Jim Crow views is unacceptable (but legal).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
if you look at the wider western world.
A Saudi prince has been using weak English free speech protection (coupled with a big bank account) to sue authors of books against terrorism.
Mark Steyn is on trial before a human rights court in Canada for repeating something that a Jihadist said about slow Jihad (something about "reproducing like misquitos").
In France, Bridget Bardot has been tried several times in a criminal court for making statements equivalent to "Muslim immigration is changing France for the worst"
There are definitely places in the world where talking about these topics is prohibited.
There is not a non-existent effort to silence Paul's views. Here in the US. groups like CAIR have sued many people with lawsuits for saying such things. See Savage (the radio host) for one prominent example.
I think the USA has a much stonger tradition of protecting free speech. Besideds the way to protect one kind of speech ( inflamotory talk against Isam) is not by banning other types of speech - teaching Muslim doctrines.
There is a thin thin line between
1. Preaching the killing of Americans
2. Buying truck loads of fertilizer in order to kill Americans
3. Killing Americans after steps 1 and 2.
I thought this was a "war" on terrorism. Looks to me like we are treating this as a criminal matter.
I am not in favor of sedition laws, but I do think we need to be more proactive. I also think this violent ideology must be challenged head on.
though I can see how you would argue that he did. I think what he MEANT was that PASSING such laws would create the very radicals that Paul hopes to suppress.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
to blame-shifting. That is, it's not simply an argument on pragmatic grounds that it may not be advisable to stir up a storm over that issue (which at least leaves the debate open to a benefit/cost analysis) - rather, becomes a tool to delegitmize that position and shut down further debate by saying "look at how the other side responded - and it's all your fault that they chose radicalism as their response to your words".
I've seen this shifting happen time and time again; it's a key foundation for defining speech that is not PC.
I do. Unless they are advocating something in particular that is violent, they are welcome to agitate for anything they like.
I flat out condemn, reject, and mock the notion that we will gain ANYTHING positive out of such proscription. Do you want to give the handful here who are a threat a rallying cry to those who aren't?!?!?
You don't have to execute someone to make them a martyr. Jailtime will suffice.
More to the point, sacrificing the core and central value of the free expression of non-violent thoughts and ideas is simply too heavy a price, period. Hell, even *context* matters with those topics.
Bottom line - you wanna watch an imam or mullah who's advocating dhimmitude? By me guest. But you don't muzzle him or her. It violates our values and it will only make it worse.
Do we want to make Americans who happen to be Muslims into Muslims who just happen to be in America? Ostracize them and you're on your way.
recruiting young muslims into a mahdi army? showing films on how to make bombs? Showing maps of key power plants?
at some point a sermon might move over into advocating violence and murder.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Yep. And if we can show a causal link between the speech and the violence, nail his ass!
"Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon ‘The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.’"
Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444
Show me someone inciting violence and a law that bans that speech is fine. Not every way one could advocate those things you listed is necessarily violent. Stupid? Sure! But not all of them are violent by sheer dint of being advocated.
to what justice Hughes wrote, it is called a conspiracy.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You don't seem to understand that a proscription of ANY advocation of those ideas includes a prohibition of advocating non-violent methods of getting there!
What if some folks wanted to amend the Constitution to institute Sharia? Obviously absurd, screwed up, and it would be an evil thing if ever Sharia was foisted upon ANY people or persons who do not want it.
But such an act is advocating the institution of Sharia. And its non-violent. The political process is a means by which these folks can agitate if they like without ever threatening anyone. I would oppose with every fiber of my being any of the things listed, if they ever came to fruition, but for God's sake, don't overreach!
A group of people trying to get something on the ballot isn't a criminal conspiracy! It could be wrongheaded, unAmerican, and horrendously stupid. But it's still protected speech, and it should be.
I was in no way talking about constitutional amendments or other peaceful means of advocacy. I was talking about recruiting and training a Mahdi army in the USA to commit acts of terror and violence. It is being done right now as we speak!
Not only do I think we should act preemptivly, but I hope to hell we have agents infiltrating all of these rotten groups.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
And if you can show that they are inciting violence through speech, then a law that proscribes that is fine.
Calling themselves a particular name, loudly screaming that they want something violent to happen isn't the same thing as speech actually inciting it. At least not necessarily.
