Free Speech?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:
How would that get you off being prosecuted for treason?

By demonstrating that your actions don’t amount to treason in a legal sense. I quote Article 3 from the US Constitution:

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Coulter’s comments did not do this. If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate it.

It is possible there has been further legislation defining specific acts as treason, but I have done no search for it. If you think something else applies, please provide it.

As Diogenes pointed out, it is possible that Coulter violated another law with her comments. I don’t know and don’t care to find out. Have at it if you like.


Claus, this is, I think, why people have been confused about your argument. In this response, it seems as if you think Coulter committed treason as opposed to thinking that she should be charged with it merely to maintain consistency vis a vis al-Timimi's conviction.

As one who has in the past admired your precision, I am surprised.

To be clear, my comments in this post address whether or not Coulter’s comments legally amount to treason, not whether they are analogous to al-Timimi’s comments which is an entirely separate issue.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

So? Can you only get prosecuted for treason if you are addressing a specific political audience?

You can get prosecuted if the prosecutor wants to prosecute you. Guilt is determined based on evidence that you met the standards as outlined above.

Allow me:

There is a difference between:

1) I think Muslims should convert or die

and

2) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims who do not convert


Further, there is a difference between:

3) I think Muslims in other countries the US ought to invade should convert or die

and

4) I am advocating that you go kill Muslims in the US who do not convert

Your argument mightstand if Coulter said #4, but she did not. She said #3.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

You mention context. Why isn't Coulter's blanket statement about Muslims being converted to Christianity relevant?

Who said it isn’t relevant? It’s absolutely critical, except that you misrepresent it.

Her non-blanket statement that non-converting Muslims in countries the US ought to invade is exactly what demonstrates that she is not guilty of treason.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You don't think that forcing a group of Americans to convert to a specific religion undermining American authority? A basic freedom, namely the right to believe in what god you want?

Can you provide evidence that she specifically called for FORCE to be used in converting any Americans?

Please reply only if you will address the specific question with a specific answer. In other words:

DO NOT quote her calling for invading other countries or killing muslim leaders UNLESS you have EVIDENCE this would involve the use of force to make Americans convert to a different religion.

DO NOT try and avoid the question by replying with a question along the lines of "What do you think she meant when she said all Muslims should convert?" as my opinion is irrelevant. You have made a specific claim that she called for a group of Americans to be FORCED to convert to a specific religion, it should therefore not be a problem for you to link to a QUOTE from her supporting this claim.

Or is this to be yet another thread where you make claims, ignore questions asked of you to back up those claims and demand answers from everyone else while refusing to provide any yourself?

 

[Kodiak]

Or is this to be yet another thread where you make claims, ignore questions asked of you to back up those claims and demand answers from everyone else while refusing to provide any yourself?

I think we have a winner...

 

[RandFan]

Yes! He finally gets it, after many tries...

So disingenuous.

The flaw in his argument is that the comments are not analogous; it is not in the fact that Coulter's don't rise to the level of treason.

al-Timimis does.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So disingenuous.

al-Timimis does.

He has claimed she advocated action against American troops (which appears to be a reference to the *forced* conversion to Christianity which he has been asked to provide evidence for) and that this was "precisely" what al-timini was convicted of.

He also appears to think what she did was "the very same" that "she is advocating the same as" and that she did "exactly the same" as al-Timini. Presumably, as she has done EXACTLY the same, he can show clear evidence where she called for FORCE to be used against US individuals? If he cannot, or will not, do so then I think it is clear his position is not based on evidence. Again.

 

[RandFan]

Why not?

It doesn't work that way Claus. When you make a claim it is up to you to explain how and why.

But she doesn't need to want to kill American soldiers. Using the definition you provided, all she needs to do is feel:[/b]

How and why do you say this? It makes no sense.

She is not just talking about killing their leaders. Those Muslims who aren't killed must be converted to Christians.

"Their leaders" is how we infer WHO she is talking about. {sigh} We know she is talking about killing foreign nationals because she says this. It's called inference Larsen.

We have been discussing Coulter for 4 pages now. Have you not discussed Coulter?

Only because you are trying to derail the discussion. It was YOU who introduced Coulter as a red herring. We have simply been trying to get you to admit that your argument doesn't fly. We want to see if you will go 14 pages again by arguing fallacy.

No, I am asking why the two aren't treated the same way.

Classical Tu Quoque.

2.) Besides, you have not established that they have done the same thing.

I beg to differ.

You can beg all you want it won't help your argument.

Again, we have to go with what he was convicted for. You have agreed to that.

That is a lie. On the contrary I have said that it is impossible to know what he really said. His conviction is the point of controversy. Did he do what he was accused of? How do we know with out his words?

But you accepted the conviction.

No I didn't at all. Pay attention. I have said that I am troubled by this. My only point is that Coulter did not commit a treasonous act.

