Redstate

Let me just quote Paul, because I think it's an important limitation on his argument:

I have argued in the past for legislation embracing certain aspects of Islamic doctrine — the dogmas, specifically, of Holy War (jihad), Holy Subjugation (dhimma) and perhaps Sharia law itself — into our current sedition law: in other words, outlawing the promulgation of these dogmas. Even among people favorably deposed toward an aggressive posture vis-à-vis Islam, this is met with suspicion and hostility.

Insofar as this constitutes an effort to "outlaw [your] friend's religious views," you really find this troublesome?

------------

Many, maybe most, Muslims see jihad as an internal struggle about faith, not a militant struggle against America.

Regardless even if you're talking about Muslim nationalists, the law allows black nationalists to exist... because of its commitment to free speech.

This argument starts with the assumption that Muslim doctrines mean what anti-Muslim scholars say and then wants to outlaw Muslim's views and free speech. And it comes from someone who thinks we shouldn't allow people to immigrate to the US from Muslim countries. Yes, I hope that kind of bigotry against one religion is unacceptable in polite society.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Was an attempt to charitably describe the doctrine of dhimmia. Why is that? I think it's because, as you know, any anti-sedition law which would be unconstitutional as-applied to jihad as you've described it, even under the older Supreme Court precedents, because such speech presents no danger at all, much less a clear and present danger. And I think it's clear that by lumping jihad in with dhimmia, Paul is conveying his meaning with sufficient clarity that you could have understood his point, if you chose to. Your deliberate obtuseness on this point is not helping your case.

------------

I am all for Free Speech but when you incite violence against a anyone than your FREE speech ends....I give you an example

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2862

Here is a excerpt from the link and for those in the DC area this is quite disturbing.

On 29 April 2008, I shopped at Halalco to verify the book is still available. It is located in the “Jihad” section of the bookstore. The manager ‘Tariq’ can show you the book and it is available for $12.95.

Following are some of the quotes:

1. “It is, in short, time to identify the enemy and declare the Jihad. Identify the enemy. Declare the Jihad. define its parameters. Indicate its opening statements. Delineate its outcome and indicate its end”.

2. “The enemy is not merely a personnel but a method, a deen, with its Temples, the banks; with its holy places, the Stock Exchanges of the world; and its false scriptures, the data banks of figures, these magical millions and billions that hold the world’s poor to ransom for the sake of a small elite of kafir power brokers, their core jewish, their allies the lawless Christians. It is with these the war must be waged”.

3. “He who equips a fighter in the way of Allah, or looks after a fighters family at home is as good as one who fought”.

4. “Priests in their churches, unlike recluse worshipping monks, should, of course be killed without any exception. Nuns along with Monks, deserve killing even more”.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

surely. I'm not sure we can afford to take so long though.
That's all I will post though lest I be called a bigot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

replacing all the Christian/Western secular references with Islamic/Muslim cultural references I would be declared guilty of "hate speech"!! I would also have to be in fear for my life because I'm sure that some Imam would issue a 'fatwa' to have me killed! Tolerance is acceptable, appeasement is not, dhimmitude is to be fought tooth and nail!

As one of the posters here says:

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

terror exporting nations. that would not be all Muslim nations, I don't think we ever had any terrorists from Morocco, but it would be most. Is it racist, no it's prudent.

Does it have an adverse impact on some proabaly nice people? Yes, so what?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Yes, so what?"

EXACTLY!!!!!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

it is, far more importantly, the view of the very people who have visited violence on the United States and its citizens and allies at home and abroad. These guys do mean business, and they do by all means believe in the obligation to make war on non-believers in Islam, to subjugate them, to execute those who convert away from Islam. Like you, I'd like to believe that this is a distinctly minority and incorrect reading of Islamic doctrine, but it is one with a very venerable history. I give you Thomas Jefferson (that right-wing bigot!), describing in 1786 the response from Tripoli's ambassador as to why the Barbary pirates were attacking American ships without provocation:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

.

Yes, and we should be targeting "these guys." That isn't all Muslims. And trying to outlaw parts of Islamic religious views is a great way to drive normal, American Muslims toward feeling aggrieved and discriminated against. I don't see why we'd want to help radicalize the 5 million Muslims in America who generally have assimilated just fine.

