Muslim Law Students’ War Against Free Speech

Florida State University College of Law is rather moderate as far as law schools go. Sure, nearly all the faculty are committed leftists, but they tend to be fair in their instruction, and are always willing to engage a conservative or libertarian constructively. The student body’s a mixed bag ideologically. Most of the student organizations are oriented leftward, the campus Republicans exist in name only, and the most visible, and best-attended, student organization is our chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, for which I serve as President.

The Federalist Society is the nation’s premier fellowship of law school conservatives and libertarians. We are a diverse coalition, united by our commitment to an originalist jurisprudence. Known in some circles as “right-wing extremism,” originalism is a legal hermeneutic whose guiding principle is that laws retain their original public meaning until they are legally rescinded or amended. This contrasts with the predominant leftist hermeneutic, which considers the law to be a “living” instrument – not in the sense that it is open to amendment, but in the sense that laws promulgated at one moment can take on different meanings in another, by judicial fiat. The “living constitutionalist” believes judges are charged with reinterpreting the law in light of what is believed to be a legal metanarrative reflected in the broader legal tradition; the letter of the law is not so important as its spirit, a spirit which just so happens to accord with whatever leftist notions of personal morality and social justice happen to prevail at the time of adjudication.

The Federalist Society is a nonpartisan organization. We do not take stances on the controversial social and public policy issues, but we do foster debate and discussion of these issues from conservative and libertarian perspectives. Whatever the personal views of members and officers, the Society does not endorse the ideas presented by invited speakers.

(By extension, any and all ideas presented in this article are my own, and not that of the Federalist Society.)

On Tuesday, March 30, my FSU Law chapter will be honored to have Mr. Robert Spencer lecture on “Introduction to Islamic Jurisprudence: What You Need to Know.” The flier for the event is simple enough: the aforementioned title, suspended above one of the controversial Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. The cartoon I chose for the event is the one that features a fearsome Muhammad, his eyes shielded by the censor’s black bar, flanked by two women in dressed in black niqabs, with a clear bar leaving room only for their eyes.

The approved fliers were put up around campus on the evening of March 24th. By the following morning, almost half of them were taken down, and at least one remaining one defaced with “This Is Racist!”. The fliers were unlawfully removed by members of the newly founded chapter of the Muslim Law Students Association (MLSA) and various leftist fellowships on campus. They conveyed their offense to administration, and I was invited to meet with three of the deans that afternoon, along with the professor who acts as faculty advisor to both the MLSA and ACLU chapters. (As of this writing, the torn-down fliers have not been replaced by the administration or the MLSA.)

The faculty conveyed to me their concern that several students considered the cartoon to be offensive to Arabs. I quickly replied that a) Islam is not a race, b) most Muslims are not Arab, c) most Arabs in the United States are not Muslim, and d) Spencer himself is of Middle Eastern ancestry. (Interestingly, I may be as well. Both my parents are from Sicily, and my mother’s maiden name, Scianna, appears to be Arabic in origin.)

To their credit, the administration is not asking me to cancel Mr. Spencer’s lecture, is not compelling me to take down or edit the fliers, and have assured me that no counter-rally/protest will be permitted to disrupt the event as scheduled. They have asked me, with considerable rigor, to self-censor the aforementioned political cartoon, and have conveyed to me their impression that the image is gratuitously offensive, that my publication of it discredits the Federalist Society and the conservative movement, that the prestige of the law school is at stake, and that I will be (at least in part) morally responsible for any violent reaction and hurt feelings which occur as a result. I was also warned my professional reputation would suffer, both during and after law school.

The faculty advisor went further to accuse Mr. Spencer of radical extremism. When I pressed him to name a single extreme idea of Spencer’s, the only thing he would point to is Mr. Spencer’s endorsement of our flier. After the deans alerted me to the fact that the FSU police department would be preparing security for the event, and I remarked how shameful it was that such a measure was deemed necessary, I was assured that this was the same treatment that would be afforded a guest speaker who was a neo-Nazi. Further comparisons ensued: the cartoon was compared to the advertisement, some years ago, of a “Pimps and Hos Party” by some students at the law school– indeed, the MLSA faculty advisor did not know whether that party was as offensive as the cartoon! The cartoon was also compared to a pornographic display, or an anti-Semitic caricature.

Various colleagues have expressed similar sentiments to me, some more rationally than others, and I feel the various accusations deserve a response. It is being claimed that the Muhammad cartoon(s) bears no relationship whatsoever to Mr. Spencer’s upcoming lecture, and has no relationship to anything relevant to we living in the United States.

I vehemently disagree.

Let me take this time to school my colleagues, and those others on the political left, or the cowardly right, who share a fundamental disrespect for religion, and so for religious distinctives. Ideas are not all equally valid, nor do they all equally withstand intellectual scrutiny, whether that criticism is conveyed artistically, literarily, or scholarly. And this is true of religious ideas as it is of any “secular” conceit. To answer one of the deans’ comparisons, it does not stand to reason that because usurious money-lending is not intrinsic to Judaism, that therefore violence and subjugation of women/gays/non-Muslims is not intrinsic to traditional Islam. The best defense one can ever give to the charge of libel or slander is Truth, and any truth-claim that a reasonable person can defend is a legitimate object of political satire.

