"It's time to fight back against death threats by Islamic extremists"

[Bragi]

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff
LA Times

September 27, 2010

A federal law is needed to cover threats against free-speech rights. Across media and geographies, Islamic extremists are increasingly using intimidation to stifle free expression.

Earlier this year, after Comedy Central altered an episode of "South Park" that had prompted threats because of the way it depicted Islam's prophet Muhammad, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris proposed an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." The idea was, as she put it, to stand up for the 1st Amendment and "water down the pool of targets" for extremists. The proposal got Norris targeted for assassination..

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's playbook. In the 1990s, abortion providers faced the same sort of intimidation tactics and did not succumb. Instead, they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE, passed in 1994 by solid bipartisan margins. A similar act is needed to cover threats against free-speech rights.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ali-threats-20100927,0,2267434.story

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. meh

[joeybee12]

2. How can I put this politely? What a couple of assholes.

That's as polite as I can get.

[Fumesucker]

3. And the FACE act lead more or less directly to "Free Speech Zones" in 2000-2008..

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease..

I'm not sure that is true in this case but it bears thinking about.

[yellowwood]

4. Always check your sources

Daniel Huff--Director of Midle East Forum
Director of The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum

Ayaan Hirsi Ali--Brought here under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute

[speppin]

5. Regardless...

He makes an excellent point...

....
If we leave our artists, activists and thinkers alone to weather the assault, they will succumb and we will all suffer the consequences.

[Bragi]

6. I'm aware of who they are

I also think their argument in the op-ed has merit.

No, thanks for asking, I'm not a right winger of any sort, but I think people have to be concerned when free speech is attacked in a democracy.

The idea that Islamic extremists do not pose a threat to free speech in America is absolutely belied by what happened to Molly Norris.

Free speech is not inherently a right wing issue, though you'd think it was if you look at who usually writes about and defends it.

We need a progressive-left perspective on the particular threat to free speech posed by Islamic extremists.

Embracing a special law to protect free speech and make it illegal for anyone to use threats or violence to limit free speech, as is argued in the op-ed, may well be part of what's needed.

[Spike89]

7. hmm, defend free speech by limiting it?

Seriously, issuing threats is not protected speech and is already against the law. This has really nothing to do with the 1st ammendment--Norris was able to say what she wanted, the government did not ban her. People were free to disagree with her without the government banning their responses. Those that threatened her are not protected and can and should be prosecuted.

There is no 1st ammendment right to not have consequences. If I walk into a biker bar and say bikers are pansies that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, that is my right. If they want to say I'm an idiot, that's their right. If they decide instead to beat the crap out of me, well, they there is already a law against that. Granted, some times we need to provoke assholes and those that do so are incredibly brave and often heroes. They are brave and heroes because they understand the potential consequences and are still willing to say what they believe needs saying.

In short, you simply can't outlaw intimidation, you can only stand up to it.

[Bragi]

9. Good points, but is it now actually illegal to issue a fatwa?

I especially like your final point: "you simply can't outlaw intimidation, you can only stand up to it."

That may well be true.

In the case of Molly Norris, I agree that no law could prevent her antagonist (an extreme Islamist of US citizenship) from issuing a fatwa calling for her death, since he lives abroad, and issued his fatwa from abroad.

My questions, though, are as follows:

Is it actually illegal to issue a fatwa in the U.S calling for the death of a person because of what they have written or said? Or is this protected speech?

And separate from this, if you are a victim of such a declaration, can you prosecute the person issuing the fatwa through a civil action in a US court?

The op-ed suggests US law does not address these possibilities, and proposes to fill the gap as follows:

A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights.

[Spike89]

10. Probably hard to prosecute

But that is also true of the proposed law we're talking about here. You can be prosecuted for directly threatening, or even advocating someone else do violence to a person, so a fatwa would be inciting violence. However, it is pretty easy to get around this (Beck, Rush, and others do it all the time) and instead of saying "Go kill XXX" they say, "I wouldn't cry if someone killed XXX".

In short, there probably is no legal way to stop the intimidation effectively. BTW - there is absolutely no religious protection for a fatwa, any more than there is a Xtian defense for killing a Doctor.

[Deep13]

8. I'm disappointed by the moral relativism I'm seeing.

Violence and threats of violence are unacceptable. It is thuggary, nothing more. The fact that the motivation is religious is irrelevant to the issue. If Muslims have a right to promote Islam, and they do, then others have a right to criticize it. Trying to justify a violent response to mere words or drawings is no different than trying to justify the murder of Dr. Tiller because he disobeyed God.