It's not like we don't have a bunch of domestic and foreign anti-terror efforts. We are looking for "these guys" already. Outlawing talking about what many Muslims see as an internal struggle with faith would not help those efforts. And it would be a step toward making this a Christianity vs. Islam war, which I think is at the heart of Paul's efforts and I think is a horrible idea.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

We'll never see eye to eye on these matters, but I do hope we can restrain ourselves from ugly insinuations. For instance the insinuation of religious warmongering.

The "heart of [my] efforts" is to avoid war, specifically, bloody civil war, which is already in the offing in Europe, and has attended confrontations between Islam and, well, pretty anyone else since the dawn of the Islamic era.

I want to apply the tradition of my country, in cracking down on sedition and revolutionism before it gains strength enough to force us into even worse methods.

I don't see why we'd want to help radicalize the 5 million Muslims in America who generally have assimilated just fine.

If a simple sedition law is sufficient to radicalize them, then maybe my mistrust is more justified than you let on.

______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

You are advocating changing current sedition laws to specifically outlaw speech about specific portions of a specific religion. That will enrage the practitioners of that religion and would be likely to start just the war you saw you're trying to prevent.

But what's worse is it opens the door for others to outlaw the discussion of certain Christian topics in MY church.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Your posts continually single out Muslims indiscriminately for discrimination. The two most prominent are legal migration and now expression of religious views.

I think a federal policy of singling out all Muslims for limitations in their migration and religious views is a great way to escalate a fight against terrorist groups into a religious war.

I don't know how many Muslims you work with or talk to. But the ones I know are busy raising their children, taking them to the best school possible, working for a living, and creating a community. Why you want to tell them they can't talk about their religious views or that they aren't allowed to have their brother legally migrate to the US, I don't understand.

By presuming that most or many Muslims are harboring violent tendencies and recommended government intervention in religious discussions, you contribute to the escalation of tensions.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

No, my posts continually single out Muslims discriminately for discrimination. They discriminate according to whether or not any given Muslim embraces the doctrines of jihad and dhimma. Abandon those doctrines and the legal sanctions would vanish.

It seems to me that few things are more likely to escalate tensions than the constant conflation of doctrine and religion, or even doctrine and people, so that the critic of Doctrine A becomes, perforce, Hater of People X or Religion X.

In my judgment jihad and dhimma are wicked doctrines, and we should have no truck with them. The latter may be properly conceptualized if we call it, say, "Jim Crow from infidels." Wicked and intolerable.

How these judgments can be interpreted by you as bigotry against whole peoples or a whole religion, is perhaps best explained by the personal considerations involved here.

_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

does help explain why I don't think outlawing religious views is a good idea. I also oppose efforts to take away religious tax exemptions from churches for arguing for traditional marriage. But I know plenty of people who want the government getting involved in those religious views too because they are "harmful ideologies."

If you want to change sedition laws to make them stricter, that should apply to extremist Christians and others too. Singly out your interpretation of certain Muslim doctrines (along with your support for ending immigration from Muslim countries) would rightfully be seen as an anti-Muslim effort.

You are targeting Muslims and Muslim religious views for specific scrutiny. I know you think that is justified, but I think it's a dangerous escalation of the US v. Muslim worldview that would make things much worse, not better.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

We are paying for ME tv that is used to broadcast communcations from Hezbo's leaders without interruption

We are giving government money to groups domestically in the name of community outreach that are tied to terrorist groups (e.g. groups officially designated as unnamed conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case)

We are using referrals from people with ties to terrorist groups to appoint Muslim chaplains to US prisons

We do know of compounds on US soil in which there is paramilitary training going on, and where local police are too scared to go.

Nobody is saying all Muslims are this or that.

We are saying that Muslim theology contains things that are used by Islamo-Fascists to form their worldview.

We are not radicalizing anyone.

So many things happened before most people in the US cared much about Islam one way or the other.

Iran hostages.
Cole bombing.
1st World Trade Center bombing.
and so on and so forth

Even on this site, it is not possible to really discuss the motivations of our enemy without getting stuck in the quagmire of "you are going to radicalize" or "not all Muslims are terrorists" straw men.

Nobody is supporting the straw men, so there is no reason to defeat those arguments. I don't agree with the use of sedition laws for reasons of practicality and lack of public support. However, the war against Islamo-Fascism is not being won on the domestic front, which should be concern to everyone.
`

the nail would come crashing through Redstate :-) 5 to infinity!!!!!!!!!!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

and I'm not taking Paul's position here, but since when is advocating violence against non-Muslims "what many Muslims see as an internal struggle with faith"? It is not at all difficult to distinguish between advocacy of violence and a guy meditating in his room.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

it's not a word with one definition unless you've only read anti-Muslim polemics on it. The word means struggle. Some use it to mean violent struggle. Many use it to mean the internal struggle with faith. Outlawing "jihad" is just opening the doors to putting cameras in mosques and rushing in when they speak of jihad.

If there is organizing to overthrow the government, we don't need new laws to combat it. We don't need anti-Muslim specific sedition laws. It's not like there aren't Christian Separatists out there who rail against "evil government."

If you want to pass stricter sedition laws, do it in a way that applies to all religions. Picking on Islam is a great way to make this into a religious war.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

they won't come for you...they will just save you for last!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

but one of those meanings is quite violent.

Have you ever read ME media sources?

Most of the time they use the word jihad, it is in the context of physical violence.

Spend some time at www.memri.org. Take a month to digest as much as you can, and then get back to me.

have ever attempted to kill me. So already we have a meaningful distinction from the jihadists.

Look, I agree that we need to be specific when we take on the concept of violent jihad and the related doctrines Paul speaks of. You can't just say "jihad" and leave it at that; on that we agree. But the people already making war on us already do regard this as a religious war, and we need to combat their doctrine, and while I think that is to a large extent a political battle (on this, Paul and I have disagreed at length), I agree with Paul (and, increasingly, with McCain) that we can't ignore the religious component of their political ideology.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

in the religous aspect of it. It is absolutely a religously fueled conflict, but the government shouldn't be in the realm of combating ideas. Ideas by themselves don't hurt anyone except in the mind and spirit - a realm the government has no business entering. Ideas certainly can lead to bad actions, and that's when the government should get involved is when actions are involved, not ideas.

political one. I think Paul's idea for outlawing the discussion of portions of Islam would actually cause us to lose significant ground in the battle of ideas.

I know his goal is good, it's just his proposed method I disagree with.

And I applaud McCain for talking the right political stand on the issue.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

that I was happy to read it even though I don't fully support it.

The State Department recently issued a memo instructing government employees to not use the word jihad or any other terminology that suggests OBL et al. are motivated by religion.

We are going so far from combatting Islamo-Facism that I want to stand up and cheer anytime someone proposes more than repeate the mantra of appeasement --i.e. we don't want to radicalize those who would otherwise be on our side.

How can someone who would otherwise be on our side turn to supporting the death of innocents upon our use of words?

Because they never perceived us innocent (we are infidels, in rebellion against Allah) in the first place.

We are fighting blind and handcuffed. At some point the gloves will come off, after Eurabia happens and people are horrified by the result.

I do have a serious disagreement with the double standard you are advocating, the consequence of which is to outlaw free discussion such as we have here. Your key sentence:

And trying to outlaw parts of Islamic religious views is a great way to drive normal, American Muslims toward feeling aggrieved and discriminated against.

The problem is that you're moving from disagreeing with efforts to "outlaw parts of Islamic religious views" - which I would also tend to oppose - to wanting to suppress the freedom of people to advocate passing such laws (which is a prerequisite in a republic to actually getting legislation submitted and passed).

That is your line of argument starts by saying 1) by advocating such laws, people will hurt the feelings of Muslims (i.e. victimize them), 2) in response to these hurt feelings, Muslims will become radicalized and (by implication) more likely to try to bring down the current American system, commit political violence, etc. and 3) by logical extension, responsibility for this radicalization and subsequent acts rest not on the Muslims but on those who hurt the feelings of Muslims.