Secondly, I assured my esteemed elders that I agree with them, in principle, that one ought not to gratuitously offend the religious sensibilities of one’s fellow man. But as with any precept of the moral law, the principle is more readily agreed to than the application. I do believe the aforementioned cartoon is legitimate satire, cleverly contrasting the treatment sharia law affords to images of Muhammad with what it mandates for women (among others). And it is a fact that Muhammad was a conquering warlord who wielded a scimitar. These inconvenient truths are no more sacrosanct than the priestly sex-abuse scandals and subsequent episcopal cover-ups, which have been, and still are, legitimate subjects for satire.

Not only does the image speak to the subject of sharia law, but it does so in a way that reflects current events and the current political climate. Just a couple of weeks ago, two American Muslim women were arrested for plotting to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who drew similar caricatures of Muhammad. And the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations’ largest voting block, has been at work for years trying to convince the non-Muslim world to incorporate sharia-inspired anti-blasphemy laws into their legal systems.

That is what should offend my esteemed colleagues at the Muslim Law Students Association: The fact that there are men fearing for their lives over the publication of a political cartoon, and not in some Talibanic theocracy, but in one of the most “liberal” environs on the planet! Where were my Muslim colleagues, and their useful idiots on the left, when just last week well over 500 Christians and their families were massacred by Islamists in Nigeria? Where were they when news broke that one Mr. Arshed Masih, a Pakistani Christian who would not convert to Islam, was burned alive and his wife raped while their two children were forced to watch? Why weren’t they staging rallies on the FSU Law campus demanding accountability from the international community for these outrages against human rights? Why does it take the publication of a reasonably defensible political cartoon to arouse their moral indignation, when every month hundreds, if not thousands, are butchered (and millions more subjugated) in the name of the religious system which these cartoons supposedly misrepresent?

No, I do not believe in going out of my way to offend reasonable persons. But there is nothing in the flier advertising Mr. Spencer’s event that should offend the sentiments of a reasonable person, even a reasonable Muslim moderate. I cannot possibly be expected, and nor should anyone else, to cater to the morally retarded sensibilities of an oversensitive minority.

I am proud to stand in solidarity with the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Lars Vilks, Geert Wilders, Brigitte Gabriel, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, the late Theo van Gogh, and all others who are resisting modern academia’s imbecilic canons of self-censorship. I hope I can say the same for many of my colleagues, in Tallahassee and abroad. I wish I could say the same for my professors.

Eric Giunta is a Juris Doctor Candidate at Florida State University College of Law, where he serves as President of that school’s premier conservative-libertarian debate society. He has written for LifeSiteNews and RenewAmerica.com. He maintains a blog, “Confessions of a Liberal Traditionalist,” at lexetlibertas.wordpress.com. He welcomes any offers and suggestions which would refute his professors’ grim prognostications for what this incident bodes for his professional career!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

    I saw a clever remark the other day. I thought I'd share it.

    If pislam is a race, does that mean that white people can't become arselifters?

  • DESZ

    Some of EG’s remarks, near the end of his article, constitute hate speech in Canada and Holland- no matter that they depict the truth.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

      If telling the truth is a hate crime, what does that make lying?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

        Talking points, which will gain you the White House.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

          Yes, that's worked more than once.

      • Fed Up

        It makes it something you do, since you are not Gary Rumain, you dickless little cocksucker.

  • http://www.howtofinanceyourlife.com Paul Beaird

    Whether or not these Islamic students were born on American soil, they are as much a threat to civilization and America as any Communist was during the Cold War. They should be stripped of American citizenship and exported to the Moslem country their parents fled from. The self-declared enemy is the enemy.

    • Kanwi

      Paul, I fully agree with you. If they don't like our value system then back out the way they came in The host country choice is clear – assimulate or piss off but certainly not attempt to change. ……kanwi

    • NoleLaw

      They are American citizens, they cannot be deported without an act of treason, and I'm sorry to tell you that simply being a Muslim does not qualify as treason. But that's okay, go ahead and break the Constitution which you hold so dear.

  • tony

    Good work young man!!!!

  • pegg696

    The truth is Irrelevant. How dare you speak Irrelevantly. But good job just the same. I myself find my self to be more than irrelevant, in an irrelevant sort of way.

    • Dune fan

      I once shot an Irrelevant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas I don’t know.

      Less Karl more Groucho!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Indioviejo Indioviejo

    Mr. Eric Giunta, hats off to a brave young man! You Sir, are giving a lesson in morality, ethics and values to the moral midgets at FSU. How can they look at themselves in the mirror every morning? As long as we have young men of your caliber in America, we will continue to resist. You sir, are a LEADER, so go forth and do great things for America. God bless you. ADELANTE.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/darkmorrow darkmorrow

    Bravo young man. When you earn your degree I may one day be in need of your services. Many Faithful persons, will need your help. It is the goal of true Islamists to conquer and subjugate the planet in the name of Allah. Being a bit older (a looney Gen -Xer) I take pride in wearing my Inidel T-shirt around Florida. Written in Arabic and translated to english below, it is my way of letting Muslims know how they already see me.
    A reilgion that WILL KILL YOU, should be feared more than a person that disagrees with you. I think that is why the fake outrage of the left is so prevalent. I think they know one day, if we decent, moral people cannot stop the Islamists, they'll have to beg for thier lives and show how LOYAL they once were to Islam, before they are forced to convert, and their heads are seraptitiously removed from their bodies.

  • http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/ Bob Smith

    The clarity of Eric Guinta’s article is obviously a threat to fuzzy headed leftist liberals and Muslim apologists.

    Instead of trying to engage in reasonable debate, they continue their tactics of intimidation and obfuscation.

    Islam is unfortunately nothing more than a large successful cult whose reality is hidden by a cloak of “religious legitimacy”.

    Islamists, politically correct wonks and leftist self-haters of western civilization are doing what they can to stop the awakening of the non-Muslim world to the realities of Islam. They are simply ideologically brainwashed or cannot deal with the facts.

    Thank you Eric Guinta for an article so correctly stated.

  • Nathan Hale

    Well stated, Mr. Eric Giunta! Your concise reminder that ‘ALL ideas do not have equal validity ‘ is of absolute importance today. It is in fact the supportive corollary & figurative preamble to Burke’s “all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
    We have now come to expect the described response from the MLSA students. But it is the reactions from the FSU law school faculty and administration to this satirical flyer that is most troubling.
    Anticipate that proposals to diversify and expand FSU law school’s curriculum by offering courses such as ‘Introduction To Sharia Law’ will be coming.
    Having guest speakers such as Mr. Spencer serve as excellent counterweight to the naivete of your law faculty, administration.
    Stay standing and delivering strongly,Mr. Giunta, it is worth the candle for our future.

  • Steph

    A well-written article, no doubt. But look at the commentary from those lauding it- all extremist, anti-Islam phraseology. The main problem with this poster is that it purports to advertise an event discussing sharia law, but then caricatures 'Mohammed' in a racist manner, which is irrelevant to sharia. Like it or not, the large nose and menacing grimace depicted here in 'Mohammed' are reminiscent of Nazi propaganda caricatures of Jews- typifying stereotypical features of an ethnic group. And, for purporting to advertise an event on Islam, it is inherently misleading as a central tenet of Islam is that Mohammed is not to be depicted (hence there are no images to reference, and therefore 'artistic rendering' has little to do with Islam and much more to do with stereotyping and fear-mongering). I'm all for rationally critiquing theologically-based legal regimes, but let's do it that way- rationally, and without fear-mongering/race-baiting (like it or not, 'arabs' are an ethnic group and this is offensive)/emotional appeals. Then, I could get behind your sentiment.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Indioviejo Indioviejo

      I* thought I'd mention that all muslims are not Arab. Plenty of muslims are white. So much for race-baiting. As a free man I don't abide by muslim tenets telling me what I can depict, say, or do. I won't acept the imposition of foreign laws over us. So personally, I will continue to excersize my 1st Amendment right over any political correctness, and I am prepared to pay ANY price for my freedom.

      • Steph

        It's race-baiting when you target Arabs via the caricature, and Mohammed was an Arab. That is the point here. Of course all Muslims are not Arab, but the caricature on the cartoon depicts Arab stereotypes. Get the point? And this is controversy is not about 'Muslim tenets', I don't abide by those either. I'm a southern woman with big hair and even bigger cleavage, thank you very much. IT IS about a rude and offensive piece of propaganda being posted at a public school by an organization funded by that school.

        • http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/ Bob Smith

          This political cartoon obviously tightens a few sphincters. Too bad! It is clearly a picture that says a 1000 words. And those words are about Muslim tenants.

          It is only offensive to those unwilling to shed PC blinders.

          I like big hair – and big cleavage even more. But under a burka, they don’t do you or anyone any good. Islam is a cult. Shining the light of reason on it is the only way to break it up.

          • Steph

            Bob, we can talk about the relative tightness of our sphincters another time when it is more pertinent :) Same with whether Islam is a cult. Those are not at issue here, although extremists love to convolute the PC and 'evil Islam' issues whenever issues of bigotry come up. I'm all for 'shining the light of reason' on Islam, discussing its rather harsh tenets rationally. This is not what is being done with the image on this poster. Go look a piece of anti-semitic Nazi propaganda- Jews are depicted similarly, big noses, beady eyes, snarling grins. There is nothing 'reasoned' about the picture of Mohammed here and it is clearly an attempt to demonize Arab ethnicity, not to mention does little to explain to me what in fact Mr. Spencer (the publicized speaker) will actually be talking about. If it was a picture of someone getting his hand chopped off, just the women in the niqabs, etc, it would be fine- that is sharia law, the topic being publicized…

          • http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/ Bob Smith

            This cartoon is just one of 12 cartoons which caused thousands of Muslims to riot from Morocco to the Philippines. During these riots, hundreds of people were killed.

            You may see “Arab ethnicity”. I see Muslim fanaticism. And “Muslim” is not an ethnicity – it is an ideology.

            You have allowed PC multicultural ideology to color your perception of this cartoon. This cartoon was truly meant to shine a light on the horrors of Islam and demonize the reality of Mohammad – who Muslims worldwide are told to emulate.

            The cartoon is a 1000 words of wisdom. The fact that Muslims riot because of it is an indicator of how accurate it is.

            By the way. Sharia law allows any devout Muslim to kill any other Muslim who leaves the religion. That makes Islam a cult. It may be big, and be misunderstood by most non-Muslims, but Islam is a cult.

