A “Muslim Sensitivity Exception” to Freedom of Speech?

I am not in favor of burning anyone's scriptures or burning any book on the grounds that its content is offensive. Such actions always betray a meanness of mind. I am in favor of the greatest possible freedom of speech. So I am gratified but not surprised that Derek Fenton won his lawsuit.

Fenton was fired by the New Jersey Transit Authority for burning pages of Quran at Ground Zero last Sept. 11^th. With the help of the ACLU, he sued and will get his job back plus a cool twenty five grand. Apparently, Michigan didn't get the message. From the Detroit Free Press:

A judge late Friday sent two Florida pastors to jail for refusing to post a $1 bond and barred them from visiting a Dearborn mosque or its adjacent property for three years unless the mosque's leadership says otherwise. After a short time in jail they left on $1 bond each.

The stunning developments came after a Dearborn jury sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Critics slammed the decision to jail them, the court proceedings, and Wayne County prosecutors, saying they violated the men's Constitutional rights.

Now let us stipulate that Pastor Jones is a twenty-four karat ass. His previous burning of a Quran encouraged a mob in Pakistan to riot and kill twelve United Nations workers. That does not mean that Pastor Jones is responsible for those deaths. The killers alone are responsible. However, man who was Christian in any sense I recognize would consider the consequences of his actions.

Nonetheless, the Michigan judge's decision is an outrageous violation of freedom of speech. A government in the U.S. cannot require someone to pay for the privilege of expressing his opinions. A judge certainly cannot prohibit someone from protesting in advance of the actual protest. That is called prior restraint and it is ruled out by even the stingiest conceptions of free speech.

I am confident that the Michigan decision will be reversed. I note, however, that that decision and the action of the New Jersey Transit Authority suggest what Nina Shea called a "Muslim exception to the First Amendment." It is protected speech to stick a cross in a beaker of urine, but don't think of doing something disrespectful to a copy of the Quran.

Allowing Jones his freedom is distasteful because he is distasteful. It is worse than that of course. It has already resulted in actual bloodshed abroad and perhaps serious damage to American foreign policy interests. Perhaps, the Supreme Court might conceivably rule, preventing such damage might make for a "compelling government interest" of the kind that occasionally allows exceptions to constitutional prohibitions.

Be careful what you wish for. The New York Times has been cheerfully publishing those Wikileaks documents. Some of those may indeed have damaged American interests abroad. Can the Times be punished for publishing them? Can the Times be prohibited from publishing them?

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It is nothing if it doesn't cover all people and all issues. Pastor Jones would never have been fined or jailed for burning a Bible or an American flag, nor would he have been subject to either if he had only been the New York Times.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

You're like Ellis, Ken. This is a red state magician's ploy to divert our attention from Lance Russell stealing grand jury testimony and using it for his own political gain, right?

[Dr. Aref Assaf]

There should be no Muslim sensivity exception. I agree with your assessment of the decision to reinstate the now famous New Jersey Koran burner, Mr. Derek Fenton. As an American, I detest his action which was based on false assumptions about Islam and their holy book. As an American Muslim, I am truly hurt by his insinuation that the Koran teaches violence or that it justifies killing the innocent. While he is free to exercise his freedom of expression unhindered, I wanted him to know that freedom has a price. And some time free speech leads to hate speech which is a crime.

But in this case, the punishment did not fit the crime and I am glad Mr. Fenton is getting back his job. Let us all be mindful that our actions, in private or otherwise and guaranteed as they may be by the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, do have implications, sometimes unintended and gravely harmful.

It should be noted that the response of Muslim leaders was rather timid and did not amount to large scale protests. If any, this is an indication of a maturing community which does not feel threatened by occasional and albeit hurtful attacks on its ethos. The American Muslim community is paying the price of freedom.

I am ready to welcome Mr. Fenton into my home or mosque to acquaint him with our faith, customs and above all our love for this great country of ours.

Aref Assaf, PhD
President,
American Arab Forum
www.aafusa.org

[caheidelberger]

The latter is a heck of a comment. Thank you, Dr. Assaf, for taking time to weigh in and defend the Constitution we share.

[Ken Blanchard]

I second Mr. Heildelberger's note. Thank you, Dr. Aref, for the comment.