I utter reject this line of reasoning. Regardless of how others may hurt my feelings by their speech or actions, I (and every other individual) am still responsible for how I act on my feelings - that is, I am the one who chooses (for instance) whether to try to change the other's opinion of me by trying to "meet them halfway" and demonstrate why their perception of me is flawed; or whether I choose to use that as a justification for striking back at them or to forcibly silence them; or whether I try to get others to try to silence them by telling them they will be responsible if I strike back.

Our society hasn't bought this argument when certain extremist "Christians" employ this line of reasoning; how does "minority" status (whether Islam, being black, etc,) confer legitimacy on this argument. (Not to mention that these days, virtually all of us, including Christians, could lay claim to membership in some minority group.)

And Rightly So!

lifted from Voltaire saying I would fight for Paul's right to advocate for his position. I just hope it is so far from acceptable that it will be received just like someone advocating for Jim Crow today. They have the right to advocate for it, but that doesn't mean we have to give it legitimacy.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

shifts from challenging it on its "demerits" to condemning it because it you believe it will offend and radicalize Muslims. You thereby anathematize his position on the basis of the reaction it may evoke (and implicitly shifting responsibility/blame for that reaction from the people reacting to the position to Paul and other advocates of his position).

It sure sounded like you were changing Voltaire's statement to "I will defend you right to say it - so long as it doesn't offend too strongly the feelings of a certain group".

And Rightly So!

I oppose the nonexistent effort to silence Paul's views. I hope that spouting those views is seen as unacceptable in society just like spouting Jim Crow views is unacceptable (but legal).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

And Rightly So!

if you look at the wider western world.

A Saudi prince has been using weak English free speech protection (coupled with a big bank account) to sue authors of books against terrorism.

Mark Steyn is on trial before a human rights court in Canada for repeating something that a Jihadist said about slow Jihad (something about "reproducing like misquitos").

In France, Bridget Bardot has been tried several times in a criminal court for making statements equivalent to "Muslim immigration is changing France for the worst"

There are definitely places in the world where talking about these topics is prohibited.

There is not a non-existent effort to silence Paul's views. Here in the US. groups like CAIR have sued many people with lawsuits for saying such things. See Savage (the radio host) for one prominent example.

I think the USA has a much stonger tradition of protecting free speech. Besideds the way to protect one kind of speech ( inflamotory talk against Isam) is not by banning other types of speech - teaching Muslim doctrines.

There is a thin thin line between

1. Preaching the killing of Americans
2. Buying truck loads of fertilizer in order to kill Americans
3. Killing Americans after steps 1 and 2.

I thought this was a "war" on terrorism. Looks to me like we are treating this as a criminal matter.

I am not in favor of sedition laws, but I do think we need to be more proactive. I also think this violent ideology must be challenged head on.

though I can see how you would argue that he did. I think what he MEANT was that PASSING such laws would create the very radicals that Paul hopes to suppress.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

to blame-shifting. That is, it's not simply an argument on pragmatic grounds that it may not be advisable to stir up a storm over that issue (which at least leaves the debate open to a benefit/cost analysis) - rather, becomes a tool to delegitmize that position and shut down further debate by saying "look at how the other side responded - and it's all your fault that they chose radicalism as their response to your words".

I've seen this shifting happen time and time again; it's a key foundation for defining speech that is not PC.

And Rightly So!

I do. Unless they are advocating something in particular that is violent, they are welcome to agitate for anything they like.

I flat out condemn, reject, and mock the notion that we will gain ANYTHING positive out of such proscription. Do you want to give the handful here who are a threat a rallying cry to those who aren't?!?!?

You don't have to execute someone to make them a martyr. Jailtime will suffice.

More to the point, sacrificing the core and central value of the free expression of non-violent thoughts and ideas is simply too heavy a price, period. Hell, even *context* matters with those topics.

Bottom line - you wanna watch an imam or mullah who's advocating dhimmitude? By me guest. But you don't muzzle him or her. It violates our values and it will only make it worse.