            FSU along with other universities needs to encourage introspection of the reality of Islam. Accepting Islam as just another religion makes as much sense as accepting Jack the Ripper as just another neighbor.

          • Steph

            Um, so not PC here Bob. It's about respecting the dignity of other human beings. If you have beef with Islam, great. Just address it rationally, and not by populism/emotional appeals and fear-mongering. That is my issue here. Also, in regards to the much-touted, less-reasoned 'cult' argument, the traditional sense of the term indicates a 'secrecy' in dealings and control over members which Islam simply does not have. If you are molding the definition of a cult to encompass Islam, you'd have to include Christianity too, at least until the Protestant reformation…so woe to Catholics and there 'cult', eh?

            Nonsensical emotional appeals are the issue Bob.

          • Edward

            Staph, please demand of Muslims what you demand of non-Muslims – unless you believe that Muslims can not be held to civilized standards of behavior – which would be very elitist of you.

    • Koehlerman

      Steph, you think that caroon was offensive?

      Let me draw you a picture of "Mo' Ham, Ed?" and I will REALLY offend you.

      • Steph

        Aw, that is really witty. Too bad you don't use it more constructively :) I find the depiction offensive in the same way I find Nazi depictions of Jewish caricatures offensive or Klan depictions of blacks offensive- even though I'm neither Muslim, Jewish, nor black. You should too. Bigotry in place of reasoned argument is ugly.

    • http://www.sheikyermami.com sheik yer'mami

      Steph, you are the worst kind of detractor.

      You wouldn't know what 'rational' means until it comes alive and bites you in the dick!

      You are the race baiter here, so don't feel offended because I stereotype you as an idiot: you have provided sufficient proof that you are one!

      • Steph

        Well, I'll take the label of an idiot from one who supplants rational argumentation for name-calling and, uh, 'dick-biting' any day. Nuff sad on that one!

  • LeChat

    I am profoundly grateful that I went to college in the 1960's when political correctness was not in control. I'd have been expelled for my views.
    This is OUR country. If the muslims don't like it, they are welcome to leave. I understand that the Sudan is nice this time of year.

  • No Dhimmi

    Hopefully you are the beginning of a whole generation of legal eagles who will keep sharia out of this country.

    Is it legal to prosecute for treason every person in the U.S. who is calling for the implementation of sharia law, thereby the overthrow of the Constitution?

    Our best infidel legal minds need to find a way!

  • Eyesopened

    Perhaps a friend with artistic abilities could redue the cartoon so offensive to the professors. The revision would show Mohammed standing holding the Scales of Justice instead of sword, and on one scale would be a skinning male and the other scale would hold two, obviously heavier, females. The scale with the male would be tipped lower than the scale with the two females. This depicts, I think, one of the most offensive aspects of Sharia Law. Such a cartoon would/should satisfy any reasonable professors criticism of you original cartoon. Best of luck.

  • Michael Townsend

    As an FSU alumnus, I hang my head in shame on this one. Please respectfully call, write, or email FSU college of law in support of Robert Spencer and Eric Giunta. Robert has posted an action alert at jihadwatch.org where you can find the email addresses for the four deans.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/wilderssupport wilderssupport
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JosephWiess JosephWiess

    They have asked me, with considerable rigor, to self-censor the aforementioned political cartoon, and have conveyed to me their impression that the image is gratuitously offensive, that my publication of it discredits the Federalist Society and the conservative movement, that the prestige of the law school is at stake, and that I will be (at least in part) morally responsible for any violent reaction and hurt feelings which occur as a result. I was also warned my professional reputation would suffer, both during and after law school.

    Excuse me? If the Federalist society is based on the Federalist papers, free speech was a keystone of the foundation. Without free speech, we can not communicate clearly, and we can't express ideas and dangers.

    Just so it's know, I don't care what the cowardly Muslim's think, for all I care, they can go swim in pig blood.

  • lana

    well done, we really appreciate your arguments, it is more of the awareness about – what does this sharia law means, how it treats muslim- nonmuslims, women vulnerability of exploitation, centuries of sacrifices for fratinity equlity and democracy .

  • wdwrkr

    I'm not sure I understand this Islamic proscription against "images" of Mohammed. Looking at the picture on the lecture notice, how is a muslim (or anyone) to know this is an "image" of Mohammed? If the male image on the picture was shown to a muslim without any other context, would the muslim identify it as an image of Mohammed? Or, does the artist have to identify the image, in some way, as that of Muhammed?

    I am not an artist, however, if I was to draw an image of a clean-shaven, blonde haired man, wearing a beret, and claim that to be an "image" of Mohammed, would that be offensive to muslims? Even if it is highly unlikely that Muhammed actually looked like that?

    It seems that the offense is not in the actual image, but, in the CLAIM that the image is that of Muhammmed. Seems to me the muslims need to lighten-up about this Mohammed "image" thing. It certainly doesn't wararnt violence, killing, and destruction.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

      Ah, but you're missing the point. Mahound can look like anything an arselifter wants him to look like. There are no real images of Mahound so you can't prove that its not a depiction of him.

      You see, that's how arselifter logic works. Hence, if I claimed a dog turd looked like Mahound, arselifters would be up in arms if I showed a picture of that turd.

