Surprise, surprise.
islam will continue to nuture any number of obls, and faithful fools who follow.
When do we stop mossie immigration ?
When do we legally delegitimize this poison ideology as ' religion' ?

Are our politicians aware and ahead of the curve ? are they optimistic fools ? are they avoiding the big decisions ?

Are they afraid for their own lives ?

Are they wishfully thinking that some hitherto unseen moderate majority of moslems will rise up and take control ?

When will our politicians take steps to stop islam from poisoning and ultimately destroying, western JudeoChristian culture ?

Stop the f..ing nazis from coming in to the country, influencing the educational system, threatening and murdering those who oppose them, using our civil rights to advance their tyranny.

Stop the f...ing nazis now.

Posted by: dby at December 24, 2004 1:20 PM

Aaah. The surrender monkeys that the french are, I for one am not very confident anything positive will come out of this admission. AFP will try to suppress it I bet.

Posted by: voletti at December 24, 2004 2:07 PM

In years to come the writers working here today will be subject of an industry in academia: our letters will be the meat of doctoral theses for decades. Let's try to make it tasty for them, something they can get their teeth into, something they can chew for a long while.

Let's show the future generations how the world changed for the better because writers here took the initiative and worked on their own behalf for genuine democracy: how people combined their efforts and skills and took the revolution from the ether to the streets. We act, in effect, not much differently from the French in that we do little to stop the Islamization of the West in our own communities, bit by bit.

We can start by dismissing from our own minds the so-called Mainstream Media. By writing here you are de facto a journalist yourself. Try to broaden your audience. Spencer gives us details daily that we can use to make a propaganda campaign that even CAIR and the ACLU will not dare to oppose. Write your own journalistic copy for your own community.

As a journalist, all your research is available through this site, with links to further sites. The only thing stopping you from competing against the French media is your lack of competition. If you have one page of copy you can go to a photocopy shop and print as much as you please. From there you can pass out evey sheet till you run out and need more. You can have as wide a readership and as many groupies as you can stand. You are the media. You are also the government. It is up to you to make the changes you demand from others. If you'd like my take on how to do so, please google "sonofwalker leaflets" and you will get more details than you're likely to want to read on how to put out a leaflet for your neighbors. You are the leader here. I'm waiting to follow you.

I'm about my daily business concerned vaguely about the state of Islamic doings in my community, and I don't like this, but I feel alone in my neighborhood. I don't want my friends and neighbors to think I'm a racist or a kook. But I'm worried, and I don't know anyone here who feels the same way I do. I say almost nothing because I feel I'm isolated here. If I could meet someone in my community who could reassure me and give me some concrete information, something smart and informed I'd be happy to express myself. But I never meet you. You never hand me a page on the street that tells me that I'm not alone here. I don't have anyone to discuss this with. So I sit here and worry.

You could be out and doing, and you could be starting a revolution that will be the subject of historians and social sciences [sic] for generations. But you have to talk to me and our neighbors first. Write something, print it up, pass it out. I am hungry for information and confirmation that I'm right that Islam is fascism. I would devour that kind of copy, if only.

You're a journalist. No one's threatening to kill you. Not yet. So work while you can under favorable conditions, and let history decide.

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 24, 2004 2:09 PM

To Sonofwalker:

I have been a reader on this site for almost one year. It took me that long to get the courage to post in this forum. Believe me, although the posters on this site may be few, I would bet there are thousands like me out there who read this daily and take it all in, and pass the information along to those we love and care for. You are not alone.

Even my family is now beginning to study what I have studied since 9/11 and they are really astounded. I sat through many conversations trying to convince them that I'm not a "racist", after all muslims are not a race, they are a 'religion'. Now, people are waking up, and realizing and studying what this threat called islam is really all about.

Keep up the good fight. If you could figure out a way not to be the one standing out there handing out flyers (your life would surely be in danger....think of Theo), perhaps a way to do a mass mailing of sorts.... just an informational piece detailing q'ranic verses and the Hadiths, most educated folks would probably take the time to research and I'm sure that just like me, they'd be astonished.

I stand with all of you. And I thank you for welcoming me to this forum even though I'll never be able to compete with many of the journalists, I very much enjoy and look forward to the information that's posted and shared each day.

Linda

Oh.. P.S. to the folks that dissed Catherine about her 20 page long posts (yes, I admit I scroll) but all I can think of, is a new reader to this site, reading directly from the q'ran and thinking 'oh my gosh... what the heck is this" so even though it might take a little scrolling for those who are regulars, I think Catherine is doing a very good service to new readers and perhaps to muslims themselves who probably have no clue of what their q'ran really says.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Kwanzaa to all. May you all be safe, happy, sound, and enjoy the love of your families. And, most of all let's pray for our guys and gals out there in the hellhole called Iraq.

Posted by: Just_Linda at December 24, 2004 2:42 PM

It's an encouraging step forward for the BBC to acknowledge that there is such a thing as Islamic holy war.

Posted by: Elephant at December 24, 2004 2:57 PM

Sonofwalker:

Great post. I've been using my univ notice board to putup almost-non-PC messages about islamism in general. Been doing it surreptiously around 3-4.30 in the morning when the great halls are empty. Then I hang around when I can later in the day and observe people reading.

For the most part, the notices have remained unharmed. A few have been torn down within hours though.

Linda's right that physically distributing flyers can be dangerous. But if we wait for longer, it'll be even more dangerous still.

I do like the idea though of actually putting into notice-board message form flyers containing koranic verses - verbatim.

Posted by: voletti at December 24, 2004 3:00 PM

I can only hope Mr. Malbrunot has not found himself unemployed since making those statements. After all, they don't exactly fit the dhimmi/defeatist/leftist view of the world.

Posted by: Gary at December 24, 2004 3:53 PM

"Linda's right that physically distributing flyers can be dangerous."

A safer alternative is to get your text printed up on 'sticky back' stickers. You can discreetly put these up in places where thousands of people will see them...on walls, buses, subway trains, escalators, street furniture etc.

I've been told you can buy an attachment for home computers that lets you print your own stickers. I'll post details when I know more.

Posted by: Benelux at December 24, 2004 4:45 PM

Linda in order to contribute to the discussion about Islam it is best to study the source materials rather than rely on quotes here.

Three translations of the Koran can be found at:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

There is a searchable version of the M.H. Shakir translation at:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

A curious observer only has to read the first 9 Surahs or do searches on certain words such as "kill", "love", "peace", "fight", or "believer" to understand the connection between the current world terrorism and the theology of Islam. However a full survey of the Koran is also a necessity to particpate in useful dialogue.

Furthemore, ayats such as 4:80 help to explain the importance of ahadith, which are searchable at:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html
Familiarity with ahadith that describe armed jihad such as those located at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html
are also useful for intellectually honest dialogue.

Posted by: Dilophos at December 24, 2004 5:46 PM

December 24, 2004
Arafat into bowling? Over 1 million dollars invested in 2 bowling alleys in the USA one in NYC and the other in Fla??

Dozens dead in the USA in car accidents??

Dozens of women and children killed on a bus in Honduras the Terrorist said they were against the death plenty?? Yea makes since that why I think it was mussis???

I sit here with my talking Rumsfeld Doll and coffee mug and just get filled with pride to be an American!!!

Bank robbed in Australia seams they took the ATM Machine use Brut force?? NO do you think??

Divers under siege in Calf. From Santa Winds?? Funny the Under Siege but that is how the ticker read??

Nepal mussi say they will not let people in the city so there are huge gas lines??

Man in N.J. sues School because they won’t let the Children Christmas songs!! About time!!

Went shopping and the stores were packed an people full of cheer!!!

Qatar give back 2 Russian Intel Guys??
Russia Fires Missile a Mobile Missile??

Someone defaces a rock in W.V. That Jefferson Loved Marks the Shenandoah Valley and the Potomac?? Sounds like a marker for someone to see from far away?? The Mules use paint. To paint rocks to show where to stand or the trail??

http://www.noradsanta.org/english/
http://www.noradsanta.org/english/christmasmusic/index.html
I love Ringo’s song!!
http://www.noradsanta.org/english/radar/earliertonight/2200.html

Hope everyone is safe and has a goose I will be cooking one this year!!