 

[RandFan]

She has made it clear how she wants to deal with Muslims. She has not made any exceptions.

She is not that kind of pundit. Right?

It is implicit in her statement that she is talking about non-American Muslims which is why she says "their leaders" their country". Otherwise she would be saying invade America. Right?

 

[RandFan]

"Yes you are"? What kind of argument is that? Do you mind if I decide what I am saying?

You might be right. I don't have the time to go back and check. I will appologize and withdraw the statement since I choose not to take the time to check.

Sorry.

 

[RandFan]

Now you are moving the goalposts: It speaks of enemies.

Again, I have to go back three pages to resolve this. I will withdraw it.

Probably. However, we do have Coulter's words.

But you are saying that Coulter said the same thing as al-Timimi said. How do you know that without knowing what al-Timimi said?

Irrelevant. Two people doesn't have to have anything to do with each other to be convicted of treason.

We are dealing with al-Timimi and whether what he said was protected free speech and or treasonous (it could be both but I'm not sure if constitution protects treasonous speech). You have derailed the thread and put the focus on Coulter. We can't determine whether or not al-Timimi is guilty of Treason or if his free speech rights have been violated by focusing on Coulter.

To determine whether or not al-Timimi has commited treason or not or whether his free speech rights have been violated or not we need to focus on al-Timimi and what HE said.

 

[RandFan]

Just as an aside. Surely in matters of law and prosecuting people it is fair to state "well since s/he was prosecuted for X so should s/he" since the law and justice are meant to apply to all? Therefore I don't think it is right to say this is a "Tu Quoque" fallacy.

You are absolutely correct. I think Larsen could start a thread and THAT would be valid. And it doesn't really matter that it is only concerning matters of law. I bring up Clinton a lot because I think some people are inconsistent with their judgments of Bush. They apply rules inconsistent between the two.

The problem is that we have not determined whether or not al-Timimi committed Treason and whether or not his free speech rights were violated. Discussing Coulter will not resolve that issue.

Fact: It is logically possible that Coulter could BE guilty and al-Timimi could be innocent. Discussing Coulter will not resolve the issue of al-Timimi.

However, let's assume that we decide to forgo al-Timimi and only focus on Coulter then there is another problem.

Larsen's Argument:
(P1) Person A was convicted of X
(P2) If the law is consistent then person B should also be convicted of X.

Before we can determine (P2) we have a hurdle to cross.

Are the actions of person B the same as person A?

This is inescapable. We can't look at the results only of person A and then compare those results to the actions of person B. To do so is illogical and backward.

The problem I have come to realize is that Larsen does not have a grasp of simple logic or he is being obtuse. I can't see any other explanation. I'm open to one if anyone can figure him out.

 

[RandFan]

I am very interested in this issue. I'm troubled by what happened to al-Timimi and I would like to have a discussion about this. It is impossible to come to any conclusion about al-Timimi by focusing on Coulter because logically;

1. Coulter could be innocent and al-Timimi could be guilty.
   
2. Coulter could be guilty and al-Timimi could be innocent.
   
3. Focusing on Coulter will not resolve any issues because she was not charged with treason nor was she found guilty of treason. The only thing we can infer from Coulter is that the government does not think her actions rise to the level of treason.
   [/list=1]
   
   If anyone is interested I would love to discuss al-Timimi and free speech issues. Does anyone have an argument as to why al-Timimi's right to free speech was violated?

 

[Garrette]

I am interested.

I'm trying to do a bit of research, first, though, so as to speak from only a limited amount of ignorance.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....
If anyone is interested I would love to discuss al-Timimi and free speech issues. Does anyone have an argument as to why al-Timimi's right to free speech was violated?

I have ideas about why it wasn't.. Would that serve the same purpose?

 

[Thanz]

If anyone is interested I would love to discuss al-Timimi and free speech issues. Does anyone have an argument as to why al-Timimi's right to free speech was violated?

First of all, I find the limitations on speech in the USA to be somewhat dishonest in general. There is the classic "yelling fire in the crowded theatre" example, which I understand has been dealt with by defining "speech" to not include this event. Similarly with obscenity.

I like to think that Canada learned from this and that is why our constitution states that the rights are subject to reasonable limits, prescribed by law, that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That way, we can have a law against falsly yelling "fire" without the gymnastics of saying it isn't speech.

Anywhoo, Timimi may have been caught in some anti-muslim hysteria following the horrific attacks of 9/11. Without knowing more about the case it is hard to discuss specifics, but I think that at its highest the case against him was that he was essentially recruiting soldiers for the Taliban on American soil. I can see a legitimate gov't interest in preventing people from recruiting soldiers to fight against Americans abroad. As any recruitment will involve speech, there is no way to do this without restricting speech. I think the key factor is when professing your beliefs about your religion and the actions of the us crosses the line into this sort of recruitment activity.