If what you suggest differs from the OP, then I apologize for my mistake.
Perhaps the reader will forgive me my impatience with this position.
Forgiven!
So even if you want no part of my Jihad-sedition law; even if this sort of talk of outlawing speech makes you instinctually wary...
Well for my part your past suggestions have seemed more redundant than necessarily a threat to free speech. Either some activity is or it isn't sedition/treason, based on our existing definitions of sedition and treason, and therefore already sufficiently covered by existing laws. So make the case that specific activities you see are in fact seditious and/or treasonous, that they violate e.g. the Smith Act and are therefore subject to investigation and prosecution.
But certainly you should feel welcome to continue expressing your opinion on the matter. We agree, I think, that there should be no legislation passed in this country that curtails anyone from expressing whatever feelings they may have about whatever subject they want, including Islam, including our own government, including whatever else - homosexuality, tax policy, police activities, polygamy, etc. Be it positive or negative sentiment. I'm not seeing any evidence of Americans attempting to pass legislation that would forbid (harsh) criticism of Islam, but I would surely join with you in opposing such legislation.
Either some activity is or it isn't sedition/treason, based on our existing definitions of sedition and treason, and therefore already sufficiently covered by existing laws
My proposal is to pass legislation that settles this question with respect to the war-making doctrines of Islam.
This does not, in my mind, constitute a redundancy, much less a fatal flaw of one. Current sedition law dates from a era long before the Jihad was a factor in American policy. The Jihad is very different from the mid-20th century movements which were the object of current law. Those were plainly political movements; this one is religious. Etc.
I'm not seeing any evidence of Americans attempting to pass legislation that would forbid (harsh) criticism of Islam, but I would surely join with you in opposing such legislation.
Not yet, but the trend is clear. And we all know that PC orthodoxy can be pretty potent even absent any legislation.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof [cite]
I don't see anything in the above that would preclude prosecuting someone because their views are based on religious belief instead of political belief. This speaks directly to preventing the "overthrow or destruction of ... government by force or violence". What is inadequate about this, that it cannot be used equally against some Islamic group organizing a violent coup the same way it might have been used against some communist group doing the same thing?
Not yet, but the trend is clear.
We do seem to have a general trend of decreasing liberty in the face of an ever expanding government, I grant you that. I'm not sure adding more legislation will reverse the trend.
And we all know that PC orthodoxy can be pretty potent even absent any legislation.
This gets back to the marketplace of ideas angle though, doesn't it? If we can't beat down liberal political correctness and demonstrate the superiority of un-ashamed free speech to the audience, then the problem is us, or more specifically, what must be a very poor case we're making.
case).
What you seem to be advocating is starting just such a holy war as you want to guard against. The act of outlawing certain portions of religious practice would be an affront to the entire religion of Islam. It would be akin to outlawing the giving of the sacrament to a Christian.
Laws should outlaw acts not speech or thought. There are laws against plotting the overthrow of the country. There are laws against plotting terrorist acts. Those should be in place and should cover all the conceivable threats to the US that you can come up with.
But to outlaw the discussion of Shari'ah in an Islamic group? That goes too far and I will fight against such things.
I will also fight against any law that seeks to outlaw anti-Islamic speech as well.
As the saying goes "I vehemently disagree with what you say, but I will fight to defend your right to say it."
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Why not allow public discussion? Why not have public debates?
What is so dangerous about Islam that a few well-edited Marilyn Manson videos can't handle?
Islam will *NEVER*, *EVER* be defeated by legislation against it.
The thing that can defeat Islam?
Rock and Roll. Pool tables. Dancing with loose women. 74 channels for $29.99/month. Will and Grace reruns.
We need to get that yelly dad guy from the Twisted Sister videos to dress up like a Mullah and scream at a guy with a kafiya for a minute culminating in the question "WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR LIFE?" and the guy in the kafiya stands up and yells "I WANNA ROCK!" and then they do a video where Dee Snider and his band beats the crap out of the Mullah using rock and roll.
Have a scene where the mullah guy is backing away in sheer terror from the guitarist who is playing the meedly meedly meedly part of the guitar solo.
PUT IT ON YOUTUBE.
This is how Islam will be defeated.