      • wdwrkr

        No, Gary, I understand the point exactly. The offense claimed by muslims seems to be not with the image. The offense seems to be in CLAIMING, whether by the artist or some other person, the image is that of Mohammed. And, as you point out with the "turd" image, this can be interpreted in any way. As with the original "Mohammed" cartoons, each of the images was different. So, which, if any, was a true depiction of Mohammed? How is a muslim to know, and, therefore, be offended?

        The most distressing aspect of this issue is the response of FSU administration, and western governments in general, that we must temper our spech concerning Islam. This is totally unacceptable in a free society, and more so on the campus of a US law school.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

          What we need then is a final image of Mahound. Let's call this the last image of Mahound with no other images of him coming after it. But what should it be?

  • NoleLaw

    I am also a student at FSU law, and you should all be aware that Mr. Eric G. is exaggerating the impact that this is having on our school. If anything, he has purposefully been attempting to inflame sentiments to attract more attention to Mr. Spencer's visit, which I predict would be poorly attended otherwise. JihadWatch has been accused of prejudiced views and statements before, and this speaker serves no purpose other than to upset Muslim students. Mr. Eric G. is taking this as a cause celebre for the Federalist Society, which is also NOT the most visible or best-attended student organization.

    I am not a "leftist", as Mr. Eric G is so quick to label all non-Federalists, but rather a right-leaning moderate. The actions of the Federalist Society at FSU are exactly why I refuse to associate myself with this group. I also believe that Sharia law has some aspects that are highly distasteful to Americans, but we must understand that it is not practiced anywhere other than certain highly conservative Arab countries. As much as I disagree with its treatment of women, it is not our place to force these people to change their cultural and legal practices, and discussing this at Florida State will solve nothing and only cause more problems.

    • St. Patrick

      "Sharia law has some aspects that are highly distasteful to Americans, but we must understand that it is not practiced anywhere other than certain highly conservative Arab countries"..
      I would HIGHLY recommend you attend Mr. Spencer's engagement. Do the terms "Londonistan" or "Eurabia" mean ANYTHING to you at all? GO AND LEARN SOMETHING! PLEASE!!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      "It is not our place to force these people to change their cultural and legal practices." Legal practices?

      There is only one legal practice in the United States, and it stems from the Constitution, my friend. All law in America must have its origin in the Constitution.

      They can have their cultural practices as long as they wish. But this is America, and there is only one origin of legal practice, here …

      • NoleLaw

        Don't worry, you will never be under the jurisdiction of Sharia law, despite what any right-wing internet alarmists and nut jobs may suggest. And any Muslims who choose to live in the United States are subject to US law, and if they practice elements of Sharia that contradict this, they will face the justice system.

        Therefore, this argument is moot.

        • St. Patrick

          "but we must understand that it is not practiced anywhere other than certain highly conservative Arab countries"..

          This is what you stated. Google "sharia courts in England"..Then tell me how you were/are wrong and apologise or I'll slap you upside the head with a kkkoran.
          Here..Done.. You are a useful idiot. Wake up and go to sleep right.

          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/ar

        • St. Patrick

          Never say Never..You're already too late..This is what is known as "Shariah creep"..and right up your alley if you so choose to defend against it in your future endeavours.. Which you will almost certainly have to if attitudes don't change. moot my ass!

          This..

          "The most austere and important Islamic legal authorities who legitimize Shariah-compliant finance, like AIG's takaful insurance products, are the same ones issuing fatwas for jihad against the West."

          From .this..
          .http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/secretary_

          But you don't care do you? I know it'll go away..All by itself. It's not happening here! It can't!. No way! Dream on kiddo, but listen to Eric. At least you KNOW he's on YOUR side.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

          But the purpose of Islam is "submission", and the function of Sharia is to force the submission of everyone to Islam.

          I note with some trepidation the fact that armed Muslim groups exist throughout the United States, but the people raided by the FBI and ATF, today, were Christian. If the government supports enforcement of the law in favor of one group, over another, how can you possibly say that this argument is "moot".

          • NoleLaw

            hahahaha so much conspiracy

            If anything, the raids on the Christian militias prove that all religions have their violent sects. These militiamen are no different than Islamic terrorists, and their tactics (funeral bombing) reflect this

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Montedoro Montedoro44

    I hold my nose as I suggest this, but I recommend to back off on the cartoon poster – no apology, just change it to something that cannot be targeted so easily, say, a photo from one of those London protests, "Europe, your holocaust is coming" or of the poor woman stuck in the ground getting stoned, or other real image. The main goal is to get Robert Spencer onto campus to speak freely. Once he is there, he can address the poster/cartoon issue rationally, and set an example of gentility. If new inoffensive posters are also torn down, then you have evidence – to take to the FSU admin, at least – that the cartoon wasn't the issue after all. That's worth something.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

      No, no, no! That simply won't do! All that needs to be done is write under the image This is not a picture of Mahound the pedophile prophet. Its much the same as Rene Magritte's painting This is not a pipe

      http://www.artinthepicture.com/paintings/Rene_Mag

      Problem solved since that will confound both arselifters and leftists no end.

  • FSULAW

    As another student at FSU Law I have to agree with NoleLaw above me. This is an extremely one-sided, out of context, and exaggerated view of what has/is actually happening at the law school. The Federalist Society put up these fliers to achieve this very outcome, they wanted to create controversy and have succeeded in doing so.