Merry Christmas Everyone!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Defeat ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat and give the World Courage to Stand and Fight them Amen

Posted by: Catherine at December 24, 2004 5:58 PM

Reference Linda's post.

Linda's description is similar to my situation. It was only out of minor curiosity about the religion of Islam that I came to realize its danger. Let there be no mistake, I have very little knowledge about the history, characters, tactics and practices of Islam. When I read Robert, Hugh and other's writings I question whether I'll ever be able speak with even "moderate" authority on the subject. However, I do know the difference between good and evil. In my opinion, at its core, Islam is evil.

For the record, I had no preconceived ideas about Islam--I just thought it was another religion. It took very little research before it revealed itself as less than peaceful (understatement).

With that said, I too would like to help Robert and Hugh but fear my lack of knowledge might be hurtful rather than helpful. I can speak generally to the subject and direct those interested to information about the "hidden" Islam but other than that I'm not sure how to help.

Being tagged with emotional epithets (racist, intolerant, bigot, etc.) are sure to come with any attempt at exposing Islam. Unless one is well versed, it will be difficult at best to get past the emotional labels. Not I that am afraid of the labels, I can defend my position pretty well among friends and family. However, I'm not confident of my ability to do that on a larger scale or publicly.

In my attempt to do something, I have given a number of Robert's books to friends and family. I'm also considering following Susanp's example by sending his books (and a short note) to the pastors of churches in my town--other than that, I'm not sure what to do to help.

P.S. - I like Catherine's posts too--for me, they're helpful.

Merry Christmas

Posted by: Greg at December 24, 2004 6:38 PM

Sonofwalker
One place I talk to people are my clubs!!and People around here get it we don't have the problem of some places??

A place to hand out your flyers are go to a church and as people walk out had them a flyer you should be safe there and the More Christians and Jews Know the Harm that is coming their way they will talk to others!!

Today a Man is sueing for his childrens school because they have taken Christmas out of the Songs and he is right to show how intorlante it is becoming and Like you People are Frightened or just hiding until others take that Stand!!

Some help is to put headings and the Web page to many of the storys here and people will surf!!

They may not live and breath it but they will do what is right!!

Storys like they won't go to church on Christmas in Indonesa because they are killing Chirstians!!

Wish I had the Typing and The Spelling and Writting Skills as others here but then again we are not all prefect and I guess I lost that when I got the Beauty??LOL

The Best Wake up is the Verses of the Book they believe and put the Facts of what is happening around the world!!

No Sonofwalker you are not alone and we are fighting soon people will see that the mussis have declared war on us just as they did centureys ago we signed the the tready of Tripoli yes but that has been broken by them and because we signed it does not mean we have to let them CUT OFF OUR HEADS??

No Son you go to a Church and pass out your flyers and you will see!!

I talk to people every where I go and Am suprised how many are aware and waiting for the storm??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom, and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Defeat ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds to their Threat and give the World Courage to Stand and Fight Amen

Posted by: Catherine at December 24, 2004 6:51 PM

These posts lift my feelings and give me renewed energy to fight the foe.
My point on another web, is that, the more knowledge people have about islam, the more people decide that it is abhorrent.
I am encouraged by the fact that some very 'reasonable' friends who had thought me a 'bigot' or 'racist', now accept that we are in a world wide conflict with islam. While i would like to take the credit, islamists, as in activist moslems, keep proving me right and deserve some credit for spreading the word.

A merry Christmas, happy solstice, and a wonderful and safe holiday for all.

Keep up the good work.
There is no alternative but to win.

Posted by: dby at December 24, 2004 7:49 PM

Dear Son of Walker

You're right. One day we will be vindicated, and we will be written and read about.

We are the pioneers, and one day there will be studies at universities which will talk about Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch.

That should give us heart.

Posted by: Voltaire at December 24, 2004 8:35 PM

" I think this is the real challenge for the next 10 years, the clash of cultures that these people are advocating, are seeking."... "

Well Duh, do the words "War on Terror" have meaning for you now?

"we were immersed in Planet Bin Ladin"

Yeah, sort of like a turd in "Planet Toiletbowl"!

Posted by: D' Artist at December 24, 2004 8:50 PM

It took me a long time to post my first message here, back in June or so, and that first time my heart was pounding as I hit the send button. I was concerned that my spelling and typing were too awful for the public, and that my writing would be thought of as stiled and obscure. So I read this site for months before I finally had to write something; and the day I did I was scared to death. Now I can't seen to give it a rest. It's good for me to come here to think out my ideas and get feed-back from others. Some might disagree with me at times, but I learn from it. I take down their names, and eventually I will find them. Grrr.

I'm gladdened that so many people have come today to say hello and to wish us well and to give support. It is very hard sometimes to carry on in a struggle when it seems one is alone or only with a small crowd. But I"ve felt from the beginning that if it took me a few months to write, there must be thousands of others in exactly the same position. Today some of you came forward to say hello. I know there are many others out there who read these posts, and though you're names aren't here, I wish all of you the best.

We are doing good in this world. Each of us, whether we write here or not, whether we act aggressively against the evil of Islam in public or not, each of us has a place, and your contribution, regardless of its publicity,is important, whether you're name appears on the rolls or no.

To those of you I know by name, to Catherine and our other friends here, and to those of you I don't know well yet, and to those of you who work in the background and whom I might never know, to all of you, I'm happy to say that I am part of the great work you are doing, and I'm proud to be part of this great movement for freedom you're creating.

Part of what we do is live our lives as free men and women. Part of that is taking time to be with our friends and families and members of our communities. That, sometimes, is our greatest weapon against the tyranny of Islam. I hope that during this season we can stick it to Islam by being happy with people and ourselves. That's gotta hurt Islam more than almost anything else we can do. I wish you lots of good feelings.

Regards,

Posted by: sonofwalker at December 25, 2004 2:01 AM

a great article from Frontpage Magazine:

Why A Jew Supports Christian America
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 24, 2004

In America today, Christians have many enemies and few friends. I would like to be counted among the latter.

It might appear odd that, as a Jew, I would support Christians and the concept of Christian America. Once upon a time, it would have seemed equally strange for a Christian to call himself a Zionist.

But the world is forever and relentlessly changing. As a member of one of the most persecuted minorities in history, I can relate to what Christians are experiencing in the first decade of the 21st century.

In America today, devout Christians are rapidly assuming the roles traditionally assigned to Jews during the long centuries of exile: scapegoats, objects of ridicule, the focal point of conspiracy theories, and the despised "other."

Do I exaggerate? Consider the following examples (culled from the daily news) of what can only be called an anti-Christian onslaught:

* According to a just-released survey by the Parents Television Council, portrayals of religion (mostly Christianity) on prime time television are overwhelmingly negative. On NBC, there are 9.5 negative representations of faith for every positive depiction. Christians as buffoons or villains has become a staple of comedies and dramas.
* Mel Gibson?s The Passion was the most vilified film of 2004 ? as well as one of the most popular. But while the cultural elite found this reverent treatment of Jesus ominous, movies that mock Christianity (such as Saved) or those that treat Christian clerics as sinister figures (like King Arthur) hardly raise an eyebrow.
* Ron Howard will direct and Tom Hanks star in the screen adaptation of The Da Vinci Code , in which Jesus and Mary Magdalene have a child and a Catholic order commits murder to cover up the truth. This is a far cry from The Greatest Story Ever Told and The Song of Bernadette ? but typical of Hollywood?s treatment of Christianity today.
* Whenever Christians raise their heads, someone starts taking pot shots. For instance, the Air Force Academy is cracking down on what it considers aggressive proselytizing. Among other allegedly offensive behavior, some Christian cadets had the audacity to suggest that their squadron see The Passion of the Christ as a group. If that weren?t enough, cadets are including Bible quotes at the bottom of their e-mails. Mandatory sensitivity training is underway. What about a little sensitivity for future officers of a religious bent and an acknowledgement of the fact that, under fire, our military personnel don?t find inspiration from the latest misinterpretation of the First Amendment?
* A double standard is evolving where public acknowledgement of other faiths is allowed, but not Christianity. Bar Harbor Islands, Florida, decorates its lampposts with Stars of David to commemorate Hanukkah and permits a local synagogue to set up a 14-foot menorah in a prominent public place, but won?t allow public display of a Nativity scene. For several years, New York?s public schools have put up menorahs and Moslem crescents during the holiday season, but not mangers ? even though 85 percent of the American people are self-identified Christians.
* For the third straight year, Planned Parenthood (the nation?s largest abortion provider) is mocking a sacred season for Christians by selling greeting cards with the message, "Choice on Earth" ? suggesting perhaps that, for Mary and Joseph, Jesus was an option?
* More and more colleges and universities are refusing to recognize Christian groups for supposedly violating the school?s non-discrimination policy, by declining to admit non-Christians and homosexuals. The choice thus presented to Christian students is: renounce the principals of your faith, or forego university support.
* In Philadelphia, four Christians, members of a group called Repent America, are being prosecuted for quietly praying and reading Bible verses at a gay celebration, funded by the city. (This notwithstanding that the Christians obeyed police orders and remained at all time peaceful, even while being accosted by militant homosexuals.) The four ? ages 17 to 72 ? are charged with a variety of misdemeanors and felonies (including criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot). If convicted, they could face 47 years in prison, essentially for practicing their religion. The American Civil Liberties Union ? so concerned with the free-speech rights of pornographers and the procedural rights of terrorists ? has yet to be heard from here.
* The attitude of the news media (which regularly refers to evangelicals as "fundamentalists" ? with the implication of fanaticism and a tendency toward violence) can best be summed up by a 1994 Washington Post story which described conservative Christians as ?poor, uneducated and easy to command." Since the election, some liberal commentators have taken to referring to the red states as "Jesus-land."
* The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are on a search-and-destroy mission to purge Christian symbols from public places. Targets include Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses, crosses in public parks, the cross in the Los Angeles County seal and a quote by Theodore Roosevelt ("The true Christian is the true citizen") on a wall in the Riverside, Calif.ornia, courthouse ? not to mention the 9th Circuit Appeals Court?s attempt to take "one nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

How can anyone with a basic sense of fairness not be outraged by this?

In the face of a political pogrom, concerned Jews must rally to the defense of our Christian neighbors.

My support for Christian America is in part based on gratitude. I am exceedingly grateful for Christian support for Israel, especially from the evangelical community.

A generation ago, the term Christian Zionist was an oxymoron. Today, American Christians are a mainstay of public support for Israel. Without their help, U.S. Middle East policy would be far less sympathetic to the Jewish state ? a fact recognized by every Israeli prime minister for the past 20 years, all of whom have assiduously courted the Christian Right.

I?m also grateful to Christians for America. I love this country and can?t even begin to imagine what my life would be like if I wasn?t an American.

It?s a truth seldom acknowledged: Christians created America.

Those settlers who most influenced the course of our nation (including the Pilgrims and Puritans) were committed Christians, who ? significantly ? drew their inspiration from the Hebrew Bible.

Overwhelmingly, the Founding Fathers were men of faith. Alexis de Tocqueville, that prescient observer of our infant Republic, said the genius of America is found not in her commerce, her schools, or her democratic institutions, but in her churches, with "pulpits aflame with righteousness."

Throughout the course of our national existence, America has been led by individuals guided by Christian principles ? from George Washington to George W. Bush.

From Bunker Hill to Gettysburg, and Iwo Jima to Iraq, the men who?ve taken up arms to defend America overwhelmingly have been Christians. Count the number of crosses at the U.S. cemetery at Normandy or contemplate the pictures of young Marines praying in the field in Mosul.

America took in my immigrant grandparents, allowed them to practice their ancient faith in peace, permitted their children and grandchildren to achieve a degree of material comfort found nowhere else on earth, and to enjoy citizenship rights that Jews have rarely known during the 2,000 years of Diaspora ? for all of which I am indebted to Christians.

Moreover, I believe America?s survival rests with Christians. This nation was founded on biblical morality and grew to greatness with that code. Without it, America cannot long endure.

Christians are manning the barricades in the battle to preserve our nation?s spiritual heritage, represented by the expression "The Judeo-Christian ethic."

If America isn?t one nation under God, what will it be? One nation under a culture that?s produces 1.4 million violent crimes (murders, rapes and assaults), 1.3 million abortions, and one million new cases of venereal disease each year?

Will we have liberty and equality for all (again, distinctly biblical concepts), or will we be one nation under a welfare state whose principal products are a crushing tax burden, fatherless families, and multi-generational dependency?

Will America be a nation of strong families ? where children are nurtured and parents respected ? or the me-as-the-sum-of-all-things society into which we are rapidly devolving? The sacrifices required to keep a nation together are based on faith, not calculations of personal gain.

This is what Christianity gave ? and continues to give ? America.

Finally, I believe the safety of American Jews lies with Christian America.

In secular Europe, Jews are beaten in the streets. Our college campuses ? dogmatically liberal ? have turned into snake pits of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The news media, which are so hostile to Christianity, are equally antagonistic toward Israel. (Christians aren?t the only ones in desperate need of allies.)

There is a dark force spreading across the globe, rivaling the march of fascism in the '30s and '40s, and of communism is the postwar era. Call it Islamic fundamentalism, militant Islam, Jihadism, or what you will, it is animated by a burning hatred of Christians and Jews. The same toxic creed that murders Jews in Israel and attacks Jews in Europe, kills Christians in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, and Asia ? and members of both faiths (and others, including their own) in America.

As never before in our two millennia of joint history, Jews and Christians need each other. The antithesis of the Judeo-Christian ethic isn?t a world-weary disbelief, but modern paganism ? where victims are sacrificed to new gods, deities spawned by ideology but every bit as bloody as the gods old ? or a world colored Islamic green.

For all of the above ? and because I am bound by honor and conscience to do so ? as a Jew, I stand with Christian America.

Posted by: susan_b at December 25, 2004 2:49 AM

a great article from Frontpage Magazine:

Why A Jew Supports Christian America
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 24, 2004

In America today, Christians have many enemies and few friends. I would like to be counted among the latter.

It might appear odd that, as a Jew, I would support Christians and the concept of Christian America. Once upon a time, it would have seemed equally strange for a Christian to call himself a Zionist.

But the world is forever and relentlessly changing. As a member of one of the most persecuted minorities in history, I can relate to what Christians are experiencing in the first decade of the 21st century.

In America today, devout Christians are rapidly assuming the roles traditionally assigned to Jews during the long centuries of exile: scapegoats, objects of ridicule, the focal point of conspiracy theories, and the despised "other."

Do I exaggerate? Consider the following examples (culled from the daily news) of what can only be called an anti-Christian onslaught:

* According to a just-released survey by the Parents Television Council, portrayals of religion (mostly Christianity) on prime time television are overwhelmingly negative. On NBC, there are 9.5 negative representations of faith for every positive depiction. Christians as buffoons or villains has become a staple of comedies and dramas.
* Mel Gibson?s The Passion was the most vilified film of 2004 ? as well as one of the most popular. But while the cultural elite found this reverent treatment of Jesus ominous, movies that mock Christianity (such as Saved) or those that treat Christian clerics as sinister figures (like King Arthur) hardly raise an eyebrow.
* Ron Howard will direct and Tom Hanks star in the screen adaptation of The Da Vinci Code , in which Jesus and Mary Magdalene have a child and a Catholic order commits murder to cover up the truth. This is a far cry from The Greatest Story Ever Told and The Song of Bernadette ? but typical of Hollywood?s treatment of Christianity today.
* Whenever Christians raise their heads, someone starts taking pot shots. For instance, the Air Force Academy is cracking down on what it considers aggressive proselytizing. Among other allegedly offensive behavior, some Christian cadets had the audacity to suggest that their squadron see The Passion of the Christ as a group. If that weren?t enough, cadets are including Bible quotes at the bottom of their e-mails. Mandatory sensitivity training is underway. What about a little sensitivity for future officers of a religious bent and an acknowledgement of the fact that, under fire, our military personnel don?t find inspiration from the latest misinterpretation of the First Amendment?
* A double standard is evolving where public acknowledgement of other faiths is allowed, but not Christianity. Bar Harbor Islands, Florida, decorates its lampposts with Stars of David to commemorate Hanukkah and permits a local synagogue to set up a 14-foot menorah in a prominent public place, but won?t allow public display of a Nativity scene. For several years, New York?s public schools have put up menorahs and Moslem crescents during the holiday season, but not mangers ? even though 85 percent of the American people are self-identified Christians.
* For the third straight year, Planned Parenthood (the nation?s largest abortion provider) is mocking a sacred season for Christians by selling greeting cards with the message, "Choice on Earth" ? suggesting perhaps that, for Mary and Joseph, Jesus was an option?
* More and more colleges and universities are refusing to recognize Christian groups for supposedly violating the school?s non-discrimination policy, by declining to admit non-Christians and homosexuals. The choice thus presented to Christian students is: renounce the principals of your faith, or forego university support.
* In Philadelphia, four Christians, members of a group called Repent America, are being prosecuted for quietly praying and reading Bible verses at a gay celebration, funded by the city. (This notwithstanding that the Christians obeyed police orders and remained at all time peaceful, even while being accosted by militant homosexuals.) The four ? ages 17 to 72 ? are charged with a variety of misdemeanors and felonies (including criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot). If convicted, they could face 47 years in prison, essentially for practicing their religion. The American Civil Liberties Union ? so concerned with the free-speech rights of pornographers and the procedural rights of terrorists ? has yet to be heard from here.
* The attitude of the news media (which regularly refers to evangelicals as "fundamentalists" ? with the implication of fanaticism and a tendency toward violence) can best be summed up by a 1994 Washington Post story which described conservative Christians as ?poor, uneducated and easy to command." Since the election, some liberal commentators have taken to referring to the red states as "Jesus-land."
* The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are on a search-and-destroy mission to purge Christian symbols from public places. Targets include Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses, crosses in public parks, the cross in the Los Angeles County seal and a quote by Theodore Roosevelt ("The true Christian is the true citizen") on a wall in the Riverside, Calif.ornia, courthouse ? not to mention the 9th Circuit Appeals Court?s attempt to take "one nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

How can anyone with a basic sense of fairness not be outraged by this?

In the face of a political pogrom, concerned Jews must rally to the defense of our Christian neighbors.

My support for Christian America is in part based on gratitude. I am exceedingly grateful for Christian support for Israel, especially from the evangelical community.

A generation ago, the term Christian Zionist was an oxymoron. Today, American Christians are a mainstay of public support for Israel. Without their help, U.S. Middle East policy would be far less sympathetic to the Jewish state ? a fact recognized by every Israeli prime minister for the past 20 years, all of whom have assiduously courted the Christian Right.

I?m also grateful to Christians for America. I love this country and can?t even begin to imagine what my life would be like if I wasn?t an American.

It?s a truth seldom acknowledged: Christians created America.

Those settlers who most influenced the course of our nation (including the Pilgrims and Puritans) were committed Christians, who ? significantly ? drew their inspiration from the Hebrew Bible.

Overwhelmingly, the Founding Fathers were men of faith. Alexis de Tocqueville, that prescient observer of our infant Republic, said the genius of America is found not in her commerce, her schools, or her democratic institutions, but in her churches, with "pulpits aflame with righteousness."

Throughout the course of our national existence, America has been led by individuals guided by Christian principles ? from George Washington to George W. Bush.

From Bunker Hill to Gettysburg, and Iwo Jima to Iraq, the men who?ve taken up arms to defend America overwhelmingly have been Christians. Count the number of crosses at the U.S. cemetery at Normandy or contemplate the pictures of young Marines praying in the field in Mosul.

America took in my immigrant grandparents, allowed them to practice their ancient faith in peace, permitted their children and grandchildren to achieve a degree of material comfort found nowhere else on earth, and to enjoy citizenship rights that Jews have rarely known during the 2,000 years of Diaspora ? for all of which I am indebted to Christians.

Moreover, I believe America?s survival rests with Christians. This nation was founded on biblical morality and grew to greatness with that code. Without it, America cannot long endure.

Christians are manning the barricades in the battle to preserve our nation?s spiritual heritage, represented by the expression "The Judeo-Christian ethic."

If America isn?t one nation under God, what will it be? One nation under a culture that?s produces 1.4 million violent crimes (murders, rapes and assaults), 1.3 million abortions, and one million new cases of venereal disease each year?

Will we have liberty and equality for all (again, distinctly biblical concepts), or will we be one nation under a welfare state whose principal products are a crushing tax burden, fatherless families, and multi-generational dependency?

Will America be a nation of strong families ? where children are nurtured and parents respected ? or the me-as-the-sum-of-all-things society into which we are rapidly devolving? The sacrifices required to keep a nation together are based on faith, not calculations of personal gain.

This is what Christianity gave ? and continues to give ? America.

Finally, I believe the safety of American Jews lies with Christian America.

In secular Europe, Jews are beaten in the streets. Our college campuses ? dogmatically liberal ? have turned into snake pits of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The news media, which are so hostile to Christianity, are equally antagonistic toward Israel. (Christians aren?t the only ones in desperate need of allies.)

There is a dark force spreading across the globe, rivaling the march of fascism in the '30s and '40s, and of communism is the postwar era. Call it Islamic fundamentalism, militant Islam, Jihadism, or what you will, it is animated by a burning hatred of Christians and Jews. The same toxic creed that murders Jews in Israel and attacks Jews in Europe, kills Christians in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, and Asia ? and members of both faiths (and others, including their own) in America.

As never before in our two millennia of joint history, Jews and Christians need each other. The antithesis of the Judeo-Christian ethic isn?t a world-weary disbelief, but modern paganism ? where victims are sacrificed to new gods, deities spawned by ideology but every bit as bloody as the gods old ? or a world colored Islamic green.

For all of the above ? and because I am bound by honor and conscience to do so ? as a Jew, I stand with Christian America.

Posted by: susan_b at December 25, 2004 2:49 AM

a great article from Frontpage Magazine:

Why A Jew Supports Christian America
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 24, 2004

In America today, Christians have many enemies and few friends. I would like to be counted among the latter.

It might appear odd that, as a Jew, I would support Christians and the concept of Christian America. Once upon a time, it would have seemed equally strange for a Christian to call himself a Zionist.

But the world is forever and relentlessly changing. As a member of one of the most persecuted minorities in history, I can relate to what Christians are experiencing in the first decade of the 21st century.

In America today, devout Christians are rapidly assuming the roles traditionally assigned to Jews during the long centuries of exile: scapegoats, objects of ridicule, the focal point of conspiracy theories, and the despised "other."

Do I exaggerate? Consider the following examples (culled from the daily news) of what can only be called an anti-Christian onslaught:

