Below is today’s column in The Los Angeles Times exploring the growing attacks on free speech in the West and the recent controversy of the “Zombie Mohammad” case.
The recent exchange between an atheist and a judge in a small courtroom in rural Pennsylvania could have come out of a Dickens novel. Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin was hearing a case in which an irate Muslim stood accused of attacking an atheist, Ernest Perce, because he was wearing a “Zombie Mohammed” costume on Halloween. Although the judge had “no doubt that the incident occurred,” he dismissed the charge of criminal harassment against the Muslim and proceeded to browbeat Perce. Martin explained that such a costume would have led to Perce’s execution in many countries under sharia, or Islamic law, and added that Perce’s conduct fell “way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights.”
The case has caused a national outcry, with many claiming that Martin was applying sharia law over the Constitution — a baseless and unfair claim. But while the ruling certainly doesn’t suggest that an American caliphate has gained a foothold in American courts, it was nevertheless part of a disturbing trend. The conflict in Cumberland County between free speech and religious rights is being played out in courts around the world, and free speech is losing.
Perce was marching in a parade with a fellow atheist dressed as a “Zombie Pope” when he encountered Talaag Elbayomy, who was outraged by the insult to the prophet. The confrontation was captured on Perce’s cellphone. Nevertheless, Martin dismissed the charge against Elbayomy. Then he turned to Perce, accusing him of acting like a “doofus.” Martin said: “It’s unfortunate that some people use the 1st Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended.”
For many, the case confirmed long-standing fears that sharia law is coming to this country. The alarmists note that in January, a federal court struck down an Oklahoma law that would have barred citing sharia law in state courts. But there is no threat of that, and certainly not in Oklahoma, which has fewer than 6,000 Muslims in the entire state. Rather, the campaign against sharia law has distracted the public from the very real threat to free speech growing throughout the West.
To put it simply, Western nations appear to have fallen out of love with free speech and are criminalizing more and more kinds of speech through the passage of laws banning hate speech, blasphemy and discriminatory language. Ironically, these laws are defended as fighting for tolerance and pluralism.
After the lethal riots over Dutch cartoons in 2005 satirizing Muhammad, various Western countries have joined Middle Eastern countries in charging people with insulting religion. And prosecutions are now moving beyond anti-religious speech to anti-homosexual or even anti-historical statements. In Canada last year, comedian Guy Earle was found to have violated the human rights of a lesbian couple by making insulting comments at a nightclub. In Britain, Dale Mcalpine was charged in 2010 with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a gay community police officer overheard him stating that he viewed homosexuality as a sin. The charges were later dropped.
Western countries are on a slippery slope where more and more speech is cited by citizens as insulting and thus criminal. Last year, on the Isle of Wight, musician Simon Ledger was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment after a passing person of Chinese descent was offended by Ledger’s singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” Although the charges were eventually dropped, the arrest sends a chilling message that such songs are voiced at one’s own risk.
Some historical debates have now become hate speech. After World War II, Germany criminalized not just Nazi symbols but questioning the Holocaust. Although many have objected that the laws only force such ignorance and intolerance underground, the police have continued the quixotic fight to prevent barred utterances, such as the arrest in 2010 of a man in Hamburg caught using a Hitler speech as a ring tone.
In January, the French parliament passed a law making it a crime to question the Armenian genocide. The law was struck down by the Constitutional Council, but supporters have vowed to introduce a new law to punish deniers. When accused of pandering to Armenian voters, the bill’s author responded, “That’s democracy.”
Perhaps, but it is not liberty. Most democratic constitutions strive not to allow the majority to simply dictate conditions and speech for everyone — the very definition of what the framers of the U.S. Constitution called tyranny of the majority. It was this tendency that led John Adams to warn: “Democracy … soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Legislators in the United States have shown the same taste for speech prosecutions. In June, Tennessee legislators passed a law making it a crime to “transmit or display an image” online that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to someone who sees it. The law leaves free speech dependent not only on the changing attitudes of what constitutes a disturbing image but whether others believe it was sent for a “legitimate purpose.” This applies even to postings on Facebook or social media.
Judge Martin’s comments are disturbing because they reflect the same emerging view of the purpose and, more important, the perils of free speech. Martin told Perce that “our forefathers” did not intend the 1st Amendment “to piss off other people and cultures.” Putting aside the fact that you could throw a stick on any colonial corner and hit three people “pissed off” at Thomas Paine or John Adams, the 1st Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech. We do not need a 1st Amendment to protect popular speech.
The exchange between the judge and the atheist in Mechanicsburg captures the struggle that has existed between free speech and religion for ages. What is different is that it is now a struggle being waged on different terms. Where governments once punished to achieve obedience, they now punish to achieve tolerance. As free speech recedes in the West, it is not sharia but silence that is following in its wake.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2012
Dredd Gene calls me out all the time on this. What exactly does your link to new information on OBL last days have to deal with in this thread. Use the corrections page if you would like suggest a topic for discussion.
On a side note seeing how you are trying to derail the thread and it is your right to post what ever you want because of free speech.
Did you hear 🙂
Reports that Osama bin Laden’s body was flown to the US – not buried at sea, as the official account said – have been denied by a senior US State Department official.
The Pentagon considers ”false and fairly ridiculous” the information contained in a leaked email from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, the acting assistant secretary for public affairs, Mike Hammer, said in a press briefing.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/pentagon-bin-ladens-body-wasnt-flown-to-us-20120310-1ur0z.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
Never said we were not polluting said weren’t warming.
P.S. beautiful blue sky here today.
MM; government does not punish. PEOPLE use their position or influence over government to punish.
Geez, I think I have a new favorite poet.
bd: my standard response for anyone who doubts humans impact on the environment is to suggest they go outside, look at the brown haze that probably hangs over their city, then lock themself in their garage with the engine running and call me in an hour and tell me again humans don’t impact on the environment.
as for malice, indeed, it is malice (your word) when in the name of religion people and organizations try to impose their religious beliefs on others in a government system which specifically calls for the seperation of the two, and which we know from about 10,000 years of the history of civilization usually leads to great harm imposed upon nonbelievers or anyone who deviates from the ‘established religious order.
Which is why they say Global Warming is a religion.
gene, first you inject a word tc used and i didn’t and now you inject another word i didn’t use – “malice” as the basis to draw a distinction between our rants.
you also said: “More people should be more alarmed about attempts to inject religion into government.”, which is essentially agreeing with me again.
in other words, you apparently have nothing better to do then play word games which makes your rant just plain silly.
as for malice, indeed, it is malice (your word) when in the name of religion people and organizations try to impose their religious beliefs on others in a government system which specifically calls for the seperation of the two, and which we know from about 10,000 years of the history of civilization usually leads to great harm imposed upon nonbelievers or anyone who deviates from the ‘established religious order.
The left always wants to shut down free speech one way or another.
Al Gore there will be no more debate the science is settled.
Gloria Alred arrest Rush for what he said.
David Suzuki deny deniers right to deny
The list goes on and on.
Guard, silence that man
Personally, I find genital mutilation, as well as eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a jew who died two thousand years ago disgusting, if not savage. I refuse to let these primitive and cannibalistic practices offend me, however, although I do choose to find them amusing. In other words:
“Boobie Political Science”
(from Fernando Po, U.S.A. — America’s Post-Linguistic Retreat to Plato’s Cave)
…
Like Abram prostrate on the ground
In Jewish tribal lore
George fell down flat upon his face
Thus promising to score
Some skin from off his penis tip
So “GAWD” would not get sore
The Boobies couldn’t get enough
They cheered and stomped and grinned
And held their bloody penises
(Appropriately skinned)
So “GAWD” and George could see at once
That none of them had “sinned”
Thus did the Church and State combine
In prehistoric days
And soon the Boobies learned to stage
Those awful Passion plays
Which featured killing Boobies in
Excruciating ways
And Cicero in Roman times
Inquired of something odd,
“Is there a man so mad who thinks
He drinks and eats a god?”
The mack’rel-snapping Boobies blushed
And answered with a nod
…
Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller, Copyright 2005
On the other hand, if I complained that such barbaric religious practices “offended” me (whether they actually did so or not) would the courts in America make other people stop behaving like Neolithic troglodytes? All in the interests of “tolerance,” of course.
Do the good works of him being a peace maker showing mercy forgiving humans of whatever\, and he will be flesh, and blood in you without having to eat him at all.That is because we are flesh, and blood. Humans Somehow don’t think about that.