    There was no other legitimate reason for putting that picture on the flier. Whether or not it is valid satire or whatever other reason the society claims for putting it on the flier, they cannot argue that it is the most appropriate thing they could have put on it.

    As far as the boycotting and the "War Against Free Speech" you are all seriously misguided. At one point in our history, some self-righteous extremists decided to dress up in white sheets to "exercise" their free speech too. Until the fear-mongering, exaggeration, and hate escalated to the point where it fostered discrimination and violence. Your not making a point, your fanning the fires and it smacks of immaturity and prejudice.

    Oh, and "most visible, best attended"? What a joke, get off your high horse. The federalist society at FSU is far from it. On top of that, half of your members probably only show up to meetings for free lunch.

    • St. Patrick

      "Your not making a point, your fanning the fires and it smacks of immaturity and prejudice"
      btw You're going to fail if you're taking English. Get your "you're's" right..You'll go far,Your Honor.

      • NoleLaw

        Oh noes, a grammar mistake! Way to ignore the entire argument because you have nothing in response.

        Also, I guarantee you my fellow student will go farther in life than you ever will/did. Now please return to your welding/construction job and then go watch Glenn Beck hate on Amrica when you get home.

        • St. Patrick

          Two spelling mistakes. Now three. Amrica? Where's that? Your fellow "student"? Which one? You should be in Grade School, not University.
          and
          Your attitude sucks. I'd fail you in a heartbeat..but not before telling you to wipe your snotty nose and sending you home to mommy and daddy. Don't forget to close the door on your way out either.

          • NoleLaw

            I'd say 5 to 1 you've never even set foot in an institute of higher learning. I'm surprised you even know how to use a computer, I imagined you hardcore neo-con types would be neo-Luddites

        • St. Patrick

          They're spelling mistakes . Go back to grade school.

  • desertscout

    Unfortunately, Islam is studied as a monotheistic religion; however under closer scrutiny one discovers that Islam has all the trappings and many of the practices, rites, and other divers rituals of the preceding Arabian pantheon of pagan religions. This is abundantly apparent during Ramadan and the Hajj. The Kaaba was a previously pagan structure that housed many of the pre-Islamic pagan deities, and according to some Hadiths, was erected some 1000 years after the passing of Abraham and Ishmael. Anyone who gives counter testimony and opinion to 'Canonized' Islamic dogma and/or apologetics will obviously come under some type of attack. Muslims effectively deflect historical (modern) criticism and analysis about their brand of paganism by trying to control the ability of anyone to be heard in a public forum. Nothing new here!!! In conclusion, Islam is essentially repackaged Arabian paganism with a few good nuances thrown in for bad measure.

  • St. Patrick

    To FSULaw and NoelLaw,

    If the both of you are of any semblance of representation of your "institution",you should be ashamed of your ignorance in regards to Islam and what its inculcations and atmospherics represent. Perhaps after a good listening to what Mr. Spencer has to say you will have changed your thoughts somewhat, hopefully!

    Ask yourselves..How many Muslims were lynched or mass murdered after 9/11? Fort Hood? Fort Jackson? Fort Dix?
    Looks like Robert's got a full plate for him..He won't be needing the free food either.Sorry to see.you both in such a sad state of malnutrition..Listen up! sheesh..

    • NoleLaw

      If anyone is ignorant about Islam it is you. Perhaps you should meet some Muslims before you make such sweeping remarks on any entire religion and its followers.The Quran is about peace, and Allah is the same Judeo-Christian God that you worship. However, opportunistic leaders have twisted the interpretations to meet their own agendas and brainwashed their impoverished people.

      Also, know that ALL three major world religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have extremist sects that will resort to violence, it's just than radical Islamic groups the most prevalent

  • http://lexetlibertas.wordpress.com Eric Giunta

    Let me address those colleagues of mine who have chosen to comment behind the veil of anonymity.

    I never said that the campus Federalist Society had the highest level of membership, or among the highest. We are definitely a minority on campus. What I said was that our events are among the best ATTENDED, and this is a fact. We are also among the most visible presences on campus, and this is freely admitted by students and faculty alike. We host many more functions per semester than our leftist counterpart, the American Constitution Society.

    I find "FSULAW's" accusations rather amusing. Apparently, campus conservatives must limit their advertisement solely to whatever is absolutely necessary to attract attendance. We're supposed to be minimalists in our approach, you see – "Shut up, do what you're told, say what you gotta say, then go back into your hole, right-wing scum!"

    No, thank you.

    I don't HAVE to limit myself to "only what is necessary" to get my point across. I'm entitled to go about advertising, and making whatever point I want to make, in whatever way is both legal and moral. I have given a reasonable, and truthful, justification for my employment of the Muhammad cartoon: The cartoon truthfully satirizes the barbarities of Sharia Law, truthfully satirizes the justifications its proponents put forward for implementing it, and truthfully satirizes the origins of these barbarities – the life and teachings of Muhammad, as they are contained in the Koran, the hadith, and the sira, as they were implemented by Muhammad's immediate successors the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and as they have been codified in EVERY major school of Islamic jurisprudence.

    The stealth-jihadists at the Muslim Law Students Association KNOW this to be true, and are counting on the ignorance of their useful idiots on the cultural left in order to paint themselves as "yet another" persecuted minority.