No by passing an unenforcable law. My goodness, I hope you come back and read this in a year or two and feel ashamed at how monumentally stupid this idea is... I cannot properly put into words how monumentally stupid this idea is. My goodness. My poor, poor, country.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
There is nothing "broken" that can't be "fixed" by throwing money and/or sensuality at it, eh?
Also, you need to do some historical research. Anti-sedition laws (which is what Paul specifically advocates) are anything but unenforceable.
------------
Now anti-sedition laws.
And you don't even see yourself.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Anti-sedition laws are neither "now" nor "new." And I haven't the foggiest idea what your second sentence means. And I further haven't got the foggiest what McCain-Feingold has to do with anti-sedition laws, as they reach completely different categories of speech, both in terms of their historical and constitutional treatment.
------------
From "A Man For All Seasons"
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
This comment doesn't even make sense, in the context of this discussion. Allow me to cure your historical ignorance:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...
------------
And there it is.
When the Liberals say "Teaching ID in science classes is Child Abuse" and pass laws accordingly... what will you be able to say?
When the Liberals say "Teaching against Homosexuality from the Pulpit is a Hate Crime" and pass laws accordingly... what will you be able to say?
My goodness, man. Is there nothing that you think cannot be prevented by enough laws being passed?
The things being discussed having laws passed against them are covered by the First Amendment.
How much power do you want the government to have?
Is there *ANY* limit???
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
If you read Dennis v. United States and the other decisions cited (something which I severely doubt you have done, given that you quite simply haven't had enough time), then you will see that the Constitution at its inception was not understood to protect seditious speech - that's the very antithesis of "living constitution!" Seditious speech and hate speech are different things and have for decades (if not centuries) been understood to deserve categorically different levels of protection.
There are quite a few limits on the amount of power that I want the government to have, but the power to prohibit sedition is not necessarily one of them.
------------
A bunch of good religious people worshiping God with some crazy moon language and a seditious group of people hoping to overthrow the government and using some crazy moon language to disguise their true intentions.
Hey! Here's an idea! Perhaps we could set up something like a Ministry for State Security... we could set up a network of civilian informants. Maybe give a little stipend to people who are part of it. They can monitor political behavior and make reports to the government. People will be better behaved when they know that they are being watched, right?
It will also help to have more civilians directly involved with the security of the Homeland, no?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I'm gonna walk away from this discussion because I have work to do and you're neither paying attention to nor responding to anything I've actually said. So, toodles.
------------
Surely you realize that you'd be better off if you passed a law.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I'm glad you don't care about being liked around here, because you sure don't argue in good faith.
Every example from you leaps so far to the extreme. Stop thinking that everything is a slippery slope. It's giving me the impression that you would favor anarchy (see, that's about what you sound like. Take someone's position and frame it as far to an extreme as you can.)
Now also found at The Minority Report
Because my suggestion to "fight" Islam involved things that had zero, absolutely zero, Constitutional issues related.
Rock and Roll.
Sitcoms.
Youtube.
And this was dismissed and I was told that the only realistic response was not my licentious ideas but admittedly Constitutionally questionable legislation.
I'm reeling.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
See here
I could provide links to many other posts that you have had in the last few months, but this one suffices.
Now also found at The Minority Report
What that post was doing was expressing contempt for the belief that enough centralized control would be able to overcome the Muslim Threat.
If you look at the laws that they have in the Middle East, what will you see? Laws against sedition. Laws against all sorts of stuff. Heck, some of the countries have laws against religions that are *NOT* Islam.
How's that working out for them?
What we need to do is use the Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction that we have against Islam and the wicked, tyrannical Islam will not be able to stand against them.
The good Islam? The happy Islam? The Islam that every single person on this board agrees that they like? That will be able to withstand Twisted Sister.
Passing laws that will allow men with guns to go into houses of worship and draw those guns on religious men for what those religion men are teaching?
That will not end well even though there may be short term gains.
And, once again, I express contempt at the very thought that more laws would do better than more freedom would.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
but the use of hyperbole does not help your point. You sacrificed message for brevity.
Now also found at The Minority Report
How do you think these laws will be enforced if not through the use of informants?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
bird, you have talked right past Leon as if you heard nothing. He refuted [as in SLAM DUNKED] your point. Free speech is not the 100% freedom to say what you want when and where you want (the proverbial yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, yada, yada).