Religion that had the King James Version never told you the truth .There are 8 places I can find old,and new combined where the KJV says the heart figuratively is to be circumcised,and the not the penis tip at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29,Thar’s why we have genital mutilation, And why humans hiding of all kinds of nude art from young eyes too. That’s why what is called Yiffing art is to only bee seen by 18,and older humans. Yiff has other meanings other than sex too.
That is why we have the indecency laws, and laws against zoosexuality (sex with another species), past a name Pedo on a human to justify stone throwing too. Wanting to kill a human is connected to war which is freely done, and the death penalty which humans that die feel fully justified in killing another human. They are all connected.
Professor Turley writes:
“Where governments once punished to achieve obedience, they now punish to achieve tolerance.”
Actually, governments always punish to achieve tolerance of their authority. In other words, governments always punish to achieve obedience, under whatever synonym they wish to cloak their depredations upon the intolerable freedoms of citizenry.
Ariticle VI of the U.S. Constitution specifically admonishes: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” And yet, one seldom, if ever, sees a candidate for public office who does not abjectly behave as if such a test does indeed exist. So Dog Bless (or Curse) America and let us hear it once again for:
“Boobie Unconscioius Projection”
(from Fernando Po, U.S.A. — America’s post-linguistic retreat to Plato’s Cave)
The Boobie Grand Ventriloquist
Put on a sight to see
He showed just how projection works
And did it all for free
(Except for a “donation” that
He called “gratuity”)
A giant statue sat on stage
As huge as any tree
A little man then sat upon
A giant wooden knee
And threw a voice out of himself
Like it had come from “HE”
In normal tones of voice this man
Impressed no one at all
But when he shouted “GAWD IZ GRATE!”
A hush consumed the hall
And into Boobie minds there seeped
A sick miasmic pall
The statue never moved an inch
As wooden things don’t do
But on its knee the little man
Had started turning blue
(It seemed that he had held his breath
And counted up to two)
“Don’t let him die!” the crowd beseeched
In rapt insanity
Then color came back to his face;
He breathed more easily
(It seemed that he had exhaled once
He’d counted up to three)
“HE heard your prayers!” the man rejoiced
“As you can clearly see!
And what is more, you’d best believe
That HE looks out for me.
I’m just HIS trusted messenger
Who brings HIS plans for thee.”
“I cannot move but by HIS will.
I serve at HIS command.
This BIG GUY that you see right here
Would rather not demand;
But if HE has to, then HE will;
So here’s what HE’s got planned …”
The little man brought down the house
And as the curtain fell
The Boobies clapped and danced and sang
Enchanted by the spell
They’d all heard GAWD HIMSELF dispense
Commands that went down well
In Boobie red-state USA
The trick works quite the same
Where Boobie George has jury-rigged
A “GAWD” that “hears” its name
Invoked each time that Boobie George
Desires to light a flame
But out in “heartland” USA
Where trees and acres live
A different symbol scheme requires
The Boobies to forgive
The Boobie George’s brain that leaks
Much like a mental sieve
You see, with all the things gone wrong
At home and overseas
The sacrilegious thought might grow
That GAWD had heard no pleas
From wounded, dying soldiers or
Those looted Iraqis
So bumbling Boobie George ginned up
A Rube Goldberg machine
That cranked out TV symbols of
A patriotic scene
Implying GAWD had exercised
HIS choice to intervene
One symbol looked just like a flag
The old Red-White-and-Blue
But blown up to gigantic size
So none would miss the cue
That GAWD and FLAG had just conspired
To make one thing from two
The GAWD-FLAG that George had designed
Contained no flaws or blights
Its crude associations let no
No mind elude its slights
As Boobies found their simple thoughts
Compressed to rude sound-bites
The image of the little man
In GAWD-FLAG’s awesome lights
Consumed the Boobie targets who
Could not escape its sights
It hit them, like the sailors say,
Between the running lights
And Boobie sailors in the crowd
Went psycho — lewd and hushed:
They spent like drunken Reagans and
At Cheney’s language blushed
They didn’t know to go hog-wild
Or just feel simply crushed
And Boobie soldiers looking on
In groups of two’s and three’s
Morphed suddenly in Photoshop
To number as the bees
That swarm about a honey comb
Adoring queens who tease
And Boobie airmen out on leave
From their academy
Felt suddenly compelled to stop
Harassing property
Preferring to assault fellow
Cadets, both he and she
And Guardsmen working at the jails
Saw all of this and more
They took it in and then commenced
To beat their charges sore
Why not, when all their leadership
Had gone to sleep to snore
Associating little man
With GAWD-FLAG has its price
Convincing fearful Boobies that
They needn’t act so nice
Combining fright and power to
Turn humans into lice
Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller, Copyright 2005
. . . that mine doesn’t attribute to malice what is more likely attributable to simple stupidity. Not every bad act done under the color of religiosity is part of a conspiracy. Sometimes it’s just coincidence.
gene, and the difference between my (so called rant, as if everything here isn’t a rant) and your so called rant is…..