    Give me a break. No, I did not intend to offend; I did intend to provoke some much-needed discussion of a very disturbing phenomena making its way through the post-Christian West: the voluntary submission (pun intended) of non-Muslim countries to sharia-inspired restrictions on free speech, at the behest of a morally deranged minority.

    Instead of asking why I am "fanning the flames," why not ask yourselves who set those flames to begin with? I only brought to the surface what was obviously already simmering to begin with. The campus MLSA has (unintentionally, on my part) been exposed for who and what they really are. Choose your side wisely.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      Keep up the fight, Eric. There has to be a voice of reason, instead of voices calling for respect for Muslim "legal practices". Best of luck, to you …

    • NoleLaw

      Making its way through the post-Christian West? The voluntary submission? Oh Lord, hahahaha. Tell me, what jurisdiction does Sharia law enjoy in the US? Is your life impacted in any manner by the values and morals of Sharia law? I know for me it is a resounding NO.

      I will continue to respond under the "veil of anonymity". You would too if you knew what was good for you. I imagine employers will not look fondly at your actions here when they Google your name. But it's all worth it in your pursuit of justice and truth in the spirit of our Forefathers, ISN'T IT? lol

      by the way, I am not Muslim, or a member of MLSA for your information. I'm simply a rational moderate who is tired of the attention seeking and controversy generating political groups on campus, and who loves pushing the buttons of people like you

      • http://lexetlibertas.wordpress.com Eric Giunta

        Nole:

        Are you aware that Shariah courts DO operate in Canada and the UK, and that several areas of Western Europe are "no-go" zones?

        As for similar trends in the US, and the states goals of Islamists in Muslim Brotherhood front-groups (CAIR, MSA,etc), check out Spencer's "Stealth Jihad" from your local library, or Google around a bit.

        I also wonder whether you're actually familiar with the Islamic sources I referred to. It does not stand to reason that because most Muslims are not violent, that Islam therefore isn't. Are you unaware that, for example, despite the Catholic Church's teaching on the matter, most nominally Catholic couples use contraception?

        Take my challenge. Ask your Muslim friends three questions:

        a) Did Muhammad mandate death for apostates?

        b) Is there a single school of Islamic jurisprudence that does NOT mandate death to apostates? Can you name it?

        c) How old was Aisha when Muhammad i) married her, and ii) consummated his marriage with her.

        I'll wait for your answers in this space. Thanks!

      • St. Patrick
  • cosmiccat

    To fight against Islamic obscurancy, one has to have the tenacity of that Roman general (I think it was Scipio) who, after every session of the Senate, used to eclare"et censeo Carthago delenda est"(and I think Carthage should be destroyed)…… a few years before Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants, thus giving a rude awakening to his fellow citizens of the danger of Carthaginian rivalry and desire for domination. I come from Switzerland, and we were accused by our useful leftidt idiots of being racists because we voted to ban the construction of new minarets, and there was even a conference (during a film festival on human rights, the FIFDH in Geneva) on 'ismophobia' as they call it where they invited an imam, Youssouf Ibram, who has publicly declared that he could not be against the stoning of adulterate women as that was allowed in the Sharia……..

  • david

    Years ago I served as President of Berkeley (Boalt Hall L S) Federalist Soc chapter. The leftists there defaced or removed posters and harassed speakers. I was criticized for inflammatory flyers. Leftists hate free speech.

    This supposed bar on depicting Mohammed is hypocritical rubbish. Islamic art itself offers countless representations of Md! Even of him with his favorite "wife," who was 9 when he began raping her.

    If the school doesn't like this cartoon, you can put out other posters with useful images, such as Md with his child bride, the other Jyllans Posten cartoons, images of Jews and Christians murdered by Moslems applying Islamic jurisprudence, images of T. Van Gogh and so on. Kids! Collect 'em all!

    In my experience, college bureaucrats have little courage and are eager to give in to prevailing orthodoxy and even veiled threats from the leftist mob. Things might change if, just once, college bureaucrats arrested and charged the troublemakers. And, in response to force from the troublemakers, used overwhelming force in response.

  • SFLBIB

    No need to engage them in lofty legal arguments; just ask them if they would allow an exhibition of "The Piss Christ".

  • FSUCOL

    So what did it feel like to get spanked today? Did you feel a little out of your league? Still think the end justified the means? And by end, I mean your argument completely backfiring. Your straw man logic may work here among your extreme following, but next time you might want avoid throwing out blind and unfounded accusations, lest your opponent throw them back at you.

    P.S. You should have seen your face at the end. Valiant effort though… Mr. Spencer at least kept his composure.

  • Bryan O’Connor

    Don’t you just love it when the Soro’s or Obamabot trolls crawl out from under their rocks and make idiotic comments about PISLAM! Nolelaw says it has never been affected by sharia law, and does not live under its jurisdiction. Well I guess September 11th 2001 had no effect on nolelaw or other trolls, that just shows how clueless they are about PISLAM. JIHAD is sharia and sharia is jihad, in sharia the USA is in the ” HOUSE OF WAR”. Only when PISLAM ends will sharia no longer effect us. And just as a reminder, after the last reveloution 1/3 of the population had to leave, so what side our you on?

  • Eric Pendergraft

    There is nothing wrong with the posters or the invited speaker in my opinion.