* According to a just-released survey by the Parents Television Council, portrayals of religion (mostly Christianity) on prime time television are overwhelmingly negative. On NBC, there are 9.5 negative representations of faith for every positive depiction. Christians as buffoons or villains has become a staple of comedies and dramas.
* Mel Gibson?s The Passion was the most vilified film of 2004 ? as well as one of the most popular. But while the cultural elite found this reverent treatment of Jesus ominous, movies that mock Christianity (such as Saved) or those that treat Christian clerics as sinister figures (like King Arthur) hardly raise an eyebrow.
* Ron Howard will direct and Tom Hanks star in the screen adaptation of The Da Vinci Code , in which Jesus and Mary Magdalene have a child and a Catholic order commits murder to cover up the truth. This is a far cry from The Greatest Story Ever Told and The Song of Bernadette ? but typical of Hollywood?s treatment of Christianity today.
* Whenever Christians raise their heads, someone starts taking pot shots. For instance, the Air Force Academy is cracking down on what it considers aggressive proselytizing. Among other allegedly offensive behavior, some Christian cadets had the audacity to suggest that their squadron see The Passion of the Christ as a group. If that weren?t enough, cadets are including Bible quotes at the bottom of their e-mails. Mandatory sensitivity training is underway. What about a little sensitivity for future officers of a religious bent and an acknowledgement of the fact that, under fire, our military personnel don?t find inspiration from the latest misinterpretation of the First Amendment?
* A double standard is evolving where public acknowledgement of other faiths is allowed, but not Christianity. Bar Harbor Islands, Florida, decorates its lampposts with Stars of David to commemorate Hanukkah and permits a local synagogue to set up a 14-foot menorah in a prominent public place, but won?t allow public display of a Nativity scene. For several years, New York?s public schools have put up menorahs and Moslem crescents during the holiday season, but not mangers ? even though 85 percent of the American people are self-identified Christians.
* For the third straight year, Planned Parenthood (the nation?s largest abortion provider) is mocking a sacred season for Christians by selling greeting cards with the message, "Choice on Earth" ? suggesting perhaps that, for Mary and Joseph, Jesus was an option?
* More and more colleges and universities are refusing to recognize Christian groups for supposedly violating the school?s non-discrimination policy, by declining to admit non-Christians and homosexuals. The choice thus presented to Christian students is: renounce the principals of your faith, or forego university support.
* In Philadelphia, four Christians, members of a group called Repent America, are being prosecuted for quietly praying and reading Bible verses at a gay celebration, funded by the city. (This notwithstanding that the Christians obeyed police orders and remained at all time peaceful, even while being accosted by militant homosexuals.) The four ? ages 17 to 72 ? are charged with a variety of misdemeanors and felonies (including criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot). If convicted, they could face 47 years in prison, essentially for practicing their religion. The American Civil Liberties Union ? so concerned with the free-speech rights of pornographers and the procedural rights of terrorists ? has yet to be heard from here.
* The attitude of the news media (which regularly refers to evangelicals as "fundamentalists" ? with the implication of fanaticism and a tendency toward violence) can best be summed up by a 1994 Washington Post story which described conservative Christians as ?poor, uneducated and easy to command." Since the election, some liberal commentators have taken to referring to the red states as "Jesus-land."
* The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are on a search-and-destroy mission to purge Christian symbols from public places. Targets include Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses, crosses in public parks, the cross in the Los Angeles County seal and a quote by Theodore Roosevelt ("The true Christian is the true citizen") on a wall in the Riverside, Calif.ornia, courthouse ? not to mention the 9th Circuit Appeals Court?s attempt to take "one nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

How can anyone with a basic sense of fairness not be outraged by this?

In the face of a political pogrom, concerned Jews must rally to the defense of our Christian neighbors.

My support for Christian America is in part based on gratitude. I am exceedingly grateful for Christian support for Israel, especially from the evangelical community.

A generation ago, the term Christian Zionist was an oxymoron. Today, American Christians are a mainstay of public support for Israel. Without their help, U.S. Middle East policy would be far less sympathetic to the Jewish state ? a fact recognized by every Israeli prime minister for the past 20 years, all of whom have assiduously courted the Christian Right.

I?m also grateful to Christians for America. I love this country and can?t even begin to imagine what my life would be like if I wasn?t an American.

It?s a truth seldom acknowledged: Christians created America.

Those settlers who most influenced the course of our nation (including the Pilgrims and Puritans) were committed Christians, who ? significantly ? drew their inspiration from the Hebrew Bible.

Overwhelmingly, the Founding Fathers were men of faith. Alexis de Tocqueville, that prescient observer of our infant Republic, said the genius of America is found not in her commerce, her schools, or her democratic institutions, but in her churches, with "pulpits aflame with righteousness."

Throughout the course of our national existence, America has been led by individuals guided by Christian principles ? from George Washington to George W. Bush.

From Bunker Hill to Gettysburg, and Iwo Jima to Iraq, the men who?ve taken up arms to defend America overwhelmingly have been Christians. Count the number of crosses at the U.S. cemetery at Normandy or contemplate the pictures of young Marines praying in the field in Mosul.

America took in my immigrant grandparents, allowed them to practice their ancient faith in peace, permitted their children and grandchildren to achieve a degree of material comfort found nowhere else on earth, and to enjoy citizenship rights that Jews have rarely known during the 2,000 years of Diaspora ? for all of which I am indebted to Christians.

Moreover, I believe America?s survival rests with Christians. This nation was founded on biblical morality and grew to greatness with that code. Without it, America cannot long endure.

Christians are manning the barricades in the battle to preserve our nation?s spiritual heritage, represented by the expression "The Judeo-Christian ethic."

If America isn?t one nation under God, what will it be? One nation under a culture that?s produces 1.4 million violent crimes (murders, rapes and assaults), 1.3 million abortions, and one million new cases of venereal disease each year?

Will we have liberty and equality for all (again, distinctly biblical concepts), or will we be one nation under a welfare state whose principal products are a crushing tax burden, fatherless families, and multi-generational dependency?

Will America be a nation of strong families ? where children are nurtured and parents respected ? or the me-as-the-sum-of-all-things society into which we are rapidly devolving? The sacrifices required to keep a nation together are based on faith, not calculations of personal gain.

This is what Christianity gave ? and continues to give ? America.

Finally, I believe the safety of American Jews lies with Christian America.

In secular Europe, Jews are beaten in the streets. Our college campuses ? dogmatically liberal ? have turned into snake pits of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The news media, which are so hostile to Christianity, are equally antagonistic toward Israel. (Christians aren?t the only ones in desperate need of allies.)

There is a dark force spreading across the globe, rivaling the march of fascism in the '30s and '40s, and of communism is the postwar era. Call it Islamic fundamentalism, militant Islam, Jihadism, or what you will, it is animated by a burning hatred of Christians and Jews. The same toxic creed that murders Jews in Israel and attacks Jews in Europe, kills Christians in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, and Asia ? and members of both faiths (and others, including their own) in America.

As never before in our two millennia of joint history, Jews and Christians need each other. The antithesis of the Judeo-Christian ethic isn?t a world-weary disbelief, but modern paganism ? where victims are sacrificed to new gods, deities spawned by ideology but every bit as bloody as the gods old ? or a world colored Islamic green.

For all of the above ? and because I am bound by honor and conscience to do so ? as a Jew, I stand with Christian America.

Posted by: susan_b at December 25, 2004 2:50 AM

Sorry for the triple posts, for some reason, the site is acting up again.

Posted by: susan_b at December 25, 2004 2:51 AM

I was reading through some of the posts tonight and am very happy to see new posters, welcome Linda and Greg, also to the others posting for the first time.

There is a very real growing in this country from the actions of CAIR doing everything they can to stop any public discourse on Islam.

To all of you, I give you this Christmas gift:
--------------------------------------------------

Rehnquist had voted against the press every time he had heard such a case before the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, in finding for Flynt he wrote, "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.... The freedom to speak one's mind,'" he continued, quoting from another Supreme Court decision called Bose v. Consumers Union , "is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.'"

l example of what ought to be protected by the First Amendment. Tolerance is often nothing but indifference. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the speech is bland, polite, and civilized. Tolerance is only meaningful when the speech is jarring to mainstream sensibilities.... constantly push us to the outer limits of our tolerance. If we are really to be a pluralistic and open culture ... we must be willing to embrace all speech, even speech at the extremes, for it is only by such toleration that we give meaning to the ideal of an open society.

"History reveals that, as often as not, the great First Amendment battles have been fought by our cultural rejects and misfits, by our communist-agitators, our civil rights activists, our Ku Klux Klanners, our Jehovah's Witnesses, our Larry Flynts."

The great resiliency of the American Constitution is its capacity for growth, and that capacity is nourished by our abiding faith in tolerance, even for the intolerant. We have wagered our salvation not on our collective capacity to elevate public discourse by controlling it but on our collective capacity to discover truth through the free, unregulated trade of ideas.
-------------------------------------------------

And while Sureme Court rulings have been over turned, this one has not and would take years to do so. The fight would become so time and cost consuming for Cair, they would have no choice but to go away.

Why do I say this you ask?

Because this was the ruling in the Falwell vs Flynt case, and the Association for Reporters, all the major media outlets, plus, even most of the Hollywood high rollers, supported the brief filed on behalf of Larry Flynt, supported it with money and will do in the future to retain the ruling.

The problem is, most people don't even know of this case. But we do!

So, my gift to you is this, KNOWLEDGE. It is the most powerful thing you can give.

Maybe a few e-mails to TAPPS would help them, with the above ruling attached for their lawyers, to reporters that come under attack, to organizations that question Islam and have had suits filed against them, send it over to Anti-Cair.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Posted by: susan_b at December 25, 2004 3:41 AM

I do apologize for the long post, but, please add it to your Favorites, so you can refer back to it as needed.

