Free Speech?

[Grammatron]

Oh, well. Nothing new.

Indeed.

 

[Kodiak]

Oh, well. Nothing new.

Enjoy your nap...

 

[Garrette]

All quotations originally posted by CFLarsen:

But that wouldn't be up to Coulter to decide if there was treason.

I neither said nor implied that it was.

I did, [Demonstrate that Coulter had advocated others to convert or kill American Muslims] on page 1:

Ann Coulter feels hatred towards at least some parts of the US, namely the Muslims (not to speak of the Democrats!). She wants to - forcibly - convert Muslims to Christians and to kill Muslim leaders.

An enemy is someone you feel hatred towards.

She can feel all the hatred she wants, which you’ve failed to demonstrate despite your contention otherwise; hatred does not constitute treason nor raise her comments to the level that they are analogous with what we know of al-Timimi’s comments.

We should definitely stick with the Constitution.

Okey doke.

I don't. I don't even think al-Timimi committed treason. I am asking why they are treated differently.

Yes, I understand this as your stated position. I have clarified it on this thread.

But though you continue to state that it is your position, your actual comments indicate that you expect us to demonstrate treasonous behavior as opposed to analogous behavior.

This may mark the first time of which I’m aware that your impressive command of the English language is falling short. (That last sentence is meant sincerely and not as an insult, but I’m not sure how to phrase it better because my command of the English language is failing me, too)

Yet, I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not think Coulter has committed treason.

See above comment.

But that is the issue I am talking about.

Then you’re making a poor job of it.

Stop insisting that Coulter’s remarks demonstrate hatred of American Muslims and start insisting that they are analogous to al-Timimi’s remarks.

To do that, though, you’ll have to talk about Timimi’s remarks, too.

If you don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it.

Excellent advice. I’ve followed it throughout my time here at JREF.

Where's the difference? That you tell me to go do something? There's an action?

Yes. Exactly.
The difference is both obvious and real.
It is also both semantic and legal.

And in my opinion, she said #4 as well.

As I surmised. Now we’re getting somewhere.
Unfortunately, the somewhere may be the end of the debating road because I categorically disagree with you and do not know how to explain my position any more clearly than I and others have already done.

She is also talking about those Muslims on the plane.

I must have missed that in the transcript, but I’ll grant it for debating purpose.

Those were Saudis, mostly. Not Iraqis or Afghanistanians (?).

Great. That means they weren’t Americans. Ergo, she could say “Claus Archibald Larsen, I would like you in your capacity as an American citizen to go kill those Muslims. I am inciting you to do so,” and she would still not be guilty of treason.

 

[Garrette]

And that, Claus, marks the end of my participation in the Coulter discussion on this thread as I, too, feel it is a de-rail.

If, however, you would like to continue discussing it, please start a new thread and I'll join as I can.

 

[shanek]

Page 6. We are getting there.

Somehow, I don't think it'll qualify you for the million...

 

[RandFan]

Somehow, I don't think it'll qualify you for the million...

Aren't you the one that pushed Claus over the hill?

 

[varwoche]

How about these words, spoken by Michael Schwartz, chief of staff for Oklahoma GOP Senator Tom Coburn...?

Schwartz: I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!

article

 

[shanek]

Aren't you the one that pushed Claus over the hill?

If by that, you mean I am the one who exposed Claus for what he is, I will take it as a compliment...but I would say that it is Claus and Claus alone who is responsible for the ruination of his reputation on this board.

 

[RandFan]

If by that, you mean I am the one who exposed Claus for what he is, I will take it as a compliment...but I would say that it is Claus and Claus alone who is responsible for the ruination of his reputation on this board.

Fair enough. You know, I think I was under the impression that he went south but now I think he was always that way and like you said he has now been exposed.

 

[Questioninggeller]

When is violent speech still free speech?
USA Today
By Jonathan Turley
Tue May 3, 6:32 AM ET

It is perhaps the first legal rule that children learn: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." It is not just a catchy phrase, but a fair reduction of a legal principle: Words alone are generally not actionable as forms of assault or crimes.


Last week, a jury in Alexandria, Va., offered a new addendum to this childhood axiom. Muslim scholar Ali al-Timimi was convicted of, among other crimes, incitement - encouraging followers to train with terrorist organizations and to engage in violent jihad. He now faces life in prison in a case that even the U.S. attorney called "unusual" based on speech. His appeal may now help define when violent speech crosses the line from free expression into criminal advocacy.

Violent speech is generally protected by the Constitution. However, the line between controversial and criminal speech has proved evasive for courts. Speech is not protected if it advocates "imminent" violent or unlawful conduct. Speech can be calculated to incite people, but not if it incites people in the wrong environment. Thus, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is actionable, but not necessarily doing so in a park.

Such contradictions reflect a long history of how we deal with violent or inciteful speech. Under the Sedition Act of 1798, Congress made it a crime to "excite" people against the government or otherwise bring the government into "contempt or disrepute." This law was used by President John Adams against critics, despite its flagrant violation of the First Amendment and condemnations by framers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

An ally in the KKK

Al-Timimi, the Islamic extremist, was relying on an unlikely ally in free speech: an Ohio Ku Klux Klan grand dragon. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a KKK leader was prosecuted for giving a speech at a farm outside of Cincinnati in which he warned that "if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might be some revengeance taken."

Clarence Brandenburg was convicted under a state law of criminal statements that proclaimed the "necessity or propriety" of acts considered violent or unlawful.

Later, in reversing the conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government could not "forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such actions."

The decision reflected the court's understanding that political passion often drifts toward violent expressions. Thus, conservative columnist Ann Coulter is allowed to suggest "we should invade (Muslim) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." More recently, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn's chief of staff is allowed to proclaim, "I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"

The question of what constitutes advocacy of an "imminent lawless action" has remained a maddening ambiguity. This is precisely the ambiguity that al-Timimi stepped into during social gatherings in Virginia in the weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Al-Timimi is the spiritual adviser to many Muslims across the country. He has worked with the government, including White House chief of staff Andrew Card, and he has been invited to speak on Islam to the U.S. military. He is the perfect conflicted individual for the conflicted area of violent speech.

On one hand, al-Timimi publicly denounced violence and called for tolerance in some speeches. However, privately, a darker image emerged. Five days after the 9/11 attacks, al-Timimi called for a "holy war" and "violent jihad." On Sept. 16, al-Timimi met in an apartment with a few young men and encouraged them to go abroad to join the jihad. Within days, some members were on their way to Karachi, Pakistan, to join Lashkar-e-Taiba - a group later put on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Al-Timimi is quoted by former converts (who are now cooperating with the prosecutors) as referring to U.S. forces as "legitimate targets" if they attack Muslims in Afghanistan. (None actually fought, but a few did go abroad for training.)

Intent of al-Timimi's words

The difficult question in the case is whether al-Timimi's statements to supporters not only advocated violent or unlawful conduct (which is protected), but encouraged imminent violent or unlawful acts. Notably, many of his comments have a future element to them. His reference to "legitimate targets" is premised on the possibility of a future U.S. intervention.

Conviction in these cases risks being overturned based on unpopular speech rather than a real imminent threat. Judge Leonie Brinkema allowed the jury to hear inflammatory statements made by al-Timimi on the morning of the Columbia shuttle disaster. Al-Timimi wrote in an e-mail to followers that "there is no doubt that Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy" and called the disaster a "good omen." The relevance of such statements is questionable, but the potential prejudicial impact could not be more clear.

We have come a long way since John Adams chased down critics for sedition. We have learned that we have more to fear from the suppression of speech than from its expression.

Full:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...m_usatoday/whenisviolentspeechstillfreespeech