    However, as soon-to-be-lawyers, we are trained to be civil and courteous, despite the view held by the public. The posters didn't have to depict an image which was guaranteed to offend Muslim students at FSU Law, however irrational their offense may be, and however uncivil the response to similar images have been in the past.

    People would have gone to the event if the posters had simply announced free chicken wings.

    Instead, this is an attempt to gain 15 minutes of fame in a controversy-of-the-week on cable news.

  • Eric Pendergraft

    And while some are preparing for their 15 minutes of soon-to-fizzle-out fame, I'll be cramming for my final exams (or procrastinating, and then cramming later on).

    We are graded and ranked in law school according to grades, not Andrew Meyer-esque middle school shenanigans. Potential employers are sneaky enough to raid our Facebook pages; no one wants to hire a lawyer that brings unwanted attention to the firm/company by engaging in stunts.

    We'll be members of the bar soon; we should act like it. Let our clients be crazy and provacative (more legal work for us), but as officers of the court, let us be level-headed and cool.

    Stop throwing the Cause-Heads meat and start coming to class and doing the reading.

  • FSUCOL

    Bryan O'Connor, did you really just misspell "are"? You really think anyone can take you seriously?

  • Jacob

    Mr. Giunta deserves a great deal of credit for scheduling Mr. Spencer to lecture on Islamic Jurisprudence the, or anything approaching reality in the understanding of Islam. The ideology of Islamic theocracy can never be overstated, for its 1,400 years of death, slavery and conquest of previously Christian countries deserves to be known.

    Of all the great religions which one brings death for apostasy, Islam, which religion allows no dissenting voice for change, Islam, and what religion charges a head tax for non-Muslims? Islam.

    For a great introduction to Islam, a must read, is Ms. Joan Peters' "From Time Immorial" the struggle of the Jewish people against this ideology and the room for no change.

    Why so many people are willing to sacrifice their freedom and their lives for an ideology they nothing about is very troubling. When 1,400 years of history tell a very different story of Islam that what is repeated on the nightly news.

    • Anon1

      As if the death, slavery, and conquest of non-Christians by Christians is any different? You cannot turn a blind eye to our past. And in modern day, Israel commits daily human rights violations against Palestinians. Neither Islam, Judaism, nor Christianity is free from criticism, and much violence as been done in the name of religion.

      By the way, Joan Peter's "book" has been exposed as a fraud and discredited by most reputable scholars, including Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.

  • NoleLaw

    I don't know what was more amusing: a) the fact that exactly ONE person was in the first two rows at Mr. Spencer's speech, b) that a fellow classmate was recording the attendees with his private camera to make sure none of us "did" anything, or c) that Mr. Spencer is so vain that he felt the need for excessive security. I mean seriously, does Mr. Spencer think he is so important that he warrants two private goons and three campus police officers (one of whom was rolling his eyes the entire speech)?

    Also, shame on Mr. Spencer for referring to Professor Atkinson as a "clown". It's one thing to disagree, but to refer to a tenured professor of law by a schoolyard insult is pathetic.

    • http://lexetlibertas.wordpress.com Eric Giunta

      Now you're just being obtuse.

      a) The first two rows were kept empty on purpose, as requested by Mr. Spencer's security detail. The cameraman was given special permission to sit where he needed to.

      b) Your colleague was filming the event for the same reason many student organizations film their lectures: to have a record of it, and so it can be disseminated to those who could not make it! Nothing more mysterious than that !

      c) Are you aware that Mr. Spencer is on al-Qaida's "official" hit-list, and that he and his family live under threat of death? It was the university that insisted on having the FSU-PD present, the gentlemen bodyguards were his own, and yes, they are necessary.

      As it happens, the Muslim Law Students conducted themselves (physically) with dignity, and there were no threats received by myself, Mr. Spencer, or the FSU campus. The security measures we took were routine, and I have a feeling you know that.

  • Edward

    Staph, please ask, no DEMAND that Muslims treat non-Muslims AND fellow Muslims with respect.

    Video taping the throat cutting and beheading “infidels” while shouting the islamofascist war cry is NOT respect.

    Similarly dynamiting of the two 1,500 year old Buddahs of Bamiyan Afghanistan by the taliban is NOT respectful of non-Muslim religions and traditions.

    If the Muslim taliban can destroy Buddhist statues, depicting their “prophet” muhammed (pestillence be upon him) in a disrespectful manner is appropriate.

  • Chuck

    "The Federalist Society is a nonpartisan organization. We do not take stances on the controversial social and public policy issues, but we do foster debate and discussion of these issues from conservative and libertarian perspectives. Whatever the personal views of members and officers, the Society does not endorse the ideas presented by invited speakers."
    So basically, they invite people and hide behind legal lingo so that they are never held accountable for anything. How can they claim to be nonpartisan, yet "foster debate and discussion [...] from conservative and libertarian perspectives?
    The incredible number of people supporting his cause because he plugged "freedom of speech" in there is just showing yet again how so many things are wrong with the United States (Oh yeah, I forgot, you like to call it America. Egomaniacs.)

  • http://catinsurance2.blinkweb.com Cat insurance

    The case in question involves former trustees of a local Tampa mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, who are suing because they claim they were unfairly removed as trustees.

    If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution,