| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
As the right to free speech is threatened as never before, here comes this decision: this fellow is free to make a political statement by scaring the daylights out of passersby -- at least, unless his Volkswagen van looks too ludicrous to scare anyone, which is likely.
I am glad in these dark days to see any ruling in favor of the freedom of speech, however nutty this fellow may be, but consider a thought experiment: what if this Volkswagen van had been painted with proclamations of hostility to jihad? What if it announced that Muslim immigration should be stopped (which it patently should, given the impossibility of distinguishing actual or potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims)? What if it announced that Islamic groups in the U.S. are carrying out a stealth jihad to subvert American institutions and Constitutional government (which they patently are, as per the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that came to light at the trial of the Holy Land Foundation last summer, the Islamic supremacist statements made by CAIR leaders and others, the initiatives to force American businesses and public institutions to make special accommodation for Muslim practices, etc.)? What if it even quoted statements such as the one by CAIR's Omar Ahmad: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth"?
Then that there is no telling how this ruling may have come out. Then it would be "hate speech." And even if the court decision had been the same, CAIR would be issuing "Action Alerts" and "Incitement Watch" pieces about "hatred of Muslims," and the mainstream media would fall into line behind them. But say you're a jihadist with a WMD? Fine, fine, be on your way!
"Ninth Circuit Holds Van’s Message of ‘Jihad’ Protected Speech," by Sherri K. Okamoto for the Metropolitan News-Enterprise (Los Angeles), June 30 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
A Grass Valley man’s proclamation via block letters on his 1970 Volkswagen van that he was a terrorist carrying a weapon of mass destruction was political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.A three judge panel concluded that police officers violated Matthew Fogel’s constitutional rights by arresting him and impounding the van upon which he had painted the message, as well as other slogans and paintings, but declined to impose liability against the officers, holding that a reasonable officer could have concluded the message was not protected under existing precedent.
Fogel painted block letters on the back of his van indicating he was a suicide bomber, and declaring “jihad” on the First Amendment and invoking Allah to praise the Patriot Act. The rest of the vehicle was decorated with slogans and paintings added by Fogel and his friends that had no political or threatening character.
When a citizen in the town located between Sacramento and Reno complained about the van, a police officer responded, but told his supervisor that the writing was merely satire. The supervisor disagreed, however, and ordered the officer to treat the situation like a bomb threat.
Mild-Mannered
Officers testified that, upon being questioned about the van’s messages, Fogel said he wanted to “scare people into thinking.” The interviewing officer stated in a deposition that he found Fogel mild-mannered, and that he did not take the writing as a threat.
The officers did not follow standard bomb threat procedures at the scene or during a subsequent search of the van, but impounded the vehicle and arrested Fogel, who spent one night in jail before being released when the district attorney declined to press charges. The police department released Fogel’s van once he removed the writing.
[...]
Fletcher also pointed out that the officers who saw the van and its message did not behave as if they believed the speech was a true threat and there was no evidence that Fogel subjectively intended the speech as a true threat of serious harm, leading Fletcher to conclude that Fogel’s message was “exactly the kind of ‘unpleasantly sharp attack’” on the government that the First Amendment “welcomes and protects.”...
Posted by Robert at June 30, 2008 7:11 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What if?
what if this Volkswagen van had been painted with proclamations of hostility to jihad? What if it announced that Muslim immigration should be stopped (which it patently should, given the impossibility of distinguishing actual or potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims)?
Why not? Why don't we do it?
Lets put some money together and buy ten bloody VW-busses and go on tour with those messages.
Who is with me?
Here's the latest from Downunder:
Hicks becomes celebrity, hangs out with failed politicians:
Posted by: sheik yer'mami![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 30, 2008 8:01 PM
True Threat
Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, (2002) 290 F.3d 1058, Fletcher explained that a “true threat” is “‘an expression an expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another,’” that does not receive First Amendment protection.
But he added that threatening speech that can reasonably be characterized as political rhetoric or hyperbole is protected, particularly when such speech is not directed at specific individuals.
Examining the message on Fogel’s van in context, Fletcher concluded that the statements were not serious expressions of intent to cause harm because the First Amendment and Patriot Act references were “overtly political speech.”
He further noted that “reasonable observers would be hard-pressed to believe that an actual suicide bomber would so boldly announce his presence and intentions.”
............................
Ha! Read that again... twice.
... specific individuals
.... in context
....actual suicide bomber
....would so boldly announce his presence...
I'm glad this guy did this to call attention to the threat of the islam, but I'm sure that we JW members could find several parallells to actual jihadists that DO target "specific individuals", DO take the Koran "in context", DO look like actual suicide bombers with belt vests, and DO boldly announce their presence daily/hourly in order to intimidate the dhimmi.
