Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

January 21, 2015

Left Wing University Official Declares Speech Must be Censored Because Islam Is Too Violent

I’d say it was unbelievable, were it not for the fact that those who support the surrender of liberty in the face of Islamic barbarism have been parroting this talking point for the last couple weeks.

In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a "clear and present danger" is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying "fire" in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.

If Charlie Hebdo's irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn't thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper's continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo's free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.

Now Wickham uses two old Supreme Court cases to support his argument – but he fails to note that the justices have since restricted, limited or overruled elements of the decision. For example, never since the Chaplinsky decision has the “fighting words” doctrine been held to be a valid reason for respecting freedom of speech – indeed, shortly thereafter in Terminiello v. City of Chicago the Court held that the purpose of free speech was to provoke and invite dispute, and that the angry response of those who opposed the message was not grounds for shutting down the speaker. Similarly, the Court rejected the “fire in a crowded theater” argument in Brandenburg v. Ohio, holding that only speech intended to and likely to incite violence loses First Amendment protection.

Now consider the Charlie Hebdo cartoons themselves. They are designed to invite dispute regarding religious sensitivities and provoke discussion over the degree to which religious believers have the right to impose their faith’s rules on non-believers. The threat of violence comes from offended Muslims, not the magazine. What’s more, no reasonable person can argue that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are intended to incite violence. Wickham’s argument fails all around.

But let me offer a different take on this, using the author’s argument.

It is clear that the actual danger is not drawings or words that mock Islam and its sacred things. The actual danger is Islam itself and the belief that its followers are entitled to engage in mayhem and murder to force others to abide by the tenets of that faith. Therefore the clear and present danger is not the speech or the cartoons – the actual clear and present danger is Islam itself. Maybe the time has come to ban Islam and the Quran in this country, and to close all the mosques in America as a threat to public order. After all, that would get to the real source of the violence – and would be the least restrictive means of dealing with the problem of violent outbursts over Muhammad cartoons.





|| Greg, 04:51 PM || Permalink || Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Left Wing University Official Declares Speech Must be Censored Because Islam Is Too Violent

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/285957
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Left Wing University Official Declares Speech Must be Censored Because Islam Is Too Violent'.

Comments on Left Wing University Official Declares Speech Must be Censored Because Islam Is Too Violent

Mr. Wickham,

The last time I looked at a map, Paris was in France (notwithstanding Paris, Texas and a number of other late comers). The American constitution and the SCOTUS may be admired, but neither has the force of law there. Nonetheless, the concept of free speech has been on their shores for some time. Why not quote their courts and legal documents?

Greg,

Thanks for posting this. Although I agree that Islam is a clear and present danger, I would not support any infringement on their freedom of religion. However, I would support (similar to the campaign finance laws) a public posting of their donars and (similar to truth in advertising) a public posting of the verses they most often preach.

|| Posted by Mark, January 26, 2015 07:46 AM ||

I don't support such infringements either -- but if we are going to use old and inaccurately applied precedents to suppress anyone's liberty, let it be those who commit violence rather than those who have the audacity to speak and publish freely.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, January 27, 2015 07:11 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Abortion (posts: 1)
Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5263)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Republican Primary Endorsements -- 2016
A Proposed Shorter RPT Platform
Pro-Lifers To Release Documents Related To Purchase Of Fetal Tissue By Texas Public Universities!
Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs