IS KORAN BURNING PROTECTED BY FREE SPEECH?
By Daniel Huff
Initially, everyone from Mayor Bloomberg to the White House affirmed a right to burn the book, even as they condemned the act. Then General David Petraeus got involved, followed by the FBI, and now U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says Koran burning may not be protected speech after all.
The key to this rapid reversal was General Petraeus' warning that Koran burning "could endanger troops" and the war effort. Although styled as a request, not a demand, his comments laid the legal foundation for compelled government censorship. The reason is that First Amendment rights are not absolute. The U.S. Constitution permits the government to censor speech, if necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. This is a very high standard, but the fact that the nation's top commander made a rare public appeal for restraint will be cited as strong evidence that avoiding offense to Muslims is essential to the national interest.
Once this dangerous premise is accepted, the door is open to court injunctions against speech that inflames Muslim sentiment in strategically important locations.
It has already started.
Last week, the New Jersey Transit Authority fired an 11-year veteran employee for burning the Koran at a 9/11 rally. Ordinarily, a government employee cannot be dismissed for expressing personal views on a matter of public concern, unless it interferes with the orderly functioning of the workplace. Should he sue, the government may try the "Petraeus defense."
Hopefully it will fail.
In a series of cases arising out of civil rights demonstrations, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly held that free expression cannot be limited "simply because it might offend a hostile mob."
An alternative rule would reward bad behavior, creating what First Amendment experts call a "heckler's veto." Dunlap v. City of Chicago 435 F. Supp. 1295 (N.D.III.1977) illustrates the extent of this principle. Officials had denied pro-Martin Luther King demonstrators a permit to march in a predominantly white area because every prior similar protest in the vicinity had resulted in violence. When they sued, the U.S. District Court not only ordered the City to permit the parade, it also demanded officials provide policemen "in such numbers as … are required to afford adequate protection" to the marchers. When the violence officials feared materialized, the Court allowed a suit against the City for providing insufficient police protection.
The argument that speech should be censored to prevent violence was rejected in the civil rights context, and it should not be accepted now.
That is what made it so frustrating to hear the President, in the very same appearance, denounce Koran burning for fear of offending Muslims, but insist the First Amendment rights of the Ground Zero Mosque planners trump the "extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11." In essence, opponents of the GZM project are being punished for not being violent.
The perverseness of this approach is even starker, considering there is no genuine First Amendment issue in the Ground Zero context. That provision places constraints on the government; not on the general public's right to pressure a religious group. By contrast, the Obama administration's pressure on the Florida pastor, which included dispatching the FBI to impress upon him that his life would be in danger, carries the distinct flavor of prohibited government interference.
Legal wrangling aside, the Obama administration has it backwards from a strategic standpoint. Insisting Americans curb their First Amendment rights in deference to Muslims, but not asking Muslims to do the same when Americans are offended, creates a privileged status for Islam, which is exactly what the extremists want. Their goal is to impose a radical brand of Islamic law on society at large. Censoring speech that insults or critiques Islam is the first step in this process and the U.S. government should not be doing it for them.
Even at the tactical level, it doesn't make sense. The Obama administration argued Koran burnings could function as a "recruitment tool for Al-Qa'ida." But anyone who could actually be driven to terrorism by a stunt from a handful of individuals thousands of miles away is no moderate. He was going to be set off eventually anyway. Better to flush him into the open now.
Senior military officials also worried it would hurt our efforts to "win hearts and minds." Afghans "do not understand either the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can't simply issue a decree to stop" Koran burning.
It would be one thing if Afghan operations were just beginning and America's good faith needed to be established. But U.S. forces have been there nine years. If the billions spent and thousands lost are not proof enough of America's commitment, nothing ever will be.
As such, curbing free speech rights buys only temporary appeasement and it comes at a high cost. Not only do we compromise our principles, but it emboldens extremists who will conclude the Obama administration is so fearful of retaliation it jettisoned its inaugural promise to reject the "false …choice between our safety and our ideals."
Legal Issues, Lawyers, & America's Judiciary
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
The Constitution of the United States of America
Lawfare -- The Use of Law as a Weapon in War & Politics:
Islamist Lawfare & the "Legal" Jihad Against America & the West
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three Page Two Page One
Daniel Huff is the Director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum. He previously served as Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, handling a number of matters related to American national security and to civil and criminal law. As a member of the staff of the Judiciary Committee, one of his priorities was the Free Speech Protection Act, which was designed to combat "libel tourism," the practice of intimidating American authors by suing them for libel in foreign jurisdictions less protective of freedom of speech and expression than is the U.S.A.
Prior to his service in Washington, D.C., Huff was an associate at McKinsey & Company in New York, N.Y. A member of the New York Bar, Huff is a graduate of Columbia University Law School, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.
The foregoing article by Daniel Huff was originally published in Fox News, September 20, 2010, and can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat. (URL: http://www.meforum.org/2749/koran-burning-free-speech)
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
LINKS TO PARTICULAR ISSUES & SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES
TREATED IN THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, U.S.A.:
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * Foreign Policy, U.S.
France * Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor