There is a disturbing threat from an Obama Administration official that the Administration could prosecute those who “spread false information or inflammatory statements about the perpetrators” in an alleged sexual assault by juvenile Muslim migrants in Idaho. The remarks of United States Attorney Wendy J. Olson has triggered concerns over the criminalization of speech.
The controversy began when two boys from Sudan were arrested on June 17 for allegedly sexually assaulting a 5-year-old special-needs girl in the laundry room of the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho.
Olson then issued the following press release in the state case:
“BOISE – The United States Attorney’s Office extends its support to the five-year-old victim of assault, and her family, at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls.
The United States Attorney’s Office further encourages community members in Twin Falls and throughout Idaho to remain calm and supportive, to pay close attention to the facts that have been released by law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney, and to avoid spreading false rumors and inaccuracies.
Grant Loebs is an experienced prosecutor, and Chief Craig Kingsbury is an experienced law enforcement officer. They are moving fairly and thoughtfully in this case. As Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury informed the public, the subjects in this case are juveniles, ages 14, 10 and 7. The criminal justice system, whether at the state or federal level, requires that juveniles be afforded a specific process with significant restrictions on the information that can be released. The fact that the subjects are juveniles in no way lessens the harm to or impact on the victim and her family.”
That part is not particularly notable. Indeed, it is most striking in how little it actually says. However, Olson then added:
“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.”
Really? Spreading inflammatory or false information “may violate federal law.” Which law would that be and who will not stand in judgment of what is inflammatory and what is false?
This follows the comments by Attorney General Loretta Lynch after the San Bernardino massacre that she would take “aggressive action” to prosecute “anti-Muslim” rhetoric that “edges toward violence.”
I have previously been highly critical of the trend toward the criminalizing of speech in the West. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
This concern was heightened during the first term of the Obama Administration over the support of the criminalization of anti-religious speech. Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt and Pakistan to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have discussed the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
Olson is actually a former adjunct professor at George Washington University. After clerking, she served as a trial attorney and later Deputy Director of the National Church Arson Task Force in the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Olson joined the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho in 1997.
I can understand the concern over false information in such cases that inflame public opinion. Indeed, early reports of Syrian refugees were incorrect. While this is a state case and would not ordinarily involve the Justice Department, the Obama Administration has been highly proactive in the intervention of such cases. However, the inclination of both Lynch and Olson to threaten speech is highly disturbing. Such threats are intended to chill speech and deter people who may say things that the government finds offensive or unacceptable. The sweeping character of these comments belies the absence of authority to actually criminalize the speech of those commenting on these crimes. As public officials sworn to uphold our Constitution, such threats are in my view abusive and highly troubling.
What do you think?
Autumn,
Stop your nonsense. Now take your Soma!
What else would expect from this administration?
Very scary – some years ago I read Neil Postman’s book “Amusing Ourselves to Death” – in the intro he talks about the different visions offered by Orwell and Huxley on government control. Postman thought that Huxley had it nailed — constant distraction would keep the sheeple in line. I think Postman was spot-on, but am realizing more and more that Orwell’s vision is being enforced as well – surveillance, indefinite detention, no fly lists, jailing of whistleblowers.
This is an excellent comic by Stuart McMillan:
http://all-that-is-interesting.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-comic
s
Meanwhile [redacted] terrorists killed almost 50 people and wounded 60 more at Istanbul’s Atatürk Airport.
If you see something, don’t say something.
At least if it’s a Muslim something.
LOL! The “compelling reason” is to keep the propaganda meme going. They are actually taking the playbook from Germany on covering for Muslim sexual assaults. And the establishment wonders why a candidate who trashes PC is popular.
I’m confused when people have had the opportunity to watch gun owners vehemently refuse any encroachment on their rights, by government at ANY level, which they believe the Second Amendment gives them, will sit and roll over when it comes to the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Ever wonder why nothing really changes regarding gun laws? People die and the government can’t do squat. Why? Because the gun lobby is supported by the citizens, millions of them. Works fairly well doesn’t it?
Don’t ever accuse Professor Turley of not being a real patriot.
Send this article to as many friends as you can and tell them to write the Justice department or their Senators. I’m writing mine today.
Don’t put up with this crap.