Wow. Just. Wow.
Posted by: Laughs_at_Silly_Jihadis at June 30, 2008 8:10 PM
California, the land of fruits and nuts.
Posted by: stickman at June 30, 2008 8:12 PM
Darcy, this is for you, and for all other JW/DW's that need a bit of humor on a Monday.
Please click this link and then imagine our Rage Boy being asked to recite the following over and over and over again... really fast!:
"I am We Todd It"
"I am Sofa King We Todd It"
http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/976-Islamic-Rage-Boy-Parody-Roundup.html
Enjoy.. we dhimmis deserve a laugh.
Posted by: Laughs_at_Silly_Jihadis at June 30, 2008 8:18 PM
Grass Valley, California. I know it well. My grandmother was born there in 1889. I didn't know about Fogal, but the GV police have a reputation for 'enforcing the law', even if sometimes they have to make one up. My informants tell me they are always on the look out for...subversive types. They probably thought they had found one with Fogel, and his Fogelmobile. Constitutional rights? Now that's funny. The officers assumed Fogel had no constitutional rights, that apparently is the norm in GV. Besides a bomb threat, and arrest of a terrorist always looks good in the local paper.
They were not wrong in stopping him to inquire, 'What in the h-ll are you doing?? But once he explained it, and the officers were confident he had no weapons, that should have been the end of it.
But not in Grass Valley...You notice they made him remove the words from the car before releasing it to him. If they violated his constitutional rights the first time, they did it again with that number.
That's Grass Valley...A great place to visit, but no one actually lives there...
at June 30, 2008 8:35 PM
Making potential terroristic threats -especially on a moving vehicle, since they have been used as bombs- is going to get you in trouble as an attention-whore and a jackass.
Just what he aimed for.
If he had written them on a tricycle, the cops would have gotten the "satire".
The medium is the message.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 30, 2008 8:44 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is appropriately known by many as the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, and whose rulings are the most reversed of any Circuit Court by the Supreme Court of the United States, occasionally stumbles into the truth, as it did here. I support the ruling. This idiot has a right to be an idiot and to announce it to all, as long as he is not passing out torches or their equivalent.
Besides, two things are demonstated here: 1) the magnificence and laudatory latitude of the First Amendment; 2) the decided tendency of Islam to time and again be the catalyst for whackos making whacko pronouncements. By the way, is this guy himself a Muslim or just another leftover from the Sixties (actually or by osmosis) trying to make a banal point, which I'm sure he finds profound? Very Californian in any case. What a shame such a beautiful state has become the repository in large amounts of the detritus of American society.
Posted by: Wellington at June 30, 2008 8:58 PM
First, driving around is not a right, it's a priviledge. Second, to me this is not a matter of free speech but someone trying to terrorize people their vehicle comes across regardless if they seem like a non threatening guy. Satire my ass.
And this statement shows how ignorant we are: He further noted that “reasonable observers would be hard-pressed to believe that an actual suicide bomber would so boldly announce his presence and intentions.”
We wonder why we are going down the crapper.
at June 30, 2008 9:30 PM
He admits that he wanted to 'scare people into thinking'. People would only be 'scared' if the thought there was a possibility of there being a bomb inside.
Who the HELL does this a-hole think he is to go around scaring people. A Muslim just the other day left a fake bomb on a London bus. It wasn't a real bomb and was not a threat. He was doing it to 'scare people' too. Please explain the diff.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 30, 2008 10:00 PM
More of the same from the Ninth Circuit.
This kind of specious treatment of criminals does nothing but demoralize normal, law abiding citizens (who think that they pay taxes so the government will protect them and will serve justice) and cause uncertainty in enforcement officers.
OK, so the COP didn't act "appropriately". SO WHAT?? Can't WE act appropriately by taking this seriously?? If it's not stopped here, the real suicide bomber will come labelled so that the next cop will be afraid to respond.
What if someone put "I'M A NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGE KILLER" on their van, what then? How about going to a movie wearing a T-shirt that reads "I'M GOING TO BURN DOWN THIS THEATER AND YOU'LL DIE TODAY". Where does it end?
By the way, isn't this guy spreading "Islamophobia" which is rapidly becoming a "hate crime", or can Muslims not commit hate crimes?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 30, 2008 10:01 PM
Laughs_at_Silly_Jihadis wrote:
I'm glad this guy did this to call attention to the threat of the islam . . .
..........................