I think this is another reason my appeal on the subjective view on Free Speech you right about must not be forgotten here in America.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/01/army-sergeant-convicted-of-threatening-a-judge-due-to-one-line-in-a-song/
I think even this Article about my case is what made you write about my case.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jun/03/iraq-war-dale-jeffries-michael-moyers/
Thank you again for an interesting Free Speech Attach that must be explained to new people in our country! Our Founding Fathers did not bring Free Speech about because of other countries views.
Please see SoldiersRights.com website on article on:
“MOST IMPOTENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH CASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY!”
You will see the Subjective and Objective View our Founding Fathers first believed! It’s about Forgiveness!
“You cannot give offense to anyone unwilling to take it.” — Buddha
Or, for the self-deluded infants wailing for the Invisible Sky Wizard Parent to come and change their soiled diapers for them:
The concept of the single gawd
Leaves little more to mock
Yet charlatans consider it
Their tawdry trade and stock
No worse idea ever crawled
From underneath a rock
Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller
And, anyway, the First Amendment to the Constitution says that “The Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of religion.” So I don’t have to respect any institution of religion — meaning organized infantile dependency — and no one can make me. I really have no use for medieval stupidity or clerical authoritarianism — i.e., religion — and neither did the authors of the American Constitution.
As my late mother used to admonish me: “Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you.” Words and pictures cannot hurt me because I refuse to let them — and I expect the same degree of intellectual and emotional self-possession from all adult citizens of the United States of America.
I think the Buddha and my mom had it right.
If the USA was to Christianize the government all the institutions that are in place thinking they are protecting us would be no more, but they are the darling the the US government The legal system that condemns, and the military army and all of the sub groups of the military would be no more. Heath care as we know it would not have a strangle hold on humans ether.U,C,S, care for all of all ages. would be encouraged for all with classes to teach how to find a good U,C,S, only chiropractic practitioner. Nudity would no longer be indecent. The sexualities would not be persecuted with Humans working out their own salivation with fear, and trembling. If a human does not carefully consider what they do now will tremble when the Lord shines his light. Money would be Phased out with humans giving to whoever asked for whatever. That is giving to God what is Gods. The human has to know that their is an eternal consequence for what they do. Do good get good do bad knowing you are doing bad, and the bad will be the opposite to getting eternal life getting eternal death.
1zb1,
Actually conspiracy was the word Tony used and what I said about this case in particular still stands. I didn’t disagree with you in general, just the specific, but if you simply want to rant about it? Be my guest. More people should be more alarmed about attempts to inject religion into government. It’s inherently dangerous and part and parcel of the reasoning behind the 1st Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses working in concert to create the Separation of Church and State doctrine. Neither Jefferson nor Madison had kind things to say about theocracy and for good reason.
gene: i don’t get it. first you say its not part of a conspiracy to ““Christianize” our government ” (“conspiracy” is not the term I used) and then you essentially describe a concerted effort to ““Christianize” our government “.
Here we have all of the Republican Candidates running on a platform of imposing more of their religious based ideas on government and every other aspect of society and you don’t think there is a concerted effort. From the School boards in Texas wanting to impose their insanity into school books (and succeeding) to the whole business of using religion to deny woman medical services, we have a vast section of the population that wants to impose their lunacy on our country.
We may not know for sure what was the inner motive of this particular judge, but we do know that in the Arab world if you say or do anything that offends their religion it is okay to kill you. Apparently, in our nation its okay to attack someone for the same thing, or ignore the law in the case of providing healthcare for woman, or deny people equal rights based on their sexual preferences as long as you wrap it in the name of religion.
If you can look around you and not see a massive effort to impose Christianity on America then you are living in a delusion.
Excellent! We as a society have become all too politically correct. I came across this interesting video on the effects Muslim immigration has made on France. It seems like the move to not offend has morphed into capitulation of Muslim wants, with little regard to the law.
http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933