Do we want to make Americans who happen to be Muslims into Muslims who just happen to be in America? Ostracize them and you're on your way.

recruiting young muslims into a mahdi army? showing films on how to make bombs? Showing maps of key power plants?

at some point a sermon might move over into advocating violence and murder.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Yep. And if we can show a causal link between the speech and the violence, nail his ass!

"Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon ‘The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.’"

Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444

Show me someone inciting violence and a law that bans that speech is fine. Not every way one could advocate those things you listed is necessarily violent. Stupid? Sure! But not all of them are violent by sheer dint of being advocated.

to what justice Hughes wrote, it is called a conspiracy.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You don't seem to understand that a proscription of ANY advocation of those ideas includes a prohibition of advocating non-violent methods of getting there!

What if some folks wanted to amend the Constitution to institute Sharia? Obviously absurd, screwed up, and it would be an evil thing if ever Sharia was foisted upon ANY people or persons who do not want it.

But such an act is advocating the institution of Sharia. And its non-violent. The political process is a means by which these folks can agitate if they like without ever threatening anyone. I would oppose with every fiber of my being any of the things listed, if they ever came to fruition, but for God's sake, don't overreach!

A group of people trying to get something on the ballot isn't a criminal conspiracy! It could be wrongheaded, unAmerican, and horrendously stupid. But it's still protected speech, and it should be.

I was in no way talking about constitutional amendments or other peaceful means of advocacy. I was talking about recruiting and training a Mahdi army in the USA to commit acts of terror and violence. It is being done right now as we speak!

Not only do I think we should act preemptivly, but I hope to hell we have agents infiltrating all of these rotten groups.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

And if you can show that they are inciting violence through speech, then a law that proscribes that is fine.

Calling themselves a particular name, loudly screaming that they want something violent to happen isn't the same thing as speech actually inciting it. At least not necessarily.

If what you suggest differs from the OP, then I apologize for my mistake.

Either some activity is or it isn't sedition/treason, based on our existing definitions of sedition and treason, and therefore already sufficiently covered by existing laws

My proposal is to pass legislation that settles this question with respect to the war-making doctrines of Islam.

This does not, in my mind, constitute a redundancy, much less a fatal flaw of one. Current sedition law dates from a era long before the Jihad was a factor in American policy. The Jihad is very different from the mid-20th century movements which were the object of current law. Those were plainly political movements; this one is religious. Etc.

I'm not seeing any evidence of Americans attempting to pass legislation that would forbid (harsh) criticism of Islam, but I would surely join with you in opposing such legislation.

Not yet, but the trend is clear. And we all know that PC orthodoxy can be pretty potent even absent any legislation.

_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof [cite]

I don't see anything in the above that would preclude prosecuting someone because their views are based on religious belief instead of political belief. This speaks directly to preventing the "overthrow or destruction of ... government by force or violence". What is inadequate about this, that it cannot be used equally against some Islamic group organizing a violent coup the same way it might have been used against some communist group doing the same thing?

Not yet, but the trend is clear.

We do seem to have a general trend of decreasing liberty in the face of an ever expanding government, I grant you that. I'm not sure adding more legislation will reverse the trend.

And we all know that PC orthodoxy can be pretty potent even absent any legislation.

This gets back to the marketplace of ideas angle though, doesn't it? If we can't beat down liberal political correctness and demonstrate the superiority of un-ashamed free speech to the audience, then the problem is us, or more specifically, what must be a very poor case we're making.

There is nothing "broken" that can't be "fixed" by throwing money and/or sensuality at it, eh?

Also, you need to do some historical research. Anti-sedition laws (which is what Paul specifically advocates) are anything but unenforceable.

------------

Now anti-sedition laws.

And you don't even see yourself.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Anti-sedition laws are neither "now" nor "new." And I haven't the foggiest idea what your second sentence means. And I further haven't got the foggiest what McCain-Feingold has to do with anti-sedition laws, as they reach completely different categories of speech, both in terms of their historical and constitutional treatment.

------------

From "A Man For All Seasons"

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

This comment doesn't even make sense, in the context of this discussion. Allow me to cure your historical ignorance:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...

------------

And there it is.

When the Liberals say "Teaching ID in science classes is Child Abuse" and pass laws accordingly... what will you be able to say?

