Anjem Choudary (He's the one with the mic between hate monger Alfred E Newman and the guy picking his nose.)
While the Brits arrest people who say the wrong things about Islam in the wake of the horrific murder of Lee Rigby, real hate mongers like Anjem Choudary are free to say things like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335575/Anjem-Choudary-fresh-vile-rant-Lee-Rigby-burn-hellfire-Muslim.html
Of course, in contrast to the news about a free speech discussion tonight in Tennessee, the UK has no First Amendment, which is also true of the rest of Europe. Choudary would be free to spout this venom here in the US (though he would be ill-advised to try it). But if the UK is going to enforce what it considers hate speech, then Choudary sure fits the bill. It would be nice to see their law applied equally to both sides.
7 comments:
Gary, doesn't this event have to do more with "Threatening Speech" than "Free Speech"?
From my research the reason for this event is after a local Republican politician posted picture showing a rifle aiming/shooting at Muslims.
Remember Gary, Tennessee is the Heart of the Bible Belt and the Birthplace and Home of the Ku Klux Klan.
Nelly,
I am waiting to hear what exactly Killian and the FBI guy say. On the surface, I don't like the picture you refer to though I have not seen it and don't know anything else about it. Threats are a no-no and can be punished under the law. Spencer and Geller do not threaten anyone. Neither do I.
Opposing radical Islam is not the same as the KKK. They were not opposing "radical" blacks. They were opposing blacks in general as a people.You should know the difference.
Opposing Islam on the pretext that some Muslims are radical is pretty close to what the KKK did. No, you don't threaten anyone Gary, but your line of propaganda gives encouragement to those who do.
As for the UK, you may be right, but it is interesting that you provide detail on Choudary's hateful speech, while making only allusions to the tweets people were reportedly arrested for. How about giving the details of those tweets?
If a tweet said "There are too many Muslims in Britain" that's borderline.
If a tweet said "Muslims won't get into heaven because they haven't accepted Jesus as the Son of God and their personal Lord and Savior" that's certainly protected speech in the U.S. and consistent with the teachings of England's official Established State Church. Of course, that statement says Findalis and Miggie and Squid won't get into heaven either.
If a tweet said "Kill ten Muslims for every British soldier killed by Islamist terrorists," that's incitement to murder.
So what DID the tweets say?
Nelly, This is a quote from the article:
"If the feds plan to just invent a new category of speech crimes for heightened protection of Muslim sensibilities they have to first contend with Supreme Court directives that leave no room for confusion.
The first of these hurdles is the Brandenburg Rule that essentially limits government censorship authority to speech that is a direct threat of imminent lawless action.
The Supreme Court has also opined on the subject of “hurt feelings, offense, or resentment” — even when messages communicate hostility — and has upheld a longstanding tradition of protecting speech that may produce “an adverse emotional impact.”
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Snyder v. Phelps that “this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled,” although the Westboro Baptist protestors at military funerals were guilty of shouting highly offensive insults.
There is one very important aspect of this discussion that is being overlooked by the very federal government that says it cares so deeply about outreach to Muslims. This is the reality that there are basically two camps of Muslims living in the United States. Some are radicalized and do incline to, and incite, devastating civilian violence. In the same group — while not choosing confrontational tactics — there are those that work to supplant American legal norms with Islamic Sharia.
Most Muslims are here to participate in the democratic system and are not involved in efforts to subvert American values. America needs to have a serious conversation about how to identify the radical elements in order to distinguish them from the Muslims who are not a threat. This can only be accomplished with freedom to speak openly, including the understanding that such a process will involve some who will not speak eloquently or kindly
Most Muslims are here to participate in the democratic system and are not involved in efforts to subvert American values.
As long as we can agree on this, we can sort out the relatively minor differences as to how to identify and isolate those who use some version of Islam as a cover for criminal activity.
elwood, please outline in detail how I called Gary a terrorist by outlining a point of agreement with him.
Siarlys--this is already in the dead letter file but I will respond anyway.
"your line of propaganda gives encouragement to those who do (threaten)" sounded to me like you were saying Gary's "propaganda" was inciting a riot or a call to violence or whatever. That's all.
Post a Comment