Pat Condell: Goodbye to the First Amendment

Odd that we need a British comedian to remind young Americans how important freedom of speech is.

The Ghost of Charlie Hebdo and the Purple Beret

On January 7, 2015, two Muslim terrorists stormed the Paris headquarters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. After killing numerous people, the jihadists yelled "Allahu akbar!" and "We have avenged the Prophet!" Politicians, the media, and numerous Muslim organizations united in claiming that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. But is this correct?

The Lawfare Project: Join the Conversation

There are plenty of problems we need to deal with. But if we don't win the free speech battle, we'll lose the other battles, because we won't even be free to discuss them.

Here's a new video by the Lawfare Project on freedom of speech and the necessity of defending it (especially against the implementation of Sharia).

Ten Muslim Students Found Guilty of Disrupting Israeli Ambassador's Speech

I have some mixed feelings about the jury's verdict. On the one hand, this is the United States of America, where people are free to speak, defend their views, criticize others, etc. On the other hand, the Muslim students were attempting to shut down the free speech of someone else, and free speech protections do not apply uniformly in all locations. For instance, the government protects my right to preach on public sidewalks, but it doesn't protect my right to preach in your living room if you ask me to leave. Similarly, if the owners of an auditorium lay down rules for an event, that's their prerogative, and the rules must be respected. Those who don't want to follow the rules may go outside and enjoy their freedoms on the nearest public sidewalk.

While I think the students were clearly wrong for repeatedly disrupting a university event, the issue could have been handled through school discipline, rather than through criminal proceedings. It's tough to see young people get criminal records for doing what they believe is right, even if they're wrong. (And I say this as someone who was thrown in jail in Dearborn for doing much, much less than these students did.)

SANTA ANA, California (AP) — A California jury found 10 Muslim students guilty Friday of disrupting the Israeli ambassador's university speech about U.S.-Israel relations, a case that stoked a debate about free speech.

The jury also convicted the students of conspiring to disrupt Ambassador Michael Oren's speech in February 2010 at the University of California, Irvine. They were charged with misdemeanor counts after standing up, one by one, and shouting prepared statements such as "propagating murder is not an expression of free speech."

The students will return to court later Friday in Orange County where they could be sentenced, said defense attorney Dan Stormer. He declined to comment until after the afternoon hearing. Prosecutors said they will comment on the case later.

About 150 people, including relatives and supporters of the students and Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, attended the verdict. Some community members gasped and started crying when the verdict was read and about a dozen of them walked out.

The students showed little reaction but later huddled with their attorneys and shared hugs with family and friends.

Shakeel Syed of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California said he was shocked.

"This is yet another reaffirmation that Islamophobia is intensely and extensively alive and thriving in Orange County," he said. "I believe this will be used as precedent now to suppress speech and dissent throughout the country. This is the beginning of the death of democracy."
UC Irvine said in a statement that it supports free speech.

"We nurture a campus climate that promotes robust debate and welcomes different points of view," said Rex Bossert, a university spokesman.

Prosecutors said the students broke the law by interrupting Oren's speech on U.S.-Israel relations and cutting short the program, despite calls to behave from campus officials. Defense attorneys argued the students had a right to protest.

Nearly 200 people packed the courtroom to hear closing arguments at the trial that some community members called a waste of taxpayers' money and an effort to single out the defendants because they are Muslim.

Prosecutor Dan Wagner told jurors the students acted as censors to block the free flow of ideas and infringed upon the rights of 700 people who had gone to the Irvine campus to hear Oren.

Wagner showed video footage of university officials pleading with students to behave, but they kept interrupting the lecture. Wagner also showed emails sent among members of UC Irvine's Muslim Student Union planning the disruption and calculating who was willing to get arrested.

Defense attorneys countered there were no hard rules for the speech, and the students might have been discourteous but didn't break the law.

Lawyer Reem Salahi, who represents two of the defendants, said the demonstration was modeled after a series of protests at UC Irvine and elsewhere in which students shouted at lecturers but weren't arrested.

She said the students never intended to halt Oren's speech entirely but wanted to express their views on the Israeli government's actions in Gaza.

During the case, attorneys showed dueling pie charts breaking down how much time the students demonstrated, how long their supporters cheered and how much time Oren spoke. The evidence was intended to show whether the meeting suffered a significant disruption.

Attorneys for the students — who attended UC Irvine and nearby University of California, Riverside — argued before the trial that charges should never have been filed and that the issue was already handled on campus.

In 2010, the students were cited, released and disciplined at UC Irvine, which revoked the Muslim Student Union's charter for a quarter and placed it on two years of probation.

Earlier this year, Rackauckas filed criminal charges against 11 students, prompting an outcry from the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of Jewish, Muslim and campus groups. Charges against one defendant later were dropped. (Source)

DA Drops Hate Crimes Charges against Jesse Quinn Harrison

I'm not buying Harrison's "I only made the video to show people that Islam is peaceful" story. Whatever point he was trying to make with the video, it wasn't something positive about Islam or Muslims. Take a look for yourself:



But Harrison's intentions aren't the point. He was charged with a hate crime, and this video was listed as one of two pieces of evidence that the charges were based on (the other being a letter that the prosecuting attorney's office refuses to release). As distasteful as many people would find this video, there's simply no call for violence against Muslims. It's just a guy grilling a Qur'an (and for Muslims who would complain about this, don't forget that Muhammad smashed the idols of the pagans). Indeed, if we're going to call a video like this a "hate crime," we would have to charge everyone who carries a Qur'an with a hate crime, since the Qur'an does contain clear calls for violence against unbelievers.

