May 4, 2005
IN ORDER TO FORM:
When is violent speech still free speech?: A case involving a Muslim extremist is forcing America to face a moment of self-definition (Jonathan Turley, 5/04/05, Jewish World Review)
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.
As Robert Bork wrote many years ago, it would be absurd if the Constitution, which does nothing but establish a specific form of government, were read to protect those seeking to overthrow that form of government. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 4, 2005 8:12 AM
It has always been illegal to solicit others to commit a crime. The phrase "incitement to riot" came about for a reason. Mr. al-Timimi is merely receiving a lesson, one that he should have thought about a long time ago.
Posted by: Mikey at May 4, 2005 9:05 AMMaking terroristic threats is also a crime, and was long before 9/11. And the spate of 'hate crime' legislation passed in recent years might also be applicable (even though we conservatives frown on such laws).
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 4, 2005 10:04 AMSuch speech may be protected when the country is not actually at war. During wartime, it marks them as enemy agents. I wonder why we don't persecute these people as spies and saboteurs so they can be shot.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 4, 2005 11:29 AMChris - think of the children.
Seriously, do you remember the whining and carping that went on when we attacked the Taliban after 9/11? Now, imagine what would happen if the neo-con fascistic Chimpy McSmirk Bush-halli-tler regime tried innocent muslim scholars and activists for espionage and sabotage. The shreiks from the left would be unbearable.
No, until the islamokazis destroy the MOMA or something else that chattering narcisstic left is in love with, there is little good to be gained by such trials.
Mikey:
Don't you think cases like this make it LESS likely that the Left will intervene to protect Islamofacists?
They will still attack Bush, of course, but I don't see much of a defense for the enemy (except from the ACLU and people like Lynne Stewart).
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 4, 2005 3:07 PMJim - The Left will always rush to the defense of anyone who advocates the destruction of the US.
Posted by: Tom at May 4, 2005 4:57 PMThe same congress that adopted the Bill of Rights also passed the Sedition act.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 4, 2005 5:23 PM