When Free Speech Wins


As President of Florida State University College of Law’s Federalist Society chapter, I wish to extend a note of sincere gratitude to Mr. Robert Spencer for coming to lecture our student body recently on the subject of Islamic Jurisprudence. I also wish to thank the David Horowitz Freedom Center for helping to fund the event with a very generous grant.

Several rumors have made their way around campus, and the Tallahassee community, since the publication of my last piece here in these pages. It is claimed that Mr. Spencer and I have declared the “death of free speech” at the law school, and that we have accused the administration of threatening to censor Tuesday’s lecture.

Readers of FrontPage and of JihadWatch know how baseless these charges are. Neither Mr. Spencer nor I ever accused the deans of threatening to cancel his lecture, or to censor the event’s controversial flier. We did report, accurately, that the Muslim Law Students Association had put pressure on the administration to have the event censored, that several of the fliers had been subjected to vandalism, and that the deans did put pressure on this writer to self-censor the offensive Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon that was the fliers’ centerpiece.

There were, however, some very real and serious misrepresentations made by one student organization, and it was not the Federalist Society. The Muslim Law Students Association (MLSA) decided to orchestrate, in lieu of a counter-rally or a protest, an alternative lecture on Monday afternoon, titled “The 1st Amendment and Professionalism in a Republic.” The official Facebook event announcement, before its first edit, included some very serious charges. After playing the typically mindless, and in this case irrelevant, “racist card”, my colleagues at the MLSA made clear their frustration that the deans could not and would not force me to take down my flier, but assured their supporters that this type of scenario would not repeat itself in the future:

I spoke to Dean Weidner yesterday, and he assured me that after this very shocking, hateful, and disrespectful spur of events, the school is going to be developing a policy for regulating what goes up, so at least we’re growing out of it! Unfortunately though, [the deans] are not able to get the Federalist society to take down these fliers. {emphasis added}

These remarks were later edited: Out went the baseless charges of racial hatred, but there remained this assurance:

After speaking to Dean Weidner yesterday, it looks as though the school is going to be developing a policy for regulating what goes up on our campus. {emphasis added}

It was not until Monday afternoon, after their event went on as planned, that any reference to future censorship was removed completely, and this because I shared with one of the law professors my serious concerns over the reported “assurances” from the deans to my Muslim colleagues. I was assured that no such future restrictions on free speech were being countenanced, and that no revision of school policy on this matter is forthcoming.

It is testamentary to the respect I had for my colleagues at the MLSA that I (along with Mr. Spencer and hundreds of concerned citizens around the nation), that I took seriously and at face-value their representations of what the administration had told them. I do not know which to find more disturbing: a) That in such sensitive circumstances the MLSA would so blatantly and disgustingly impugn the integrity of their law school’s administration, calling into serious question the commitment of the faculty to principles so fundamental to a liberal-democratic polity; or b) that the MLSA considered the prospect of future involuntary censorship to be something salutary!

It goes without saying that no organization speaks for all its members, but their reaction to this entire incident cannot but call into question the commitment of the Muslim Law Students Association, its officers and its members, to the principles which undergird the United States Constitution, and explicated in the Declaration of Independence. This is a textbook-case of just the kind of tactics Mr. Spencer documented and expounded upon in his Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs. I do not accuse any one of my colleagues of being willing “stealth jihadists,” but I do believe it important to call attention to behavior that is consistent with, and plays into the hands of, those who would like to see our constitutional system subverted and changed for the worse.

Which is precisely what our flier’s Danish Muhammad cartoon was intended to call attention to: no group of persons is beyond criticism, and no organization is without its institutional flaws and deficiencies. In Islamdom, this seems to be a consistent and suffocating oversensitivity to criticism, whether artistic, literary, or scholarly. The controversial cartoon in question 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.

Yes, our Federalist Society chapter clearly intended that the cartoon be provocative. But any student reaction should have been informed not only by what the original artists intended by their satire of five years ago, but by the international reaction to these cartoons: the fact that the artists now live in fear for their lives, that violent riots were sparked all over Europe and the Islamic world, that over 100 people died as a result of these, and that plenty of media outlets refused to reproduce the cartoons for fear of violent reprisals. As I wrote in my earlier piece, this is what should offend the sensibilities of any truly “moderate” human being who sees these cartoons, especially those who reap the benefits of a liberal-democratic constitutional system by studying at a public law school.