Just like the Second Amenders accept no encroachment, none.
This all has to do with yogurt.
I fail to see any compelling reason for a federal prosecutor to involve herself in a juvenile case such as this.
Federal criminal procedure is remarkably limited in crimes involving juveniles, with significant language in the various statutes declining delinquency proceedings and referring the matter to local or state jurisdictions. In this case the alleged suspects at ages seven, ten and fourteen bring further question as to the need for federal involvement in the matter.
I suspect this issue is purely political rather than a juvenile justice case. Yet, it is one for which the federal government needs to just let this go or else face another embarrassment for itself.
I dare anyone to tell me with a straight face that within 10 years individuals holding the wrong opinions concerning race and IQ, race and crime, certain events in WW 2, immigration, refugee resettlement and the Islamic religion, will be prosecuted for hate speech. Of course, the left will welcome this and solemnly proclaim that these restrictions are really not violations of the 1st Amendment but symbolic of the living nature of our glorious constitution. Cuckservatives will go along as “me too” Republicans but attempt to temper it around the edges.
Antonio – they are already putting in the Democratic platform that criticism of global warming is a crime.
Some years back there was a case in New Jersey where teenage boys took advantage of a mentally “slow” girl. It got lots of publicity; no US attorneys trying to tamp down the anger at those miscreants. If the reports on this case are true, its at least as bad with the added dimension that they are refugees. We have enough home grown miscreants, why bring in more?
The mainstream media and Democratic Party insist that we have to bring in these refugees. Some Republicans want them, too,because the yogurt manufacturers and meat packers want them. In other words campaign contributions. It would make a lot more sense to keep them in Syria where the money we are spending would go farther and where the most vulnerable – sick and elderly – refugees would benefit. This policy we have looks more and more like a scheme that, as usual, benefits a few at the cost of the rest of us.
The language used here is poorly thought out and wrong. I think Prof. Turley is being a bit of a drama queen on this one, though. Still, Turley is right to call them out.
If you want to read the really bad stuff, go read the majority opinion in
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. That opinion is an abomination and a disgrace to the Supreme Court.
For those of you criticizing the prosecutor’s statement, where did you stand in the Alvarez case, where the defendant’s conviction for lying about having received a Medal of Honor was reversed by the Supremes?
If you didn’t support a reversal of that conviction, I’d be very interested in your explanation of how you square your position in that case with your criticism of the prosecutor’s statement above. One of my favorite opinions ever is Judge Kozinski’s dissent in the Alvarez case when it was at the 9th Circuit.
I think it is wrong to falsely shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There are limits on speech which may affect public safety.
Turley is wrong about this particular case.
The Federal government’s position on speech has been very clear since Sept. 26, 2001 when the press secretary for the President of The United States said this: “Americans to “watch what they say, watch what they do.”
How more clear could the government’s position be?
If lying and spreading falsehoods is a crime, let’s impeach (seriously) and charge criminally Obama for lying. The basis of his entire first campaign was his promise to “end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” which wars still go on. He has personally spent in the dung hole known as Afghanistan over $230B USD and is responsible for the death and maiming of thousands of US soldiers, who kill themselves every day, some of whom die waiting for treatment in the land of the free and home of the brave. Let’s charge Obama the amount of money he’s wasted on his illegal military excursions in the ME.
I can not overstate my hatred and disgust for this putrid lying excuse for a human being, and am embarrassed and humiliated we share the same citizenship.
Seventeen EU nations + Canada imprison persons for the sole crime of disbelieving the Western meme known as the Jewish holocaust, AKA “holocaustianity.”
If you like those laws, you’ll love the USA version personified in this article.
With each passing day the USA becomes more and more a wholly owned property of Israel, Inc.
Does she have information that there is potential for mob violence or vigilante ‘justice’?
“very abusive and highly troubling”. Calm down, Professor.
To my mind this is both unConstititutional and chilling. The DoJ is out of control.
This is chilling. Isn’t our government’s first responsibility to protect its citizens? Is the objective to silence individuals familiar with the situation in order to continue this administration’s agenda of bringing refugees we gave no idea who they are? Who may never assimilate? Who may bring terror to our nation? When are American citizens priority number one? I shutter for our nation, our communities, our children and our grandchildren? When did we as a nation lose our way?