I could be wrong, but I doubt that was Fletcher's intention. Despite Duh Swami's description of Grass Valley as a sort of intolerant small town, I don't think this is most people's experience. Although Grass Valley is surrounded by a relatively conservative agricultural area, it is, rather like Santa Cruz and Arcata, rather a bastion of old hippies (note Mr. Fletcher's iconic 1970 Volkswagon van), and is fairly radical politically.
I don't know for sure, but I imagine that Mr. Fletcher's intention was to poke fun at "hysteria" over fear of Jihad, and to twit the patriot act.
Posted by: gravenimage at June 30, 2008 10:08 PM
"...[R]easonable observers would be hard-pressed to believe that an actual suicide bomber would so boldly announce his presence and intentions.”
Really? How 'bout now?
I for one am reasonable, and I believe that real jihadis may now actually attempt to replicate this prank, since the ruling leaves faithful peace officers easy targets of BS civil rights actions, making it possible that stealth-jihad test runs for boom-boom jihad could overwhelm law enforcement and lull them to sleep.
And then...
Boom. And the jihadist's presence and intentions were announced. Reasonable people will not be incredulous.
The court got it wrong once again.
Posted by: Haid Dasalami
at June 30, 2008 10:11 PM
Oops--I meant Fogel, not Fletcher.
Posted by: gravenimage at June 30, 2008 10:42 PM
"Darcy, this is for you, and for all other JW/DW's that need a bit of humor on a Monday." --Laughs at Silly Jihadis
Thanks, Laughs. My favorites are "JAWS" and "The Scream."
As for this "Jihad van," what a JW'er does is paint RS's suggestions on their vehicle, and make sure to always have a copy of the Ninth Circuit's Decision in the vehicle.
Posted by: darcy at June 30, 2008 11:35 PM
Grass Valley and nearby Nevada City are where the whole "hippie" movement started back in the 1960's. The area has matured, like the hippies themselves.
From the description, the van owner could be either an anti-jihadist, or a jihad-apologist, though I'd lean like everyone else toward apologist. The intended message is probably about how ridiculous the "far right-wing" anti-jihadists are to worry about a few extremists. And let's not forget that anti-jihadists are racists.
sheik yer'mami, count me in on recreating the Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters' bus ride. But this time the only mushrooms will be slathered on the sirloin steaks, and the L.S.D.-laced Kool-Aid will be replaced with a more conventional adult beverage.
at June 30, 2008 11:53 PM
How about we paint "End all Muslim immigration" along the side of a tractor trailer, is that ok?
Posted by: Exposing Islam at July 1, 2008 2:39 AM
From above: Although Grass Valley is surrounded by a relatively conservative agricultural area, it is, rather like Santa Cruz and Arcata, rather a bastion of old hippies (note Mr. Fletcher's iconic 1970 Volkswagon van), and is fairly radical politically.
Special Guest is right that Nevada City, four miles to the north of GV is a counter cultural Mekka, and it still is. Not so with GV which is resembling San Jose more and more. Nevada City is home to most of the area's liberals, while GV is mostly conservative. The contrast shows. Fogel would probably not have been arrested in Nevada City.
As far as scaring someone with his message, the area is full of people who encounter bears, mountain lions, coyote's and rattlesnakes in their back yards, sometimes their porches. It takes more than a decorated vehicle covered in threatening messages to scare most of them...At any rate, I don't think Fogel's method of getting out his message, was very bright. He attracts attention
(the real goal) and then does not know enough about jihad, or Islamic terrorism, to adequately defend his position. I want the Fogels of the world, who are kuffars, to be on the side of dar al-harb, but to get educated before taking any independent action. This kind of public exposure makes all anti-jihad kufr's look bad. The lunatic approach is not the best method...
at July 1, 2008 10:07 AM
Me wonders how many folks he can "scare into thinking" if he drove that bus through the airport and parked it there....
Posted by: yadayada at July 1, 2008 12:49 PM
You cannot blame a judge for being an idiot if he was born an idiot.
Posted by: American at July 1, 2008 1:40 PM
Terrorism is not just actually blowing up people but also scaring them to that effect. If an airline passenger falsely exclaims that he’s holding a bottle of anthrax, does he get a free pass for freedom of expression? When real terrorism is a constant threat, making terrorist types of claims, even with only painted signs, is still a form of terrorism if it terrorizes. These head-in-the-clouds judges are too damn tolerant & academic in these times when terrorists are really out to kill and people are naturally frightened.
This was not “exactly the kind of ‘unpleasantly sharp attack’” on the government that the First Amendment “welcomes and protects.” The man was simply trying to terrorize - there was no political point being made. The Judge is a fool and many Muslims are surely tickled about it.
at July 1, 2008 9:33 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)