Yes, freedom of speech often protects offensive speech. But that's a price we pay for not having our views and ideas censored by the government. It seems that the prosecuting attorney was simply trying to frighten Harrison. The message was clear: "Don't upset Muslims, or we'll throw you in jail." Hmmm. Now where have I heard that before?

The district attorney dropped hate-crime charges against a Tulsa man Friday afternoon after a jury decided the evening before that the defendant did not need involuntary mental-health treatment.

Jesse Quinn Harrison was charged Dec. 28 with transmitting a threatening letter and with malicious intimidation or harassment.

The charges were based on a package he had sent to the Peace Academy at the Islamic Society of Tulsa. The package included a letter and a video he had made of himself smearing a Quran and an image of an Islamic religious figure with pork chops and grilling those items.

A mental-health hearing ended Thursday with a jury's deciding that Harrison was not "in need of treatment," according to the verdict.

Because Harrison - who had been a patient at the Tulsa Center for Behavioral Health - still faced the criminal charges, he was arrested and booked into the Tulsa Jail after the verdict. After the charges were dismissed, he was released from jail Friday, records show.

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris sat in on much of Harrison's mental-health hearing Wednesday and Thursday and said it was a kind of preview of what would be presented in a criminal case. He said he could see how the evidence would be presented and heard Harrison's explanation of the video and letter submitted as evidence for the first time.

"After listening to him - though I don't agree with the jury's decision - it does give you some insight into where he was coming from," Harris said Friday.

Harrison testified Thursday that by posting the video - which he acknowledged was "horribly offensive" - to YouTube and Facebook, he hoped to show that Islam was a peaceful religion despite a prevailing stereotype to the contrary.

"I created this horribly offensive video, yet what so many people expected was for Muslims to act violent to me," Harrison testified. "Despite this horrible offense, they continue to be a law-abiding, peaceful people." (Read more.)

Holland: Criticizing Islam Is Unacceptable

Nakdimon translated the following article. It explains why Geert Wilders, who produced the short film Fitna, is going to be prosecuted for "hate and discriminatory statements" because he criticized the Qur'an. As recent events have shown, in the West, it's perfectly acceptable for Muslims to call for genocide against Jews. Criticizing the Qur'an, however, is now criminal.

Novum, Wednesday 01.21.2009 –

Geert Wilders should be prosecuted for hate and discriminatory statements. This is what the Amsterdam court decided Wednesday. The DA decided earlier not to prosecute the PVV leader. The DA now has to do so.

According to the court, there are sufficient indications that Wilders is guilty of criminal offenses. The court has come to that verdict because of, among other things, the rhetoric of the public statements of Wilders and the way he presented his views. He did it in a way which the court finds one sided, strongly generalizing, radical, fierce and frequently repeated. Therefore it could be seen as bigotry.

In addition, the statements of Wilders are also offensive to Muslims, because they are affected in their religious dignity. Wilders did this by attacking one of the symbols of the Muslim faith, the Koran.

Wilders compared the Koran to the book "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. The court believes that certain offensive remarks are not under the criminal law, but should be resisted in the social and political debate. This is not the case for the comparison with 'Mein Kampf', says the court, because it is so offensive to Muslims that it is of importance to prosecute Wilders.

The court does not believe that the freedom of speech is at stake with the decision to prosecute Wilders. The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right emphatically, but according to the court, in the European context, these statements are unacceptable. Prosecution also doesn't affect Wilders in his freedom of speech, provided that the possible sentence is proportionate.

Finally, the court considers that prosecution of Wilders serves the Netherlands. The hate speech in the democratic rule of law "is so serious that there is a public interest to draw a clear line in the public debate".

In July, a special discrimination section of the DA decided not to prosecute the PVV-leader for a number of statements in the media and in his film 'Fitna', against which several charges were pressed. Some chargers, including the anti-racism organization "Nederland Bekent Kleur", were not pleased with that decision of the DA and objected [to the verdict of] the court to nonetheless prosecute him.

Justice has received dozens of charges against Wilders in the last years. Those were for statements in de Volkskrant, De Pers and in an Internet column. Different people and organizations thought that the PM conducted an incitement to hatred and discriminated. The charges were gathered in Amsterdam and viewed by the discrimination section of the OM. They advised not to prosecute.

When the trial starts against Wilders is not yet known.

I have to confess that I'm quite pleased that Wilders is being prosecuted. I think the trial will draw much attention to what's going on in Europe. READ MORE.

Preaching to Muslims in Malaysia

Preaching to Muslims is illegal in parts of Malaysia, but recently the Muslim government increased the punishment for anyone who would try to convert Muslims to another religion:

Malaysian State Stiffens Penalties to Stifle Muslim Conversions

This reminds me of an earlier post by Umm Yaqub, which asks why Muslims are scared to let Bibles into Saudi Arabia.

If Islam is clearly true, why are Muslims so desperate to keep people from hearing alternatives?

Rediscovering Our Backbones

Here's a good article on the latest Rushdie affair, free speech, and the results of constantly backing down from Muslim extremists:

Rediscovering Our Backbones