• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

WSJ: To prosecute the Muhammad filmmakers “would be analogous to punishing civil rights activists for inciting white supremacists to commit violent or lawless acts”

Sep 19, 2012 5:55 pm By Robert Spencer

The Wall Street Journal generally tends to be a reliably dhimmi publication, so it is refreshing to see it come down on the side of freedom in this latest battle in the war against the freedom of speech. “Vive la France,” by James Taranto in the WSJ, September 19 (thanks to Paul):

Another day, another “wave of outrage,” a cliché the
New York Times deploys in reporting on a French humor magazine’s
publication of “a series of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad”:

The illustrations, some of which depicted Muhammad naked and
in pornographic poses, hit newsstands across the country on Wednesday
and were met with a swift rebuke from the government of François
Hollande, which had earlier urged the magazine, Charlie Hebdo, not to
publish the cartoons, particularly in the current tense environment.

But we were struck–favorably–by the language the government used.
“In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should
not be undermined,” Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told France Info
radio. “In the present context, given this absurd video that has been
aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is
it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?”

To be sure, this is one of those “Yes, but . . .” constructions in
which the first clause is a qualification and the second is the main
message. Fabius’s statement is an inversion of Voltaire’s most famous
aphorism: He may defend to the death your right to say it, but he does
not agree with what you have to say.

But that’s fine. Free speech does not mean government-sanctioned speech, and Fabius’s criticism of the magazine’s editorial decision is an entirely reasonable and prudent one. The qualification, however, is crucially important–and, as we noted last week, it was missing from the statements of President Obama and Fabius’s counterpart, Hillary Clinton, about the YouTube film that the Obama administration blames for the recent anti-American violence in North Africa and elsewhere (though the Washington Examiner reports that the White House press secretary today put in a word for “the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution”).

France’s free-speech regime, it should be noted, is weaker than America’s, a difference that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is evidently shrewd enough to grasp:

Mahmoud Ghozlan, a spokesman for the group, noted that French law prohibits Holocaust denial and suggested that similar provisions might be made for comments deemed blasphemous under Islam.

“If anyone doubts the Holocaust happened, they are imprisoned,” Mr. Ghozlan told Reuters. “It is not fair or logical” that the same not be the case for insults to Islam, he said.

Whether or not Ghozlan’s conclusion is correct, American law is both fair and logical in forbidding the censorship of both types of disagreeable speech.

On the op-ed page of the Los Angeles Times, Sarah Chayes, who formerly worked for both NPR and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, makes an argument for punishing blasphemy as an incitement to violence. (Incidentally, it’s not the first time the L.A. Times has published an op-ed arguing for limiting freedom of expression.)

Indeed it isn’t.

Chayes cites the 1969 case of
Brandenburg v. Ohio,

in which the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that even speech
advocating violence could not be criminalized absent both the intent to
incite violence and the imminent likelihood of violence or lawbreaking.

Here’s the weakest link in her analysis:

As for imminence, the timeline of similar events after
recent burnings of religious materials indicates that reactions
typically come within two weeks. [Nakoula] Nakoula’s video was
deliberately publicized just before the sensitive date of Sept. 11, and
could be expected to spark violence on that anniversary.

While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the
filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was
not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the
trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech.
“Based on my understanding of the events,” 1st Amendment authority
Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, “I think this meets the
imminence standard.”

Blogress cum law prof Ann Althouse
wonders if the octogenarian Lewis really said that. So do we. Lewis
always struck us as an old-time liberal where free speech was concerned.

In any case, here, from Chayes’s own piece, is the refutation of her claim that the violence was imminent:

According to initial media investigations, the clip whose
most egregious lines were apparently dubbed in after it was shot, was
first posted to YouTube in July. . . .

According to the Wall Street Journal, when the video failed
to attract much attention, another Coptic Christian, known for his
anti-Islamic activism, sent a link to reporters in the U.S., Egypt and
elsewhere on Sept. 6. His email message promoted a Sept. 11 event by
anti-Islamic pastor Terry Jones and included a link to the trailer.

So the reaction took not two weeks but two months. More important, it
required the film’s propagation by mass media, including the Egyptian
TV station Al Nas. NPR’s Steve Inskeep has the details in a piece on The Atlantic‘s website:

The offensive film clip was almost unknown–an irrelevant
piece of trash on the Internet–until a film producer managed to place a
tiny item in an Egyptian newspaper. But it wasn’t until the TV
broadcast that things really blew up.

The hosts played an extended clip of the video dubbed in
Arabic, pondering what should be done. One, Khalid Abdullah . . . asked
if anyone had apologized. His co-host Mohammed Hamdy declared, “An
apology is not enough. I want them convicted.”

Should the U.S. prosecute them for incitement? Good luck with that.
Inskeep reports that “in presenting the video, the broadcasters
explained that they spread offensive speech because the public needed to
be informed of [an] injustice.” Maybe they’re being disingenuous, but
it’s hard to imagine a prosecutor could prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt.

There’s an even worse problem with Chayes’s idea of prosecuting the filmmakers under the Brandenburg standard. The defendants in Brandenburg were
members of the Ku Klux Klan. They advocated (but did not incite)
violence on the part of their own supporters in order to promote their
cause of racial supremacy. By contrast, the filmmakers provoked a
violent reaction from the other side. To prosecute them would
be analogous to punishing civil rights activists for inciting white
supremacists to commit violent or lawless acts.

Read it all.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: free speech


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Henry Mansfield on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Crusades Were Right on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Naildriver on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Crusades Were Right on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’
  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.