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Established law has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that Congress can, in fact, limit what people say, what they print, assembly.
I do not deny that the government has the power to throw people in jail for the stuff they say.
I am not arguing against this point at all.
I am screaming that seeing this as a good thing that we could use to our own short-term advantage is Wicked.
Wicked.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Really, I just wanted to quote Justice Vinson from Dennis:
The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence.
I guess Justice Vinson wasn't imaginative enough concerning what some people are capable of conceiving.
------------
I'm saying it won't work.
What will work is mockery and satire.
It Has Been Ever Thus.
Even when Mohammed came back to Medina in triumph, he killed only two people (according to tradition). They were both comedians.
We have been told, from the very beginning, what tools are considered the most effective.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I'll merely point out that you're 1) contradicting what you implied earlier upthread with the Thomas More quote about how I'd be "mowing down laws" or some such thing, and 2) ignoring how well that tactic worked for Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists.
------------
The multi-cultural Liberals did.
Also, certain branches of the Fundamentalist Christian church did.
They used the same arguments, mostly. Religious Faith was a very important thing and it should never, ever be mocked.
And these wicked people traded away a very important moment, one that foretold of 9/11 even... for the sake of the argument that certain things should not be mocked.
Good luck with passing laws against sedition.
I hope that when you see that they aren't working that your response is not "well, we need tougher laws and better enforcement".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
There is a long tradition in this country of cracking down on seditious speech. Some of the very men who worked on the Bill of Rights passed the Sedition Act of 1798. Until about 1950 it was regarded as perfectly legitimate for the people of a republic to outlaw the promotion of revolution to violently replace said republic with some other form of government.
Set against the backdrop of what these various revolutionists (Jacobins, Commies) unleashed upon the world, I say unabashedly that our tradition is a basically sound one. These revolutionists meant business: they cast much of the world into a cauldron of war and misery. We threw a few seditionists in prison.
Advantage: American tradition.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
There are a variety of methods a hypothetical idiot could use to agitate towards dhimmitude. Not all are violent. A "holy struggle" need not be violent. Sharia, if enacted, need not be literalist. There are countries who have varying degrees of Sharia in their legal systems.
I obviously want NONE of those things and I would fight to prevent any of them. I'd also fight to prevent any number of other retarded ideas, be they religious, political, racial, or anything else.
You *can not* do this and expect any other response than American Muslims feeling (and to some degree actually being) marginalized. You take a problem that isn't that serious (our own citizen Muslims) and you *will* aggravate it.
Mind if we pass a law stating that you can't agitate for a Crusade? No discussion of a "holy war"? The anti-Nazi speech laws in Germany are absurd, and I say this as freaking Jew!
You cannot drive thought underground, only the believers. Give them that existential threat and the problem WILL explode. Existing sedition laws and restriction on speech are absolutely sufficient. Show me a reasonable link between the speech and violence and I'm all for locking the guy up!
Laws that proscribe specific beliefs, laws that are not narrowly-tailored, laws that are not the least restrictive means face strict scrutiny under review if they speak to a fundamental right. Some of the things on your list are potentially non-violent (in the mind of the speaker) agitation for political change!
Political expression, non-violent expression is exactly what the First Amendment seeks to protect. The violent speech is already proscribed! Your suggestion broadens matters and would be a PR disaster.
end in disaster and repeal when they try to sidestep the Constitution.
In order for this comment to make any sense, you'd have to:
1. Explain what you mean by "sidestep the Constitution," and
2. Provide a historical example of an anti-sedition law "sidestep[ping] the Constitution," and
3. Provide a historical example of one of such laws "end[ing] in disaster and repeal."
------------
My goodness, I hope you come back and read this in a year or two and feel ashamed at how monumentally stupid this idea is... I cannot properly put into words how monumentally stupid this idea is.
The idea is well over a year old already; and every time I revisit it, I am confirmed in my view of its wisdom.
Consider, for instance, a partial list of revolutionary/seditious factions that have, across American history, come under the strictures of sedition laws:
Jacobins.
Northern secessionists (and Southern Unionists).
Polygamists (half the prison population of the Utah territory, at one point, consisted of convicted polygamists).