[phil]

According to your piece Jones was jailed for not posting bail and agreeing to stay away from the mosque. He wasn't jailed for what he said, but for the perceived risk that he would breech the peace. On those grounds I think his detention was justified (and after all fairly insignificant). If the intention of the court was to curtail his speech the 1) they were a bit late, and 2) a much more subsatantial penalty would have been applied.

[Billl Fleming]

' A government in the U.S. cannot require someone to pay for the privilege of expressing his opinions.'

Coincidentally, this is one of the main arguments for exempting people from having to pay sales tax on advertising services.

Terry Jones can do as he pleases with whatever books he wishes. We all have the right to make fools of ourselves. Maybe though, he could try readIng one once in a while.

[KB]

Phil: if you can shut down a protest because of a "perceived risk that he would breech the peace" that is prior restraint. You could then shut down anyone you don't like. The issue wasn't the amount of the bond, but the power to the
court to prevent the protest from taking place at all.

[iMark]

Am I understanding correctly that Terry Jones was not allowed to protest, but a much larger crowd was actually allowed to protest Jones? Why weren't those protesters shut down?

In one video it looks as if those protesting Jones were outside the mosque protesting in the very place where Jones was denied.

[Dave]

There’s no doubt about it, the President is a Muslim.

You want proof?

• Over the past 20 years, tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi government and Saudi businessmen have been traced to companies in which the President and members of his cabinet held prominent positions.

• Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia contributed a cool $1 million to the President’s “future Presidential Library,” which of course, has yet to be built.

• Several years ago members of the Bin Laden family “invested” $50,000 in a company in which the President held a partnership interest (not ACORN related however).

• The President and his fund raisers share the same lawyers as three wealthy Saudi businessmen who have been investigated by the federal government for helping finance Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network through an Islamic charity in the same state the President once held a Congressional seat.

• The President repeatedly praises Saudi Arabia in the news, protects charities associated with the Saudi royal family accused of funneling money to terrorist organizations, and has invited Saudi government leaders to break bread with him in his private home in the United States. (At least he has the “decency” not to allow them in the White House.)

• The President’s father was the real give away. Largely unadvertised by the mainstream media, while alive and breathing, he was a senior-advisor to the Carlyle Group—an investment bank with well known deep connections to the Saudi Royal family. And you guessed it, now out of the blue, the Carlyle Group (an obvious Saudi shill) has donated $1 million to the President’s unbuilt “future Presidential Library.”

• In order to help facilitate a second term for his Presidency, rumors abound and evidence suggests, the Saudi government has agreed to increase their production of oil by several million barrels a day when election time for the President’s run for a second term comes around in order to drive the price of oil downward and create a temporary illusion of economic stability, while in reality, the economy will continue to rapidly spiral downward.

• According to a Wall Street Journal article, the President, along with those in his administration, prevented and blocked the U.S. Treasury Department from designating all but one charity affiliated with the Muslim World League (MWL) as a terrorist entity (despite having ample evidence that other charities associated with MWL may have terrorist ties). Other than the designation of that one group, the administration shut the door to any other such “terrorist” designations to groups associated with the Muslim World League.

It goes beyond the pale that the brainwashed masses cannot connect these very transparent dots and finally admit to themselves that a Muslim put his hand on the Bible and took the Oath of Office to sit at the highest seat in the land.

Do you need to see him holding hands with the Saudi King and giving him a big, fat, wet Islamic kiss before you believe it?

All joking aside, I’m rather proud I live in a country which elected two Muslim presidents to lead this great nation. How ironic both their names were “George” after the first president and figurative father of our country?

This is why I get irritated when people point their crooked fingers at the Republican Party and carelessly throw around accusations of bigotry. Not one Republican disparaged George Bush’s obvious ties with Islam.

Perhaps it was motivated by their sensitivity to the notion that being Muslim isn’t an “accusation” of anything nefarious? Perhaps it was motivated by their insistence to judge people by their conduct rather than by some sensationalized “issue” that absolutely lacks substance? Or perhaps it was their ability to not equate something “different” with something “evil?”

Whatever the case, I think we all can learn a lesson or two from Republicans.

Do you honestly think their opinion would change one iota if the President were a black man?