Jihad, Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Roguish Lawyer]

Hypothetical:

• U.S.-born muslim imam
• Citizen in good standing, no criminal convictions
• Has congregation at his mosque
• Preaches hatred of Jews and other infidels
• Encourages violent jihad
• All preaching is done as sermon in mosque
• Does nothing else to support jihad (e.g., no fundraising or violence)

Should this be permitted? We are balancing free speech and the free exercise of religion against the consequences of permitting such activity.

[Kyobanim]

I think when you incite violence as in "violent jihad" you've crossed the line from legal to breaking the law. These times we're living in are requiring a stricter or more conservative interpritation of the laws. Now, if he was just saying that sometimes it "takes violent actions" instead of saying "you should be violent"; I'd say the line isn't crossed.

Isn't inciting violence a criminal offence anyway? Couldn't it technically be called conspiracy to commit a violent act of some sort? If not, it should be.

[Gypsy]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic or missing something but how is he a citizen of good standing if he encourages violent jihad; isn't that a form of support albeit not financial? Seems to me preaching behind the pulpit for such actions can't/shouldn't supercede any "religious freedoms" from laws that prohibit inciting violence.

[pulque]

Originally posted by Kyobanim
I think when you incite violence as in "violent jihad" you've crossed the line from legal to breaking the law. These times we're living in are requiring a stricter or more conservative interpritation of the laws. Now, if he was just saying that sometimes it "takes violent actions" instead of saying "you should be violent"; I'd say the line isn't crossed.

Isn't inciting violence a criminal offence anyway? Couldn't it technically be called conspiracy to commit a violent act of some sort? If not, it should be.

I just found out that it has been illegal in Canada to incite religious hatred since the 1970's, and that Britain is now trying to pass amendments that would make their laws more level. In Britian right now, it is illegal to incite violence, to incite racial hatred, and to incite religious hatred against jews and sihks (but not christians and muslims). What up!!

Also, US states have "hate laws" but I dont know if these cover inciting violence.

[2VP]

I think it may also fall under the example of yelling fire in a movie theater. Although your allowed freedom of speech it doesn't extend to speech that will cause harm. I think the religious hate laws is closer to the mark though.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Depends on what the "congregation" does afterward. In other words, does his "sermon" lead to action. Remember the Paladin Press case?

[2VP]

A little OT here but there was a special on the TV about how prisons and jails have/could become major recruiting posts for Islamic fundamentalists. Apparently the places of worship aren't regulated well and many of the spiritual leaders in these prisons practice the extreme form of Islam and teach the prisoners this as well. Waahabism I think.

[Gypsy]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Depends on what the "congregation" does afterward. In other words, does his "sermon" lead to action. Remember the Paladin Press case?

Is my google strong? Is it this case?

In 1993, a triple murder was committed in Montgomery County by a man who was alleged to have used this book, Hit Man, as his guide. He was caught and convicted and sentenced to death. Wanting to profit from their loved one's murder, and realizing that the murderer himself was too poor to be worth suing, the family of those killed by the hit man sued Paladin Press, the publisher of the book Hit Man, saying Paladin Press "aided and abetted" the murder.

May 21, 1999, Paladin Press settled the case, giving the families of those killed by the hit man several million dollars, agreeing to destroy the remaining 700 copies of the book in their possession, and surrendering any rights they have to publish and reproduce the work. While the families were successful in profiting from their loved one's death, they have not been successful in stifling the book. With the surrender of the publishing rights by Paladin Press, the book has entered the public domain, and was published on the Internet

[NousDefionsDoc]

That's the one. If I remember right, Paladin's argument was free speech and that they weren't responsible for the actions of their readers.

Where's that lawyer at?

[Gypsy]

Wow...look what I found.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...62412P&exact=1

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Where's that lawyer at?

I'm sure we'll get an eloquent con law lesson from AL shortly.

[Jimbo]

I prefer not to be intimidated by ideas and speech. If his followers take action, prosecute them. Additionaly however, and I think this has been our greatest failing in the GWOT, you need to beat the idea that he is putting forward.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Jimbo
I prefer not to be intimidated by ideas and speech. If his followers take action, prosecute them. Additionaly however, and I think this has been our greatest failing in the GWOT, you need to beat the idea that he is putting forward.

I agree.

[NousDefionsDoc]

you need to beat the idea that he is putting forward.

And just how are you going to do that? It is an intepretation of the tenet of their faith indoctrinated probably before they can walk.

[Airbornelawyer]

Hypothetical:

• Man calls report to invite him to cover a meeting.
• Reporter shows up with camera crew to cover meeting.
• Meeting consists of about a dozen men, most armed.
• At meeting, speakers all preach racial and religious hatred.
• Main speaker, the one who called the reporter, describes the meeting as an organizational meeting.
• He claims support of thousands of others in cells around the country.
• He states that if the government does not change its policies, vengeance will be taken.
• He tells the group to prepare to move on Washington, DC

Free speech?