Federal Prosecutor Warns Anti-Muslim Internet Postings are Subject to Federal Jurisdiction

Tellingly there are never any threats to prosecute Muslims for blatant incitement to violence.


Isn't it great how we had a first amendment for centuries before Muslim immigrants came along to set off bombs and then complain about the "backlash"?

But if you're reading this, you may be violating Muslim civil rights. Apparently one of those civil rights is the right not to be criticized. And the perpetrator is a Tennessee lawyer who was appointed US Attorney by Barack Hussein Obama.

Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.

Sponsor of the event is the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee — a 15-member board formed two years ago when the General Assembly was considering passing legislation that would restrict those who worship Sharia Law, which is followed by Muslims.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction. “That’s what everybody needs to understand,” he said.

What Killian needs to understand is that there is a First Amendment that protects speech, popular or unpopular. Freedom of Speech has unfortunately been weakened by all sorts of anti-bullying legislation, but at no point has the Supreme Court announced that it can be done away with. Even the "Fire in a crowded theater" doctrine so often abused by people calling for speech restrictions has not been considered valid in a long time.

“Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,” Killian said, adding later: “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

And what Killian is proposing is to give a special status to Islam. No other religion has "civil rights" that prevent it from being criticized. That's blasphemy law and the establishment of a state religion.

Killian uses the "How to wink at a Muslim" as an extreme example. As Ace points out, the example isn't really relevant.

Oliver Wendel Holmes established the "clear and present danger" test -- no speech could be prosecuted unless it produced a clear threat of imminent, immediate (present) lawlessness and violence.

Prosecutions could not be founded on speculative "This might lead to violence" grounds.

This isn't the first time that threats like these have come down from the government in defense of Islam. Tellingly there are never any threats to prosecute Muslims for blatant incitement to violence.

The Tsarnaev Boston bombers never had to worry that their enthusiasm for Al Qaeda would land them in front of a Federal judge. But someone who reacts angrily to a Muslim atrocity is immediately threatened with prison.

Just as in the UK, the people being seized for incitement, including an 85-year-old British woman who shouted "Go back to your country" at Muslims near a mosque, are British, not Muslim.

The London beheaders never had to worry about being locked up for shouting their venom at rally after rally. It's only the EDL that's a threat to the nation.