When the Liberals say "Teaching against Homosexuality from the Pulpit is a Hate Crime" and pass laws accordingly... what will you be able to say?

My goodness, man. Is there nothing that you think cannot be prevented by enough laws being passed?

The things being discussed having laws passed against them are covered by the First Amendment.

How much power do you want the government to have?

Is there *ANY* limit???

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If you read Dennis v. United States and the other decisions cited (something which I severely doubt you have done, given that you quite simply haven't had enough time), then you will see that the Constitution at its inception was not understood to protect seditious speech - that's the very antithesis of "living constitution!" Seditious speech and hate speech are different things and have for decades (if not centuries) been understood to deserve categorically different levels of protection.

There are quite a few limits on the amount of power that I want the government to have, but the power to prohibit sedition is not necessarily one of them.

------------

A bunch of good religious people worshiping God with some crazy moon language and a seditious group of people hoping to overthrow the government and using some crazy moon language to disguise their true intentions.

Hey! Here's an idea! Perhaps we could set up something like a Ministry for State Security... we could set up a network of civilian informants. Maybe give a little stipend to people who are part of it. They can monitor political behavior and make reports to the government. People will be better behaved when they know that they are being watched, right?

It will also help to have more civilians directly involved with the security of the Homeland, no?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I'm gonna walk away from this discussion because I have work to do and you're neither paying attention to nor responding to anything I've actually said. So, toodles.

------------

Surely you realize that you'd be better off if you passed a law.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I'm glad you don't care about being liked around here, because you sure don't argue in good faith.

Every example from you leaps so far to the extreme. Stop thinking that everything is a slippery slope. It's giving me the impression that you would favor anarchy (see, that's about what you sound like. Take someone's position and frame it as far to an extreme as you can.)

Because my suggestion to "fight" Islam involved things that had zero, absolutely zero, Constitutional issues related.

Rock and Roll.
Sitcoms.
Youtube.

And this was dismissed and I was told that the only realistic response was not my licentious ideas but admittedly Constitutionally questionable legislation.

I'm reeling.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

See here

I could provide links to many other posts that you have had in the last few months, but this one suffices.

What that post was doing was expressing contempt for the belief that enough centralized control would be able to overcome the Muslim Threat.

If you look at the laws that they have in the Middle East, what will you see? Laws against sedition. Laws against all sorts of stuff. Heck, some of the countries have laws against religions that are *NOT* Islam.

How's that working out for them?

What we need to do is use the Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction that we have against Islam and the wicked, tyrannical Islam will not be able to stand against them.

The good Islam? The happy Islam? The Islam that every single person on this board agrees that they like? That will be able to withstand Twisted Sister.

Passing laws that will allow men with guns to go into houses of worship and draw those guns on religious men for what those religion men are teaching?

That will not end well even though there may be short term gains.

And, once again, I express contempt at the very thought that more laws would do better than more freedom would.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

but the use of hyperbole does not help your point. You sacrificed message for brevity.

How do you think these laws will be enforced if not through the use of informants?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

bird, you have talked right past Leon as if you heard nothing. He refuted [as in SLAM DUNKED] your point. Free speech is not the 100% freedom to say what you want when and where you want (the proverbial yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, yada, yada).

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Established law has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that Congress can, in fact, limit what people say, what they print, assembly.

I do not deny that the government has the power to throw people in jail for the stuff they say.

I am not arguing against this point at all.

I am screaming that seeing this as a good thing that we could use to our own short-term advantage is Wicked.

Wicked.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Really, I just wanted to quote Justice Vinson from Dennis:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence.

I guess Justice Vinson wasn't imaginative enough concerning what some people are capable of conceiving.

------------

I'm saying it won't work.

What will work is mockery and satire.

It Has Been Ever Thus.

Even when Mohammed came back to Medina in triumph, he killed only two people (according to tradition). They were both comedians.

We have been told, from the very beginning, what tools are considered the most effective.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I'll merely point out that you're 1) contradicting what you implied earlier upthread with the Thomas More quote about how I'd be "mowing down laws" or some such thing, and 2) ignoring how well that tactic worked for Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists.