I am grateful for all who wrote me, and the law school, to express their support for Mr. Spencer’s lecture. His talk was such a rousing success that many of my colleagues are doing their best to downplay this victory for free speech and education of the dangers of Muslim radicalism. About 100 students and supporters showed up for Mr. Spencer’s lecture, which was sponsored by our Federalist Society chapter alone. About 30 students attended the follow-up Q&A session.

By contrast, despite having been sponsored by seven student organizations, a Halloween-coalition of Muslims and committed leftists (including, rather ironically, the school ACLU and homosexualist OUTLaw chapter), Monday’s rival lecture only brought in some 220 students, a paltry 30 for every sponsoring organization.

One hopes the success of Mr. Spencer’s lecture is a sign of things to come: Americans everywhere are challenging politically correct orthodoxies, and these challenges are forcing ideologues of all political stripes to engage one another, and fine-tune the public discourse. In stimulating some much-needed discussion on such a taboo subject, the conservatives and libertarians of the Federalist Society have once again shown themselves to be the legal profession’s true vanguard of diversity, dialogue, and open-mindedness.

Cartoon-jihad intimidation is so 2009!

[Note: The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies does not necessarily endorse the contents of this article, or of Mr. Spencer’s lecture.]

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

  • poptoy

    Great Article.

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

      Agreed!

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

    Recently, a man from India, now US citizen, told me that the only reason India is in such danger from Islam is that the country has not dealt with the Islamic challenge to the culture of Islam for 1,000 years. He said, “For all their angry chanting and murder when they capture the defenseless, they are cowards. If you stand up to them and offer back what they threaten, they back down and run.”

    As is shown by this article, truth spoken boldly will cause the dark shadows of mindlessness to retreat and appear as ineffective as they actually are.

    The truth is, there is no moon God. Mohammed did not speak for any real god when he told his followers that god had told him to tell them to kill all unbelievers. He was, instead, revealing the jealousy and hatred and murder in his own heart. In the mythology about gods and their opponents, it is Satan who spirituallzes such motives and actions.

    Reason must destroy Islam!

    • Frank(ly) M'Dear

      Reason cannot "destroy" the unreasonable, who will not LISTEN to reason. Fighting Islam with reason is like trying to put out a fire with Barbie Dolls. It ain't gonna work.

      Please google "Jay Smith" and find out how Islam is being defeated.

  • William Smart

    Robert Spencer is an islamophobe along the lines of German religion-hatred.

    One obvious example of how hate-inspired he is concerns the way he applies Taqiyyah to all Muslims, when Sunnis barely acknowledge it. Sunnis make up 85% of the current Muslim community and, prior to the Safavid Empire, composed close to 100% of the entire global Muslim community. Shiites have used Taqiyyah before, but even then, it is a rarity in history (and usually done defensively).

    • Peter E. Coleman

      Apparently, Taqiyyah isn't just for Muslims anymore.

    • Stephen D.

      Taqiyyah … when Sunnis barely acknowledge it…it is a rarity in history…."
      So I guess it isn't so bad. They only lie sometimes. Great argument Smart. Of course you'll acknowledge that all "goodMuslims believe and follow "Unquestionably" the Qu'ran where Taqiyyah is an acceptable practice. Reagrdless of all earthly moral codes to the contrary. Hell, they barley acknowledge it and its rarely used. LOL You are too funny!!!

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

        The koran is full of takiya.

  • Andrew

    I still say Eric created all this fuss intentionally and I hardly consider him a hero of free speech, especially since he has the habit of making certain comments disappear.

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

    The poster "Andrew" is one Mr. Andrew Cano, whom I have banned from my blog because of repeated incidents involving his stalking and harrasment of female friends of mine. I have never met him in person, he is not a Florida State student, does not even live in Tallahassee, and I will simply say that he has a history of trolling and getting himself into trouble

    I'm sorry, Mr. Cano, I have asked you to leave me alone.

    • Andrew

      Have they not taught you libel and slander up there? I'd ask for a refund.

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

        Sue me, Mr. Cano. I dare you.

  • Elmer Fudd

    Tu., 04/06/10 common era

    Mr. Spencer has a lot of courage to publicly oppose Wahabee Islam's global jihad., the motto of which doctrine ought to be "Islam Uber Alles." Our good pals, the Saudis, fund the hateful activities of CAIR and The Moslem Brotherhood.. America and the free world are being played for suckers. Maybe not all Moslems are Wahabee; but if they don't share its evil beliefs, that's in spite of the Koran's theology and not because of it.

  • 080

    Well, why can't the Sunnis get together with the Shi'a? Obviously because the Shi'a are always pulling their taqqiya and the Sunnis are getting p.o.'d.