Free Speech

News | Overview of Free Speech Protection | First Amendment Law and Technology | International Developments | Resources
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I, The Bill of Rights
News

Colorado Upholds Rights of Anonymity, Privacy in Bookseller Records. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that customer purchase records enjoy First Amendment protection and may only be disclosed to the police if there is a "compelling need" that outweighs the interests of the customers. The case arose after Tattered Cover, a Denver-based bookstore, challenged a court order for book purchase records. Tattered Cover argued that requiring booksellers to turn over this information would chill speech by making customers afraid to purchase controversial titles. See EPIC's Page on Free Speech and Anonymity. (Apr. 8)

Anonymity Case Goes to Supreme Court. On Tuesday, February 26, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Watchtower Bible v. Stratton, Ohio. The case concerns an ordinance requiring that door-to-door petitioners obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand. In November 2001, EPIC, the ACLU, and 14 legal scholars filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF), arguing that the ordinance implicates privacy, as well as the First Amendment rights of anonymity, expression, and freedom of association. See EPIC's Watchtower Page for more information. (Feb. 25)

Supreme Court Brief Filed in Defense of Anonymity. EPIC, the ACLU, and 14 legal scholars filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) with the Supreme Court in Watchtower Bible v. Stratton, Ohio. The case concerns an ordinance requiring that door-to-door petitioners obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand. EPIC argues that the ordinance implicates privacy, as well as the First Amendment rights of anonymity, expression, and freedom of association. The Court will hear arguments in February 2002. (Nov. 29)

Supreme Court Considers Internet Censorship Law. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 28 in Ashcroft v. ACLU, a constitutional challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). EPIC joined with the ACLU and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit to strike down the law, which prohibits online display of material that is "harmful to minors" to any person who is under 17 years of age. Two lower federal courts have agreed that the law violates the First Amendment. The parties' Supreme Court briefs and background information are available at EPIC's COPA Litigation Page. (Nov. 28)

District Court Dismisses DMCA Challenge. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) represented a team led by Princeton Professor Ed Felten in the first skirmish of a case challenging the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on November 28. Judge Garrett Brown of the Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, dismissed the case after 25 minutes of debate in which the First Amendment ramifications of the case were not addressed. EFF intends to appeal. (Nov. 28)

Appeals Court Upholds Anonymous Online Speech. In the first appellate decision to address the issue, a New Jersey appeals court has established stringent procedural and evidentiary standards that must be met before the identity of an anonymous online poster can be disclosed through litigation. Those protections have long been urged by EPIC and other public interest groups. The court recognized the constitutional right to communicate anonymously and refused to order the identification of a "John Doe" speaker who had posted comments on a Yahoo! message board.
Overview of Free Speech Protection

More than a constitutional guarantee preventing government restriction on public debate, the First Amendment also one of the nation's most familiar and acclaimed cultural icons. Freedom of speech and the press is a vital part of the political, social and cultural growth of our country.

Although adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, most First Amendment doctrine is a result of twenty-century litigation. It wasn't until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the Supreme Court extended the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. Ancillary rights--those integral to but not explicit within the First Amendment--were not doctrinally recognized until the 1960s, when the Court decided cases determining the laws of libel and commercial speech, and establishing rights of privacy, access, and anonymity. The meaning of the First Amendment has continued to develop rapidly, in part because of changes in and the increasing importance of new technology.
Unlawful Restriction on Speech

Vagueness. The Court has ruled unconstitutional laws that are so vaguely written that persons of average inteligence must guess at (and likely differ as to) its meaning and application. Such laws "chill speech" because citizens facing such laws would keep quiet out of fear that their intended conduct would be illegal. As well, vague laws leave law enforcement officers too much discretion to enforce the law as they see fit.

Overbreadth. The Court has ruled unconstitutional laws that are so broadly written as to prohibit protected speech as well as unprotected speech.

Prior Restraint. Attempts to exercise prior restraints of speech or publication are almost always illegal, because such a restraint is an irreversible sanction on expression. However, licensing restrictions are upheld to various degrees in different media. The Court has said that each medium presents particular problems, and thus although the principles of free speech do not vary, every medium will be analyzed and treated as unique. The most striking example of this standard is the licensing regulations and right of reply requirements imposed on broadcasters.

Content Regulation. Any regulation based on the content of expression is subject to strict scrutiny: the Court will permit the regulation of content of speech only so long as the regulation is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest, and there is no less restrictive alternative.
Relevant case law:

* Bartnicki v. Vopper. A radio host could not be punished for disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted telephone conversation. The majority opinion by Justice Stevens states that the case presents "a conflict between interests of the highest order--on the one hand, the interest in the full and free dissemination of information concerning public issues, and, on the other hand, the interest in individual privacy."
* Cohen v. California. Wearing a jacket with "Fuck the Draft" on the back is expressive conduct fully protected by the First Amendment. Because the statement is not obscenity, incitement, or fighting words, punishment of such conduct must be analyzed under strict scrutiny. Real Audio recording of the oral argument before the Court.

Compelled Speech. The government cannot compel an individual to speak a message. Under this doctrine, in Miami Herald Publishing Co v. Tornillo the Court prohibited "right of reply" laws in print media, because a statute compelling a newspaper to print a reply would chill speech as newspapers would be less likely to cover incendiary public affairs. The prohibition on compelling speech has been used to overturn laws requiring speakers to reveal their identity, and thus creates further protection for the right of anonymity.

Despite the absolutism of the clause, "Congress shall make no law" has never been interpreted by the Court as an absolute prohibition on government regulation of speech. The Court has often said that the primary purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that promotes a robust public debate. Therefore, where speech is less valuable--a judgement made on the basis of the speech's category, not its content--it is granted less protection or no protection at all.
Lawful Regulation on Speech

Obscenity. Speech defined as obscenity is outside the boundaries of First Amendment protection. As defined by Miller v. California, obscenity is speech that (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, to appeal to the prurient interest; (2) depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner specifically defined sexual conduct; and (3) lacks as a whole serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The definition of obscenity, developed in 1973, focuses on a local "community standard," and has proven to be the crux of litigation surrounding internet censorship cases, which by their nature cannot depend upon local community standards. Further information is available at EPIC's COPA Litigation Page.

Fighting Words. Speech likely to provoke an average listener to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of peace, falls outside the protection of the First Amendment because the words have no important role in the marketplace of ideas the freedom of speech is designed to promote. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

Commercial Speech. Commercial speech, which was warranted no protection by the Court until 1980 in Central Hudson Gas & Electric, is now protected under an intermediate level of scrutiny because the motivation to market goods and services is believed sufficient to overcome any chill caused by government regulation. The government can ban deceptive or illegal commercial speech; any other regulation must be supported by a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions, regulations in proportion to that interest, and a limitation on expression designed carefully to achieve the state's goal.

Incitement ("clear and present danger"). The government can regulate speech that is intended and likely to incite "imminent lawless action," or where the speech presents a "clear and present danger" to the security of the nation. Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Relevant case law:

* Schenck v. United States. Upholding defendants' convictions under the Espionage Act for distribution of anti-war materials during World War I because even "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Time Place and Manner. Content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech that does not interfere with the message being delivered and leaves open adequate alternative channels of communication is permissible.

Libel/Slander. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that expansive libel protection chills speech because speakers will be less likely to publish if they can be punished merely for being wrong. Therefore, the First Amendment requires public officials and public figures prove "actual malice" (knowing or reckless disregard for the truth of the statement). Public figures include those with fame, notoriety, and those who have injected themselves into the public debate on an issue. However, in Gertz v. Welch, the Court limited this expansive protection to public figure, not public causes: a publisher of defamatory statements about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim protection against liability for defamation on the ground that the statements concern an issue of public or general interest. Private figures must prove that a statement is false, and that the speaker engaged in some degree of negligence (mere falsity of the statement is insufficient). Laws vary state to state.
Relevant case law:

* Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress) without proving actual malice.

First Amendment Law and Technology

When the First Amendment was adopted, the "speech" at issue was person-to-person or newsprint. As new methods of communication are developed, they have presented unique challenges to First Amendment doctrine.