Thoughts?

 

[RandFan]

I am interested.

I'm trying to do a bit of research, first, though, so as to speak from only a limited amount of ignorance.

Cool, I'm doing some research also. It appears that the case hinged, at least in part, on an email that the defense tried to keep out of trial. I would be interested to know what the email says. I have 2 full days of paperwork for my job and 1 day to do it in. I'm going to have to focus more on that but will try and do the research during breaks. At least I'm in the office all day.

Thanks Garrette.

P.S. I just hate it when important threads are derailed. But to be honest I'm part of the derail. My apologies.

 

[RandFan]

I have ideas about why it wasn't.. Would that serve the same purpose?

Absolutely, of course, please.

Thank you.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Absolutely, of course, please.

Thank you.

Well, Thanz touched on it with the old " yelling fire in the theatre " scenario..


Free speech doesn't include the right to incite others to commit crimes.. ( And yes, Annie babe, is not free to do this either.. )

 

[RandFan]

First of all, I find the limitations on speech in the USA to be somewhat dishonest in general. There is the classic "yelling fire in the crowded theatre" example, which I understand has been dealt with by defining "speech" to not include this event. Similarly with obscenity.

I like to think that Canada learned from this and that is why our constitution states that the rights are subject to reasonable limits, prescribed by law, that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. That way, we can have a law against falsly yelling "fire" without the gymnastics of saying it isn't speech.

Yeah, I think this is a good point. Clearly there are times when speech should be regulated. I worked WITH right-wingers and people I normally would oppose to keep a prohibition of child pornography on the books in California. I don't think images of children engaged in sexual intercourse to be protected speech. The ACLU agreed that producing such material was and should be illegal but that owning such material should not be kept illegal. That was in 1991 if my memory serves me correctly.

Anywhoo, Timimi may have been caught in some anti-muslim hysteria following the horrific attacks of 9/11.

And that is my concern. I'm wondering if "likelihood of harm" should be considered? Of course I have no idea. If Timimi was as you say caught in the hysteria then wouldn't that make the enforcement of the law arbitrary?

Without knowing more about the case it is hard to discuss specifics, but I think that at its highest the case against him was that he was essentially recruiting soldiers for the Taliban on American soil. I can see a legitimate gov't interest in preventing people from recruiting soldiers to fight against Americans abroad. As any recruitment will involve speech, there is no way to do this without restricting speech. I think the key factor is when professing your beliefs about your religion and the actions of the us crosses the line into this sort of recruitment activity.

I think this is a valid line of reasoning. Like you I need to know more about the law. And was he truly recruiting soldiers or expressing his opinion that people should act if their conscience so dictates? If Timimi's intentions were more opinion and not to actively get people to go fight then I think it is protected. However that is a very fine line if at all. I'm simply ignorant on the subject.

 

[RandFan]

Well, Thanz touched on it with the old " yelling fire in the theatre " scenario..


Free speech doesn't include the right to incite others to commit crimes.. ( And yes, Annie babe, is not free to do this either.. )

Yes, as someone else has already pointed out her actions could indeed rise to some level of offense (legally speaking). That is "could" but her actions have not been demonstrably shown to be the same as al-Timimi or even treasonous. Furthermore not being a lawyer it is very difficult to apply her actions to the law without knowing the subtleties and precedent if any of that law. Not to mention any and all other points of legality that I am ignorant of.

I think what needs to be shown is the actual words of al-Timimi to make a decision.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, as someone else has already pointed out her actions could indeed rise to some level of offense (legally speaking).

It was you. Cool.

Well, I actually looked up some of the things Al-Timimi was charged with.. I wish I could get a complete list. I'm sure it's out there somewhere..


http://www.thecouriermail.news.com....55E1702,00.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges against Al-Timimi included soliciting others to wage war against the United States, counselling others to engage in conspiracy to levy war against the United States, attempting to aid the Taliban, counselling others to attempt to aid the Taliban, counselling others to violate the Neutrality Act and counselling others to use firearms and explosives in furtherance of crimes of violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say Coulter is guilty of the last one, and maybe the next to last, but I don't know exactly what the ' Neutrality Act ' is, and what constitutes a violation of same....

I will be the first to say that in light of this, CFL's suggestion that Ms Coulter should be charged with ( some of ) the same charges as Al-Timimi, is not without merit.

I appoligize for suggesting otherwise.. I got hung up on the ' Treason ' thing, which doesn't seem to be included in the charges.

Thank you BTW.

You know if Larsen would simply have done the same thing he could have come off looking so much better. A little effort goes a long ways.

The problem I have with the last line is that it says "others". Not being an attorney or scholar I can't be certain but I don't think advocating that the U.S. us firearms and explosives to achieve her ends really qualifies. Do you?