If the allegations are true, Diego Chaar is a horrible anti-Semitic person. He is accused to yelling Allahu akbar outside of a synagogue and saying that he would cut the heads off the congregants. Yet, the case presents a potential free speech issue after Chaar is facing charges of stalking and assault.
The incident occurred outside of the Ohev Shalom Synagogue. Two members of the congregation said that they were standing outside the Miami Beach synagogue when Chaar and another man walked by and made the statements. They were followed and Chaar was later arrested.
Chaar converted to Islam two years ago while in prison and police say that he told them “I want to take them to paradise. I don’t want them to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. I feel like that they’re worshipping right now is nothing, it’s fake. It don’t exist, in my opinion.”
Rabbi Phineas Webberman not only head the congregation but is also a police chaplain. He insisted “That’s called assault. Threatening to kill. His attitude was that this is his religious responsibility of carrying out killing infidels.”
The question that is likely to be raised is whether there is true or whether this is a case of free speech. The Florida law is actually written quite broadly:
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
That however can produce a constitutional conflict if a person’s “harassment” is to yell religious or political views, even violent speech.
Weberman said that “A group of young men were outside in the front area, the front lawn, sitting on the benches, and they were approached by somebody who was screaming, ‘Allahu akbar. I’m gonna cut your heads off.’ He repeated that, and they went and called the police. He used the term that the terrorists used when they killed the infidels, and they threatened to cut their heads off.”
Violent speech is protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that citizens cannot be prosecuted for their exercise of free speech, even in the case of so-called “violent speech.” See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447–48 (1969) (per curiam); see also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 928–29 (1982). The only exception to this rule is found in extreme cases where the speech is akin to “one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.” Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 456 (Douglas, J., concurring). In such cases, the Court has stressed that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Id. at 447. The government must show not only that the defendant both advocated imminent violence, but also that such advocacy was likely to incite or produce such a response. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108–109 (1973).
The question is whether this statement passing by a synagogue would satisfy such a high standard. Chaar insists that he never said that he wanted to cut off heads, but even if he did, there would still be a free speech issue in the case.
The statements allegedly made by Chaar are despicable and reprehensible. However, can such comments be criminalized if they were made? One possible angle for prosecutors would be to argue that the comments were directed at two men outside of the synagogue. However, the facts suggest that Chaar did not know the men and was walking by at the time.
What do you think?
A threat is free speech-is directed at a group-is directed at specific people-is perhaps a sign of mental instability-is something that needs the attention of our society. That is why we have the law. This guy walks by a group of people he doesn’t like and makes statements to instill fear and anger. That is a provocation that society must meet. The rest is legal mumbo jumbo.
The Constitution has contradictions, or is open to contradictory interpretations. The 2nd amendment could be taken to mean the right to bear arms as part of a ‘well regulated militia’ or anyone with anything. That is to say, I should be able to practice with my mortar and antique Sherman tank. It is seen as the latter due to the conservative bent of the Supreme Court, the political threat of the NRA, and sufficient lunacy among enough Americans. The recent victory of the NRA allowing armor piercing bullets to be sold-why on earth does anyone need an armor piercing bullet-is a perfect example.
JT-I am waiting for your take on ‘snakehead’, America’s shame of a governor and his banning on the use of certain phrases within his government circles in Florida. ‘Climate change, global warming, etc. are no longer permissible. I know you are a lawyer and the thief got off by refusing to answer questions almost thirty times, his legal right, but here wouldn’t he be violating your most sacred pet peeve, free speech? This is getting closer to the ’50s.
He said he was going to cut their heads off. This crosses the line and is no longer protected speech. Throw the book at him.
There seems to be a he said, he said issue on whether or not he made a threat to cut off heads. In respect to the Allahu Akbar comment made while walking past, that would seem to fit under the cover of Free Speech. Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t see how stalking even enters into this as it appears to be a one off incident rather than a repeated pattern. Definitely a reprehensibly act, but whether it’s criminal is highly questionable.
I do think this raises to the level of threat. Generally, I would say it was protected speech, whoever this is like talking about bombs in an airport.
That guy could not say that in Jackson Park in Berkeley, Missouri if he interposed the N word. If is not free speech depending on the words. He would be killed in Jackson Park for saying that with the N word and directing it to minorities. Who, are in the majority in Jackson Park, in Berkeley, Missouri. And, it would get him thrown out of school in Oklahoma. “Protected speech” does not create a bullet proof vest. Now, all of his speech could be grounds for a civil commitment to a mental institution for such time as he is not wacko. And if he was Wacko in Waco, Texas, then that would be a life sentence because you don’t get un-Wacko in Waco.
“are you suggesting we sink to the level of our enemies? I doubt it”
No.
The EU is at a flashpoint, however.
Jews are encountering this stuff every day, and the inflammatory speech is accompanied by actual attacks and murders.
So they have to decide when enough is enough.
We need to condemn this.
US Muslims need to condemn this vocally and in the media, and act by closing those mosques and censoring those imams teaching violent Islam.
We need to recognize that the prison system here, as in the EU, is radicalizing inmates with Islam.
We cannot see these events and react by worrying that people will unnecessarily target Muslims, when the problem is enacted wholly by Muslims.
Maybe in that way we can avoid hitting a flashpoint.
I don’t see how it’s a free speech issue since he threatened to cut off heads.
Pogo Hears a Who …. are you suggesting we sink to the level of our enemies? I doubt it, knowing your past comments, but I have to ask?
99guspuppet … you had my agreement until you reached “…Or if I was in a bad mood…” …after that you reduced yourself the level of the worst terrorist. As I have mentioned earlier and elsewhere, like many veterans, I’ve shot in anger and in both offense and defense (sometimes instigated by gruesome acts by the enemy)…and I would never have considered acid in some one’s face as justified. You pick though the pockets of an enemy corpse and you find the same things you have…photos from home, letters from home, family guys who are in the same conundrum you are….so what you propose would be a violation of both international law and military law. Tongue in cheek, right? I hope so.
I admit that in at least two locales, I “went native” so to speak…and the Army made good use of that phenomena, as well as my acquired language skills. USMC LTG Krulak had it right … you can’t win until you immerse units in the population and in that there is a risk of enemy plants. You just deal with that…you do NOT throw acid or chop off body parts. If you do, you are no better than the enemy.
I am sorry if I offend you, but my outlook is hard earned. YOur experiences may be equally hard earned. I can’t know that. Others may differ, but most I know, admittedly a select group, do not. I don’t tell gruesome “war stories” (nor do most veterans I know….other than a popular commenter on another blog who occasionally refers to “Blood on the Risers” as his favorite song vis a vis the 82nd Airborne and 173rd Airborne Brigade, ) … I’m far happier and satisfied with anecdotes about some kids with baseball bats and gloves we provided (mentioned here previously)…in those acts we accomplished something, and it was not hate. The rest of the “stories” are worth far less. When I think about those days, I think most about “what happened to those kids we played ball with, rifles laid aside”…not to mention the 16×20 photo in our living room of two little girls behind barbed wire photographed (by a very good friend) as the first Marines marched out of DaNang. Where are they today? Are they survivors or are they dead? I only wish I knew….
Gee, seems like just yesterday we were discussing how Islam seems to be incompatible with civilization.
When will we learn that there is but one God and that all others are false. When will we learn to follow His exact tenets dictated through our wisest ancestors. When will we learn. Zeus forgive us.
KG…yes, you (he) will be arrested for making the lethal threats, not for just hollering a religious taunt. It is not something a civilian a has the remotest authority to do. The police did their job, simple as that.
BitchinDog said…
If he said this stuff in front of my house I would shoot first and call police later.
Say hey, that’s a good way to earn a life in prison sentence. Lacking an obvious means to kill makes the guy just a motor mouth. Much as we might like to, being a motor mouth won’t rise to a self-defense assertion. If the idiot is obviously armed and waving a gun, or displaying a body-bomb, then all bets are off….but for just running his mouth, sorry, repugnant as it is, it is not grounds for use of lethal force. You are hearing this from a guy who has used lethal force and it was necessary, but I found no pride in it. It haunts you for a long time because you know, over time & experience, that the “enemy” is not all that different than you. War makes us beasts, but there is no excuse for starting one over stupid words. YMMV….and I hope you were speaking more tongue in cheek that remark…for real.
I think that this falls under the fighting words exceptions. While I think that the police cannot arrest him for what he said, I think that the people outside the synagogue can take matters into their own hands and beat the hell out of him. That is what should be done. Then if the creep wants to call the cops, they can claim the defense of fighting words.
Reblogged this on The World Around Us and commented:
If you yell Allahu akbar outside of a synagogue and say that you will cut the heads off the congregants, Stands to reason you will be arrested!
Chill Out
Is he on private property ?
If so, owner asks him to leave the property.
I would ask him why he was shouting that ….
” Are you in a bad mood and venting … or do you intend to kill someone now or in the future ? Have some people you care about been harmed ? I assure you that I am not a supporter of government aggression, violence and killing. … Can I buy you lunch ?”
Or if I was in a bad mood …. I would spray acid in his face, cut off some of his fingers and toes, google up his friends and family ….. spray acid their faces , carve messages on their body , then go to the gym to relax with BitchinDog.
My life , happiness and pursuit of liberty is completely determined by those around me… what they say to me… what they believe … I focus completely on aligning with the pop social fabric.
99guspuppet
I also think it imposes on the freedom of religion insofar as being able to lead your life freely in the pursuit of Liberty and Happiness in that way
I think that if he stands outside a temple like that and threatens to kill people by cutting their heads off that someone could shoot him and claim justifiable use of deadly force. Florida is a stand your ground state. If he said this stuff in front of my house I would shoot first and call police later. Take him for his word. Yeah, it may be protected speech under the First Amendment but it can get him lawfully killed. Stand your ground folks and shoot this perp.
Did you see that face BitchinDog? Seriously. Could you see what would happen to him in saaaayyy Berkley with a face like that?
Look at that violent face. He needs to make a mask of that face and pass it out to the new thug club
How do you distinguish “violent free speech” from a threat? If a police officer faced the same situation and a squirt gun they would likely be exculpated for justifiable homicide.
Seems to me the issue is determining harmless Turret’s syndrome from a precursor of real violence.