Post World War I, when motion pictures became readily accessible to all, the government became concerned over the potentially great influence this new medium would have over the morality and education of the American public. Specifically, many were concerned the availability and persuasiveness of the medium presented opportunities for filmmakers to seduce viewers with prurient images and religious or political propaganda. In response to these fears, licensing systems were implemented and upheld as constitutional. In 1915 the Court upheld licensing regulations against free speech challenges on the grounds that "the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded ... as part of the press of the country." However, in 1948 the Court extended First Amendment protection to the film industry, and condemned government licensing systems. As a result, the industry moved towards self regulation through the development of what is now the Motion Picture Association of America, and the self-imposed ratings system.

The most notable examples of existing medium-specific government restrictions are the regulations imposed on radio and television broadcasters. The Radio Act was passed in 1927, permitting spectrum allocation by the government to those broadcasters who pledged to serve the public interest. The alleged justification for such a licensing system (an unconstitutional prior restraint in other media contexts) was the natural scarcity of the spectrum, and the need to cut down on signal interference for national security or emergency. The 1927 Act and the 1934 Communications Act imposed numerous content restrictions on broadcasters, including the "right of reply," (unlawful in print) and prohibitions on indecent, profane, or obscene speech. Such content regulations have been upheld because of the unique pervasiveness of the medium, which intrudes into the home and poses a risk that children will hear. The right of reply has been upheld because it was believed that the spectrum cannot accommodate everyone, therefore those granted a license must act as public fiduciaries.
Relevant case law:

* FCC v. Pacifica Foundation George Carlin's monologue "filthy words" (listing the "seven dirty words" in a variety of contexts and colloquialisms ) because "vulgar," "offensive" and "shocking" was properly subject to time, place, and manner regulation and could be played only late at night when the possibility that children were listening was vastly reduced. The First Amendment protection available to broadcast media is the most limited because "of the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid those that are patently offensive."
Real Audio recording of the oral argument before the Court.
* Red Lion v. FCC upholding a "right of reply" requirement.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 law designed to increase copyright holders' rights. The DMCA, which interferes with a user's ability to legitimately access content, created civil and criminal penalties for the creation or distribution of Digital Rights Management (DRM) circumvention tools. As a result, a user attempting to circumvent copyright protection, even for legitimate reasons, may violate federal law. Hollywood studios, and others seeking to prevent the dissemination of circumvention tools, have argued that publication of the codes permitting circumvention constitutes a violation of the DMCA. Those publishing the code have argued in response that code is speech, and that the DMCA's prohibition violates the First Amendment by placing government limitations on the ability to publish freely.

In June 2001, a Russian programmer named Dmitry Sklyarov published a program that can defeat the Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology used to secure Adobe eBooks. In July, at the behest of Adobe, the Department of Justice arrested Sklyarov for violating the DMCA shortly after he presented a paper on cracking Adobe copy protection. Sklyarov remained in jail for several weeks and has been released on $50,000 bail. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is assisting in his defense, arguing that the DMCA is vague, violates the First Amendment, and exceeds constitutional authority under the Copyright Clause.

In January 2000, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) initiated suits against web publishers in California, New York, Connecticut, and Norway, alleging that the DeCSS (a DVD descrambling program) software available on their sites constituted distribution of DRM circumvention tools in violation of the DMCA. In January 2000, a New York court barred 2600 Magazine from publishing or linking to DeCSS. In November, 2001, the Second Circuit upheld the restrictions on the grounds that DeCSS code is only partially protected speech, and that such speech can be restricted on the Internet. The court acknowledged that there is a trade off between allowing unfettered speech and preventing the misuse of copyrighted material.

The same week, the Federal District Court in Trenton, NH dismissed a lawsuit brought by Princeton professor Edward Felten against the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). RIAA sponsored a music industry challenge to crack proposed technologies for protecting music. Felten and his research group successfully participated in the challenge, and decided to publish their findings, at which point the music industry sent a letter threatening legal action for violation of DMCA if Felten published his work.

Felten challenged the constitutionality of the DMCA and asked the court for permission to publish Felten's work without fear of reprisal. The judge dismissed the case after 25 minutes of arguments that did not address the First Amendment implications of the DMCA. Felten's attorneys, led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) plan to appeal.

Further information is available at EPIC'S Digital Rights Management Page.
Export Regulations

In an effort to safeguard national security and foreign intelligence gathering capabilities, the U.S. government has long placed strict export controls on encryption technologies. Originally, export controls were regulated under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which placed restrictions on programs using algorithms of greater than 40 bit key length.

The argument made by those challenging such regulations closely mirrors that made by those challenging DMCA restrictions: code is speech, and as such is warranted First Amendment protection.

In a trilogy of cases referred to as Bernstein I, II and III, the constitutional validity of the export licensing system was challenged. Daniel Bernstein had developed an encryption program called "Snuffle" while a graduate student at the University of California at Berkley. Because ITAR defined export to include divulging data to any foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, Bernstein was advised that he might infringe the regulations by publishing his work on the internet or teaching it to foreign nationals in his classes. Bernstein brought suit claiming that the licensing scheme under ITAR violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

In Bernstein I, the district court held that source code constitutes speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. In Bernstein II, the Court looked at the substantive issue and held that the licensing system under ITAR, which gave the export authority exclusive and absolute discretion to decide whether or not to grant licenses, was a "paradigm of standardless discretion" and constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech.

To thwart the result of this decision, the Clinton Administration transferred responsibility for exports of cryptographic technologies from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce and amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) of the Department of Commerce to essentially replicate the ITAR controls on cryptographic technologies.

In Bernstein III these new regulations were subject to challenge. The California District Court upheld its earlier ruling and found them to be unconstitutional. The court of appeals ruled in favor of Bernstein in 1999.

The constitutionality of the export rules was challenged again in Junger v. Daley, when Ohio law professor Peter Junger was informed by the Department of Commerce that he would need an export license to post examples of his encryption program on his website. Junger claimed that this restriction on publication constituted a prior restraint on speech. In April of 2000 the Sixth Circuit stated that because "the computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming . . . it is protected by the First Amendment."
Internet Regulations

The challenges posed by Internet to "traditional" First Amendment law are widely recognized. Many argue that the Internet should "self-regulate" because any governmental regulatory regime would necessarily lag behind--and thus fail to effectively regulate--the rapidly developing technology. Nevertheless, the Internet has been subjected to numerous attempts at regulation, many which have presented legal obstacles and challenges.
COPA, its predecessors, and its progeny. In February of 1996, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. CDA sought to protect minors from harmful material online by criminalizing internet transmission of "indecent" materials to minors. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union that CDA was an unconstitutional restriction on the Internet, a "unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication" deserving of full First Amendment protection. Because only obscenity is regulable, the regulations would effectively reduce the constitutionally protected material available to adults "to only what is fit for children." The unique characteristics of Internet communications (its ready availability and ease of use) were integral to the decision. Because it is possible to warn viewers about incipient indecent content (unlike radio, where warnings fail to protect all potential listeners), and because alternatives exist, at least in theory, the CDA's provisions cast a "far darker shadow over free speech which threatened to torch a larger segment of the Internet community than [any] speech restrictions previously encountered."

In October 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the "sequel" to CDA. COPA establishes criminal penalties for any commercial distribution of material harmful to minors. EPIC joined with the ACLU and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit to strike down the law. In February 1999, the federal district court in Philadelphia issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing COPA. COPA was declared unconstitutional by the Third Circuit in June 1999 on the grounds that, because there is no way to prevent access to content on the basis of geography, the Act would require each individual speaker on the Internet to conform his speech to the most restrictive and conservative state's community standards of what constitutes material harmful to minors.

The parties' Supreme Court briefs and further information are available at EPIC's COPA Litigation Page.

CIPA & the Flaws with Filters. In December 1999 the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) passed into law. The legislation requires schools and libraries receiving federal funds for Internet access to install filtering software to block access to materials that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors. In a consolidated complaint filed in federal court in Philadelphia on March 2001, EPIC, the ACLU, and the American Library Association (ALA) challenged the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) on both privacy and First Amendment grounds.

Congress approved CIPA even after its own 18-member committee rejected the proposal because of the risk that "protected, harmless, or innocent speech would be accidentally or inappropriately blocked."

