Allowing Muslim Violence to Determine Permissible Speech

The “Innocence of Muslims” case marked the first time in the United States in nearly a century that a man was imprisoned over the hostile reaction to his speech. The precedent for that had already been set with the Koran burnings and the Mohammed cartoons, but for the first time the United States acted on the concept that the outcome of speech determines its protected nature.

That is the important point that Nathaniel Sugarman makes in his article on the UN assault on the American Bill of Rights

Resolution 16/18 calls for criminalization of “incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief,” and it “condemns… any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” At first glance, this language does not seem restrictive; even in the U.S., incitement is not a protected form of speech. The issue is the respective ways in which the U.S. and the OIC define “incitement.” U.S. Courts use a content-based test to determine whether speech is incitement.

Brandenburg, which is still the law, ruled that in order for speech to be unprotected as incitement, the speech must (1) intend to produce imminent lawless action, and must be (2) likely to produce such action. In other words, there is both a subjective and objective prong, both concerning the speech itself. By contrast, the OIC endorses a “test of consequences,” which punishes speech based not on its content, but based on the result. This is a completely subjective test, and fails to consider the words uttered by the speaker, focusing only on the reaction of others. How would this play out in practice? Violence claimed to be in response to cartoons of Muhammad, could, under the OIC’s definition, retroactively define the cartoons as incitement.

What this really does is make Muslim violence into the arbiters of what legal and illegal speech is, retroactively. Hate crimes have already moved us all too close to adopting a standard in which the perception of speech determines its legality, but the Islamic effort moves us beyond mere perception into consequence, acting as a kind of Felony Murder rule for speech in which the actions of a hostile third party in antagonism to that speech, rather than in cooperation with it, determines its legality. And all that is needed to suppress any speech is for a hostile and violent reaction to take place in its aftermath.

Speech then becomes subject to mob rule and terrorism becomes the determinant of permissible and impermissible speech.

  • laisa158

    why I am not surprised?…the hussein obama USA is going down the drain, 4 more years…OMG, islamization of the States is just starting…

  • Faith Martin

    Indeed, when a person or people is not capable of controlling their own actions or reactions to an opinion of another, it is their own fault and their own lack. A person may indeed become angry at the statement or opinion of another, yet this does not give them license to carry out their anger in vengeance and violence. To blame a persons inability to control their own physical actions on the words of another, which they could easily ignore, is ludicrious. If a reaction is greater than the original action it defies the laws of nature, indeed, the law of logic. Simply because you may disagree with ones opinion is not an excuse to exceed the bounds of the opinion, which is the realm of words, no more, no less. The crime is not the opinion, however jaded or ignorant it may be, but in reacting to the word with violence.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "To blame a persons inability to control their own physical actions on the words of another, which they could easily ignore, is ludicrious."

      To blame a person's inability to control their own violent reactions to the words of another, which they could easily ignore, is Islamic.

  • @megapotamus

    Time to insult Islam actively, rather than passively. Every opportunity. To hell with Allah and his spokesmodel, Baghdhad Muhammed.

    • Goemon

      Let's go to Deerborn with loudspeakers and mock Allah, insh'allah.

  • jeanjean4

    One law against an other. Sharia versus constituion. Muslim "rage" (punishment, whenever and wherever possible) is obligatory in case of blasphemy committed by a dhimmy. The dhimma is liable as a whole. To have the wanted "community harmony" in our global village, our elected rulers have to keep us in line. It's a time proven method. Worked during the Ottoman empire the same way as today.Constantinople, Al Andalus, America, Europe or Ausrtalia – same old song of jihad.

  • peter38a

    Faith, allow me to restate and then take a further step. If a man shouts at a bear and the bear attacks; the man is culpable, the bear is not a rational being, the man is. If a man shouts at another man and second man attacks the attacker is culpable. So when a person casts Muslims rioting as being a case of 'can't help themselves' they are actually saying that Muslims are not as 'human' as other people. Further, following the 'can't help' argument it would appear that anti-rioters should, in priciple, be able to attack the first group and that anti-anti-rioters… and civilization blows away like a leaf in a wind storm.

    • Mary Sue

      If a man shouts at a bear though, the bear is likely to run away. Literally. I have seen this happen.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "So when a person casts Muslims rioting as being a case of 'can't help themselves' they are actually saying that Muslims are not as 'human' as other people."

      Bingo. This is the liberal Islamic nexus. Racial theory vs. religious superiority. Both expect to win in the long run and right now they all want to take out the Christian and Jewish influence in society, and of course enforce sharia.

  • JacksonPearson

    Clearly, sharia law, and/or BS condemnation of free speech resolutions passed by the United Nations CANNOT trump the United States Constitution.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Technically no, but who'll convince 0'Bama?

      • JacksonPearson

        I disagree. The Bill of Rights are Constitutional guarantees, that can only be overturned by the amendment process, and NOT by foreign powers. Scru Obama!

  • Thomas Wells

    So, if I say : " Mary had a little lamb…" and the animal rights groups riots, the feminist groups burns down buildings, Christians march with pitchforks, PETA has a cow, non-english speakers attack city hall,and beef producers storm the TV stations; I get hauled away?

    • JacksonPearson

      "I get hauled away" …. Yes, and;
      If you said the prophet sucks, you'd get stoned by the Islamic thought cops.

    • Mary Sue

      Why, the Christians had it wrong all along! All they needed to do to impose their will on society was threaten to riot and kill people! We'd get rid of gay marriage and all that other stuff so fast! [/sarcasm]

  • nina

    Isn't that the truth. I wish I had $100 for each time I was marginalized for my conservative views and just obeyed and shut my mouth. We just aren't violent enough! It really is time for conservatives and Christians to stop being such wimps about speaking our minds. We really do have the higher ground in these discussions (in more ways than one) and we have to stop being acting ashamed of our beliefs.

    • Harry

      …..we arent violent enough?


    I am a beginner when ot comes to politics and after this year's election i decided to start researching and figure out what party i fell into. I am confused about one thing though. I assume 8i was conservative because of my Christian faith, but after looking everything up i was kind of surprised that repu licans a generally anti welfare and want tax cuts only for the wealthy (at least that is what ive come to understand….if this is wrong please let me know). I also dont understand why there is so much hatred for anyone muslim! I know i know…they have a violent history, but didnt God teach us to love our enemy amd to treat others as we would like to be treated…Regardless of how they act? Im just confused!

  • Timothy

    Dear Readers – it is not possible to mock ALLAH because he does not exist. Mocking Allah is like ranting against Bugs Bunny – futile. Allah is a figment of Muslim imagination that is why historically he repeatedly 'changed his mind' to suit the moron writing the text for the Q'ran – which laid the foundation for "holy War" – an oxymoron if ever there was one! Islam however, and it's obvious agenda of ruling the entire planet cannot be ignored – nor indeed tolerated!

  • By the Book

    Why are feminists, Peta, gay rights communities ignoring the impact of sharia law on their communities?

    Say goodbye to you rseeing eye dogs, all of your pets, your glass of wine and any free speech rights you have. Islam uses violences to force people to convert, because they have nothing but sorrow to show us as they mistreat women ,children ,animals and each other.