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?
Paul and Sqeeky – thanks for posting that about the DNC platform – I find it amazing that they are trying to curtail free speech against global warming given that they support Obama’s (and HRC’s) push for the TPP. I keep trying to explain to my Hilbot friends that the TPP will hasten the destruction of the environment for profit.
the administration’s refusal to change positions in the face of new information is the classic definition of obstinance- -i am constantly gobsmacked by the administration aggressive refusal to acknowledge new information that does not comport with their narrative – just remarkable
@RosieS
What is a “crock,” is conflating “women’s health” with “killing babies.” I mean sheeesh, at least the Nazis mostly killed grown-ups. Not the American liberals. Heck, it the baby is 8 1/2 month old and about to pop out, the Dems think it is just spiffy to pull its head out, and then drive a spike into it. I think Democratic party women must have an unnatural fear of dirty diapers and growing up, in general.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yes, we could put away the entire oligarchy for that one! Go get em Wendy!!!
The entire government of Texas would also be in jail.
Protecting women’s health! What a crock.
KC Fleming – did you read the Committee’s report on Benghazi? Rescue teams cooled their heels for up to 18 hours, while in the emergency meeting that HC attended, they wanted to wait to send rescue until the video was removed from the internet. Even though eye witness accounts said there was no demonstration. And because we now have HC’s emails, we know that while she and Susan Rice were telling people it was about a video, at the same time she was telling Egypt and her daughter that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack.
If lying was a federal crime, DC would be empty.
Color me surprised, NOT! Democrats are now advocating the prosecution of global warming skeptics! Gee, anybody remember the Spanish Inquisition, or Galileo having to say the Sun revolved around the Earth??? Think I am making this up??? Here, read this:
or, this recent story:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/fck-fascist-one-mans-epic-response-mass-ag-over-subpoena-climate-change
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If spreading false or inflammatory information violates federal law, then Susan Rice, Obama, and Hillary Clinton would be in jail already. (If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance…We will save American families $2500 a year. It was about a video. I had approval to use my own server. I have been cooperating with the security check, which is not a criminal investigation.) Time and again the government either lies or tries to control information to hide its mistakes.
When large numbers of people immigrate from regions infamous for the violation of human rights, including violence against women…then we can expect such violence to increase here. How can you expect someone to completely abandon values and prejudices ingrained since birth? When we don’t restrict such regions to asylum cases who would cherish our freedoms, you are going to get the abusers, too. And those abusers will raise their children just the same. If that mob who threw gay men off a building said, “Let’s all go to America!”, how can we assume they will behave in San Francisco or Hollywood? Can they go from murdering gays to completely tolerant in the few hours it takes to go through customs? What about the people who were just there cheering?
I support legal immigration. At the same time, I want only good, honest, people to come who will accept our values and become Westernized. I don’t want to import violence against women, LGBT (isn’t there a Q in there now, too?), Jews, Christians, albinos, or any of the other violence. We watch the global news, and think how lucky we are that we don’t live in places terrorized by Boko Haram or ISIS, or we don’t have toilet paper shortages and murder over $5 like in Venezuela, or pet dogs rounded up and killed by the government…but how do we ensure that we don’t just import it over here? Will we see the day where Jews and gays are terrorized on the street? Oh, wait, we have. We just had 50 gay people killed and many more injured in the name of ISIS. The perpetrator’s parents immigrated here and had a show where they supported Sharia Law, where homosexuality is a capital crime. There are parts of Brussels and France where Jews fear to tread. No Go Zones in Western Europe. A few years ago, my friend caught her neighbor stoning her dog with large rocks. He said dogs were filthy and unclean. Her dog had welts all over him, and her intervention may have saved its life. We have enough problems. I don’t want Western values to one day become a thing of the past, not even found in history books because they will all have been destroyed like Palmyra. If 1 million people in a city have Western values of equality, individual rights, and freedom, and you import 1 million people from regions infamous for the exact opposite, who vote, how will the climate of that city change? People like Malala, who was shot in the head for promoting the education of girls, are an asset to our country; the people who shot her are not. But right now we get both. Investigators were forbidden to review the social media of immigrants.
Let’s see…
This prosecutor makes a mistaken attempt of something like 10 words to caution people about inciting hate against three accused immigrant children aged 14, 10, and 7.
Meanwhile, Trump advocates the use of TORTURE.
Should we all expect a similar blog about the call for TORTURE from a guy who may be the next president of the United States of America or shall we continue to decry the end of America and rend our garments over the few words of a prosecutor (excuse me, a “Top Administration Prosecutor”) in Idaho who may have been concerned about the incitement hate within a community.
Stirring the pot much?
RosieS – let’s talk about Google not filling in search terms for Hillary. Lets talk of Twitter taking the top conservative Tweeters and shutting them down. Let’s talk about the MSM misfactchecking Trump when he is talking about Clinton Cash. Let’s talk about the Clinonistas doing a trash tour trying to keep the Secret Service officer who was there in the White House for 8 years from getting any interviews. And let’s talk about Clinton Cash.
What’s the word for that behavior?
Oh, yeah:
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fascism-warning-sign1-e1387571773375.jpg
Similar threats for government prosecution of writing or speaking “false information” have been made for people who disagree with “climate change.”
“…what’s the difference here?”
It is the subtle threat of prosecution for talking about [redacted], whether true or not.
She said false information, which means truth is a defense… We recognize the power of the government to force someone to pay another for spreading false and damaging information, what’s the difference here?
Don,
re: “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.”
Unlike a lot of y’all I am not an attorney so I find legalese difficult to understand. Will you please break it down?
Jim22, the Soma ain’t workin’ for me anymore. A friend has suggested I should go to a re education camp =)
What Don de Drain (“[t]he language used here is poorly thought out and wrong”) and Darren Smith (“I fail to see any compelling reason for a federal prosecutor to involve herself in a juvenile case such as this”) said.
This is a state issue, and the comment by the US Attorney was not only outside her purview but at best a poorly-worded translation of OWH, Jr.’s opinion in Schenck v. United States (1919), which illuminated the difference between protected and unprotected types of speech.
“Would these laws protect Mr. Turley from his Benghazi stories? ”
The laws and media ignored Clinton’s Benghazi stories.
No one cares that she let 4 Americans die.
La la la.
Neil Postman was an excellent writer.
Orwell and Huxley could BOTH be correct; their ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Would these laws protect Mr. Turley from his Benghzi stories? He’s gone down with the right wing on this one, Maybe thats why he’s talking Alaska right now. I sure hope your next job with “FOX NEWS” pays off.
Autumn, THANKS BEYOND for the ATII link. What a keeper!