Anarchists (like the one that assassinated McKinley).
Communists.
Nazis.
Communists again.
Let me also point out that the Dutch cartoonists did indeed attempt something like the cultural assault you suggest -- and the whole world (virtually) of Liberals and libertarians hung them out to dry.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
The libertarians were the ones that reprinted the cartoons and screamed at the liberals that "This Is Important. Freedom Of Speech. Freedom Of The Press. Freedom Of Religion (Or The Lack Thereof)."
It was the Liberals who talked about giving a crap about cultural sensitivities and making sure that people didn't have their feelings hurt.
You got the wrong lesson from the Dutch Cartoonists if you think that the proper response to pass laws restricting speech.
What we need is more speech. More debate. More people coming out and saying blasphemous things and having the country saying "I may not agree with what you say, but, hey, it's a free country" instead of seriously considering the opinions of those who think that passing laws against specific things mentioned in the First Amendment are worth entertaining with anything but the strongest contempt.
I say to you what I said to those liberals.
This Is Important. Freedom Of Speech. Freedom Of The Press. Freedom Of Religion (Or The Lack Thereof).
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I applauded those cartoonists for their bad taste! I love bad taste comedy and satire, and I always have.
No religion is free from satire. None should be. If one's belief's are so uncertain as to require such protections as are necessary to free them from unwanted speech, then that faith is weak.
The reaction by many Muslims on this issue appalled me. Theo van Gogh's death was horrific.
Stupid American pop culture will strengthen Islam and ruin America from the inside out.
The only way to defeat Islam is by a superior philosophy and religion. And no, libertarianism living parasitically off of vestiges of Christian culture (like morality) doesn't cut it.
That said, I certainly agree with you that legal prohibition will do the opposite of what it is intended. This battle needs to be fought in culture.
The first two paragraphs get a 5. The last gets a 3 for not giving sufficient credit to the historical effectiveness of the force of the criminal law.
------------
... that worked?
Certainly, the force of law works against some practices, even some ideologies. But it won't work against Islam; if you think it will, I think you underestimate Islam.
Nothing in Paul's proposition advocates that the force of law can eliminate Islam, per se, what it advocates is that the imposition of sedition laws can eliminate or at least check the dissemination of certain seditious Islamic doctrines. On that front, I think the law can be quite effective, indeed.
------------
I assumed awareness that propagation via speech of Islamic truths is also a core doctrine of Islam, i.e. proselytizing. So I'm not conflating: if you want to outlaw certain Islamic doctrines that are at the core of the religion, you attempt to outlaw Islam itself. It's not like you can separate out core doctrines from each other. That's impossible.
But you seem to believe that certain core doctrines like Jihad can be prohibited successfully without eliminating Islam.
I simply disagree =)
But we've had stupid American Pop culture since the Big Band era. I've heard rumors that there may be stupid American Pop culture that predates the Big Band era, but it's been gentrified and I'm sure that explaining how the flappers were a lot classier than the hippity hoppy stuff the kids today are doing and the people who complained about the flappers were a bunch of stuffed shirts who needed a little unbuttoning.
But not too much.
America is strong, and it remains strong. It is strong because it allows for a meritocracy kinda melting pot. The best stuff from every culture (the food! the dances! the music! the religious practices!) rise to the top and the bad stuff gets swept aside because it just doesn't work in a free culture.
I will tell you the same thing that I tell everybody.
America is the greatest country in the world.
We are not going to hell in a handbasket.
Unless we pass laws saying that we must abandon our freedoms... then we will become like most of the other countries on the planet.
And I will write essays mocking those who say that we just need stronger laws and better enforcement of them and point to the Bill of Rights again and again and again even in the face of people pointing to judges who read the Constitution as a Living Document.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"the best stuff fr
Let me preface this by saying that I would gladly take a match to the last seventy years or so of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence - and that would be but the first required step to enacting the sort of law you advocate here. Insofar as the law would only catch the sort of speech that used to be covered by the various anti-Communist subversion laws that were upheld against First Amendment challenges in the 40s or 50s, I might also be in favor of that. However, I think the American public is sadly not.
They're more likely to favor the latter kind of restriction - that you argue against - than the former that you argue for. That's not a particularly hopeful commentary on our society.
------------