The case survived a motion to dismiss in July 2001, and is scheduled to go before a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Philadelphia in March 2002.

EPIC has released a new collection of critiques and studies that document the negative impact of content blocking systems. Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content Controls warns that the adoption of software to limit the availability of material online may jeopardize free expression and facilitate government censorship. Often characterized by their proponents as mere features or tools, filtering and rating systems can also be viewed as fundamental architectural changes that may, in fact, facilitate the suppression of speech far more effectively than national laws alone ever could. Several popular Internet filters block websites of human rights organizations. A 1998 study by Consumer Reports noted "filters block harmless sites merely because their software does not consider the context in which a word or phrase is used. Far more troubling is when a filter appears to block legitimate sites based on moral or political value judgments."

More information about filters and internet regulation is available at Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report.

The parties' briefs and further information are available at EPIC's CIPA Litigation Page.

Criminal Sanctions for Online Speech Content . In May 2000, a French court ruled that Yahoo! had to ban French users from English-language auction sites where Nazi books, daggers, and other paraphernalia are sold. Yahoo! argued that because Yahoo.com services are U.S. governed, auctions of such materials cannot be barred because of the U.S. constitutional right to freedom of speech. (Yahoo's French-language portal yahoo.fr does not host auctions of the Nazi items, but there is no accurate method of identifying French users of the U.S. portal and blocking their access). The November ruling was issued after the judge issued a reprieve from his initial verdict in May, pending more in-depth testimony from technical experts as to the feasibility of blocking access to French users.

In November 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the French decision could not be enforced in U.S. courts, because the First Amendment protects content generated in the U.S. by American companies from being regulated by authorities in countries that have more restrictive laws on freedom of expression. Two groups, the The League Against Racism and Anti-semitism and the French Union of Jewish Students are seeking an appeal on the grounds that U.S. law should not trump French law.

Relevant case law:

* U.S. District Court decision in Blumenthal v. Drudge holding that America Online is immune from suits arising from content posted on AOL but created by other parties.
* U.S. District Court decision in Cubby v. Compuserve, ruling that Compuserve is held to the standard of a library with regard to its content.
* U.S. District Court decision in Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online holding that AOL is not a public forum and can thus ban junk e-mail from its system.

Anonymity

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."

In three cases, spanning from 1960 to 1999, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that sacrificing anonymity "might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."

Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation.

Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling government interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election process by requiring campaign contribution disclosures.

Anonymity has been an appealing characteristic for the majority of Internet users. Individuals are able to post to message boards, visit chatrooms, and browse informational sites without revealing their identity. This anonymity allows those engaged in unpopular, controversial, or embarrassing activity to seek and disseminate information without sacrificing their privacy or reputations. However, this anonymity is increasingly being threatened as civil litigants have begun using the discovery process to pierce the veil of online anonymity. Since 1998, innumerable civil defamation lawsuits have been filed against "John Doe" defendants by plaintiffs allegedly harmed by anonymous Internet postings.

Current law permits any civil litigant to allege defamation and bring a civil suit. If the subpoena is approved by the court, the ISP must disclose the individual's name before the statement is proven defamatory. This enables companies to use the discovery process to intimidate anonymous users.

In the first appellate decision to address the issue, a New Jersey appeals court established stringent procedural and evidentiary standards that must be met before the identity of an anonymous online poster can be disclosed through litigation. The court recognized the constitutional right to communicate anonymously and refused to order the identification of a "John Doe" speaker who had posted comments on a Yahoo! message board.
EPIC defends Jehovah's Witnesses' First Amendment right to anonymity

EPIC, the ACLU, and 14 legal scholars filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) with the Supreme Court in Watchtower Bible v. Stratton, Ohio. The Court heard oral arguments February 26, 2002.

The case concerns an ordinance requiring that door-to-door petitioners obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand. The the legal representatives of Watchtower filed suit against the village contesting the requirement that individuals need a permit to engage in door-to-door activity. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the village requirement. On October 15, 2001, the Supreme Court granted Watchtower's request for review. EPIC argues that the ordinance implicates privacy, as well as the First Amendment rights of anonymity, expression, and freedom of association. For more information, see EPIC's Watchtower Page.
Relevant case law:

* Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation reaffirming the importance of anonymity in the context of political speech.
* McIntyre v. Ohio upholding the right to distribute anonymous political leaflets. Real Audio recording of the oral argument before the Court.
* Talley v. California upholding the right to anonymous speech by overturning a ban on anonymous leafleting. The majority stated: "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."
* Buckley v. Valeo financial contributions are speech because it is a method of expressing political ideologies; however some disclosure requirements are necessary in this context in order to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

International Developments

The development of the internet has created international havoc as countries around the world struggle to develop laws that will permit geographical regulation of a borderless medium. The internet is thought to offer unlimited free speech. But censorship is increasing as countries develop tools--legal and technological--for limiting content available to its citizens.

Press Freedom Survey 2001, an overview of current international free speech protection, is available in pdf. Following is a brief overview of online speech protection in various countries around the world.
Australia. The Commonwealth Internet Censorship legislation, came into force on January 01, 2000. ISPs have been made criminally liable for the content of the sites that their subscribers can access, and requires ISPs to remove and censor pornographic material. Proposed new Internet censorship laws are included in a Bill tabled in the Parliament on November 7, 2001. The Bill would criminalise making available content unsuitable for children online, even if the content is only made available to adults.

China. Chinese laws require Internet companies to secure licenses and provide liability for illegal content carried on their systems. Companies must keep records of users and their messages. For sending or receiving messages critical of Beijing or of Communist policy, a Chinese user can face up to 10 years in prison.

Great Britain. The settlement of what would have been the fountainhead case addressing liability of ISPs in defamation and libel cases has placed perceived pressure upon ISPs to take down internet content which carries defamatory content as defined by the Defamation Act of 1996. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act gives the police broad access to e-mail and other online communications. The British government has begun building a system to monitor all online activities. The system would require ISPs to hardwire links directly to it.

The Middle East. Although laws vary country to country, average internet speech restrictions in Middle Eastern countries is less severe than those imposed upon print media. However, the internet access in countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran hovers at under two percent, and most countries ban through various means "inappropriate content." The more wired countries still censor on-line expression and access: Bahrain with six percent access pervasively monitors and bans any information critical of the ruling Al Khalifa family, and the United Arab Emirates with seventeen percent access requires users to access the Internet through a proxy server maintained by the state. The proxy refuses access to websites that are banned by the government or that reveal "objectionable" material.

Russia. President Putin ordered all ISPs to channel messages through security forces for monitoring.

Singapore. The Internal Security Act permits censorship of publications that incite violence or disobedience to the law, arouse tensions among social groups, or threaten national security, national interests, or public order. There are also strict defamation and press laws.
Resources
Organizations

*

Freedom Forum. A nonpartisan foundation dedicated to free press and free speech focusing on three main priorities: the Newseum, First Amendment freedoms and newsroom diversity.
*

Freedom to Read Foundation. Established to promote and defend the first amendment; to foster libraries and institutions wherein every individual's First Amendment freedoms are fulfilled; and to support the right of libraries to include in their collections and make available any work which they may legally acquire.
*

American Library Association. The ALA actively defends the right of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
*

National Coalition Against Censorship. An alliance of over 40 national non-profit organizations, including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties groups dedicated to creating climate hospitable to First Amendment freedoms in the broader community.
*

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. An organization dedicated to providing free legal help to journalists and news organizations.
*

Feminists for Free Expression. A group dedicated to presenting the "feminist" arguments against censorship and pornography.

Publications
*

First Amendment Cyber-Tribunal. FACT provides information on all the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment, including alerts from the Tribunal, links, and discussions.
*

Professor Lawrence Tribe's 1991 Computers Freedom and Privacy keynote speech on The Constitution in Cyberspace.

Other Resources
*

Banned Books. Based at Carnegie Mellon, this on-line exhibit provides links to books banned in libraries and schools across the country, but available on the Internet in electronic form.
*

Berkeley's Free Speech Movement Page. Materials documenting the history of the free speech movvement, including videos and documentaries.

We support the

[FEN]
www.freeexpression.org

Posted by: susan_b at December 25, 2004 4:08 AM