Professional Soldiers ® - Jihad, Hate Speech and the First Amendment

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- Terrorism (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=42)

- - Jihad, Hate Speech and the First Amendment (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2906)

That sounds a similar to bin Laden's interview with Peter Bergen.

Jimbo,

Right you are!

AL,

That is "inciting" hatred which leads to "violence." Especially against those who are innocent.

Quote:

Originally posted by pulque
I just found out that it has been illegal in Canada to incite religious hatred since the 1970's, and that Britain is now trying to pass amendments that would make their laws more level. In Britian right now, it is illegal to incite violence, to incite racial hatred, and to incite religious hatred against jews and sihks (but not christians and muslims). What up!!

Also, US states have "hate laws" but I dont know if these cover inciting violence.

Incitement to violence is more than saying violence is good or even recommending violence. It is taking actions with the intent of causing violence where there is a reasonable expectation that violence will ensue.

This, BTW, is Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, covering "Public incitement of hatred" and "Wilful promotion of hatred":

Quote:

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences: (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) -

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

An "identifiable group" is "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." There is also Section 318, "Advocating genocide": "Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

Section 318, or any US state law modeled on it, would not pass muster under the US Constitution.

Most US "hate crime" laws require a separate offense, and not just the hate itself. New York's Hate Crimes Act of 2000, for example, states:"A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and either: (a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or (b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct." Specified offenses are things like assault, homicide, kidnapping, stalking, rape, burglary, arson, etc.

The California Penal Code has a similar offense making hatred an aggravating factor for various felonies, and also has a provision stating: "No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics." Note that most of the actions there would be criminal acts regardless of whether race or religion were a factor.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo
That sounds a similar to bin Laden's interview with Peter Bergen.

It was actually a guy named Brandenburg and his conviction under Ohio law for inciting violence was overturned. It is the source for the current rule: "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

It is a two-part test: (1) the statements must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it must be "likely to incite or produce such action." The imminence requirement is the most important and is rooted in the "fire in a crowded theater" principle 2VP mentioned. This rule comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion in Schenck v. United States:

Quote:

But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919) (internal citations omitted)

This was the case that gave us the "clear and present danger" test.

Under RL's hypo, the issue is what he means by "Encourages violent jihad." On the slim facts provided, the Brandenburg test would seem to cover this.

A far better case for incitement to violence could be made against Al Sharpton, Morris Powell and Sikhulu Shange in the Freddy's Fashion Mart murders. But apparently Sharpton is now the conscience of the Democratic Party ("During the primaries, there was one person who consistently was always there, keeping the peace and the compass going in the right direction, and that was Al Sharpton." - John Kerry).

There's an objective news paper in Sweden called Svenska Dagbladet or SvD.

At one time one of their reporters sat down to listen to a surmon in a Mosque in Stockholm, conventiently translated to english too. The english version preached for the need of UN resolutions and pressure on the US to get out of Iraq, democratic order and alike.

The reporter, as it turns out, also happens to speak arabic.
The other side of the coin was for the death and destruction of all infidels and to force all western, and US in particular, forces out of the middle east, or if it was the holy land.

How about that case, covered by the freedom of speech?

(the result was: A bit talking, a bit whining, but this news paper couldn't keep the pressure up alone - thus the politicians didn't act. There has been trouble with more anti-semitic violence and speech too, but it is still not above the politicians threshold.)

"I'm more muslim than you! I pray every day!"
-A guy at school

"No, you can go out. Lebanon is just like Sweden. See, when I go over there, nobody stops me from going out."
-Tosche mosh v schkolie. (another man at school)