------------

The multi-cultural Liberals did.

Also, certain branches of the Fundamentalist Christian church did.

They used the same arguments, mostly. Religious Faith was a very important thing and it should never, ever be mocked.

And these wicked people traded away a very important moment, one that foretold of 9/11 even... for the sake of the argument that certain things should not be mocked.

Good luck with passing laws against sedition.

I hope that when you see that they aren't working that your response is not "well, we need tougher laws and better enforcement".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

There is a long tradition in this country of cracking down on seditious speech. Some of the very men who worked on the Bill of Rights passed the Sedition Act of 1798. Until about 1950 it was regarded as perfectly legitimate for the people of a republic to outlaw the promotion of revolution to violently replace said republic with some other form of government.

Set against the backdrop of what these various revolutionists (Jacobins, Commies) unleashed upon the world, I say unabashedly that our tradition is a basically sound one. These revolutionists meant business: they cast much of the world into a cauldron of war and misery. We threw a few seditionists in prison.

Advantage: American tradition.

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

There are a variety of methods a hypothetical idiot could use to agitate towards dhimmitude. Not all are violent. A "holy struggle" need not be violent. Sharia, if enacted, need not be literalist. There are countries who have varying degrees of Sharia in their legal systems.

I obviously want NONE of those things and I would fight to prevent any of them. I'd also fight to prevent any number of other retarded ideas, be they religious, political, racial, or anything else.

You *can not* do this and expect any other response than American Muslims feeling (and to some degree actually being) marginalized. You take a problem that isn't that serious (our own citizen Muslims) and you *will* aggravate it.

Mind if we pass a law stating that you can't agitate for a Crusade? No discussion of a "holy war"? The anti-Nazi speech laws in Germany are absurd, and I say this as freaking Jew!

You cannot drive thought underground, only the believers. Give them that existential threat and the problem WILL explode. Existing sedition laws and restriction on speech are absolutely sufficient. Show me a reasonable link between the speech and violence and I'm all for locking the guy up!

Laws that proscribe specific beliefs, laws that are not narrowly-tailored, laws that are not the least restrictive means face strict scrutiny under review if they speak to a fundamental right. Some of the things on your list are potentially non-violent (in the mind of the speaker) agitation for political change!

Political expression, non-violent expression is exactly what the First Amendment seeks to protect. The violent speech is already proscribed! Your suggestion broadens matters and would be a PR disaster.

end in disaster and repeal when they try to sidestep the Constitution.

In order for this comment to make any sense, you'd have to:

1. Explain what you mean by "sidestep the Constitution," and

2. Provide a historical example of an anti-sedition law "sidestep[ping] the Constitution," and

3. Provide a historical example of one of such laws "end[ing] in disaster and repeal."

------------

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

My goodness, I hope you come back and read this in a year or two and feel ashamed at how monumentally stupid this idea is... I cannot properly put into words how monumentally stupid this idea is.

The idea is well over a year old already; and every time I revisit it, I am confirmed in my view of its wisdom.

Consider, for instance, a partial list of revolutionary/seditious factions that have, across American history, come under the strictures of sedition laws:

Jacobins.
Northern secessionists (and Southern Unionists).
Polygamists (half the prison population of the Utah territory, at one point, consisted of convicted polygamists).
Anarchists (like the one that assassinated McKinley).
Communists.
Nazis.
Communists again.

Let me also point out that the Dutch cartoonists did indeed attempt something like the cultural assault you suggest -- and the whole world (virtually) of Liberals and libertarians hung them out to dry.

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

The libertarians were the ones that reprinted the cartoons and screamed at the liberals that "This Is Important. Freedom Of Speech. Freedom Of The Press. Freedom Of Religion (Or The Lack Thereof)."

It was the Liberals who talked about giving a crap about cultural sensitivities and making sure that people didn't have their feelings hurt.

You got the wrong lesson from the Dutch Cartoonists if you think that the proper response to pass laws restricting speech.

What we need is more speech. More debate. More people coming out and saying blasphemous things and having the country saying "I may not agree with what you say, but, hey, it's a free country" instead of seriously considering the opinions of those who think that passing laws against specific things mentioned in the First Amendment are worth entertaining with anything but the strongest contempt.

I say to you what I said to those liberals.

This Is Important. Freedom Of Speech. Freedom Of The Press. Freedom Of Religion (Or The Lack Thereof).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I applauded those cartoonists for their bad taste! I love bad taste comedy and satire, and I always have.

No religion is free from satire. None should be. If one's belief's are so uncertain as to require such protections as are necessary to free them from unwanted speech, then that faith is weak.

The reaction by many Muslims on this issue appalled me. Theo van Gogh's death was horrific.

Stupid American pop culture will strengthen Islam and ruin America from the inside out.

The only way to defeat Islam is by a superior philosophy and religion. And no, libertarianism living parasitically off of vestiges of Christian culture (like morality) doesn't cut it.

That said, I certainly agree with you that legal prohibition will do the opposite of what it is intended. This battle needs to be fought in culture.

The first two paragraphs get a 5. The last gets a 3 for not giving sufficient credit to the historical effectiveness of the force of the criminal law.

------------

... that worked?

Certainly, the force of law works against some practices, even some ideologies. But it won't work against Islam; if you think it will, I think you underestimate Islam.

Nothing in Paul's proposition advocates that the force of law can eliminate Islam, per se, what it advocates is that the imposition of sedition laws can eliminate or at least check the dissemination of certain seditious Islamic doctrines. On that front, I think the law can be quite effective, indeed.

------------

I assumed awareness that propagation via speech of Islamic truths is also a core doctrine of Islam, i.e. proselytizing. So I'm not conflating: if you want to outlaw certain Islamic doctrines that are at the core of the religion, you attempt to outlaw Islam itself. It's not like you can separate out core doctrines from each other. That's impossible.

But you seem to believe that certain core doctrines like Jihad can be prohibited successfully without eliminating Islam.

I simply disagree =)

But we've had stupid American Pop culture since the Big Band era. I've heard rumors that there may be stupid American Pop culture that predates the Big Band era, but it's been gentrified and I'm sure that explaining how the flappers were a lot classier than the hippity hoppy stuff the kids today are doing and the people who complained about the flappers were a bunch of stuffed shirts who needed a little unbuttoning.

But not too much.

America is strong, and it remains strong. It is strong because it allows for a meritocracy kinda melting pot. The best stuff from every culture (the food! the dances! the music! the religious practices!) rise to the top and the bad stuff gets swept aside because it just doesn't work in a free culture.

I will tell you the same thing that I tell everybody.

America is the greatest country in the world.
We are not going to hell in a handbasket.

Unless we pass laws saying that we must abandon our freedoms... then we will become like most of the other countries on the planet.

And I will write essays mocking those who say that we just need stronger laws and better enforcement of them and point to the Bill of Rights again and again and again even in the face of people pointing to judges who read the Constitution as a Living Document.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Agreed in all respects.

"the best stuff from every culture" does not rise to the top in American pop culture.

America is strong not because of Britney Spears and stupid pop culture, but because of the cultural roots of America stemmed from the best in Anglo and Western civilization, most importantly Christianity.

Where do you think the Constitution and Bill of Rights came from? Flappers?

But please do continue on your rant against judicial activism that came out of nowhere. I agree with you there :)

... say something about how our notion of rights developed in the Enlightenment. It's too predictable.

We won't win by disentangling ourselves from parts of the world, or parts of ourselves.

We'll win by showing them our way works better. And American Muslims, in my experience, GET THAT pretty well. A large measure of why that is would be that we treat them better than, say, the French do.

An American is an American is an American. His mind is his own, so long as he does not advocate or commit acts of unsanctioned or inexcusable violence. Do ANYTHING to send even an incorrect sign that some Americans aren't free to believe in the faith of their choice (so long as they do so non-violently and obeying the laws) and you WILL push American citizens towards hate and disenfranchisement.

right on. We will beat the Islamofascists by showing the REST of Islam a better way. And MOST of the Islamic people here get that.

Passing a law that directly attacks the teachings of their religion would be a direct affront to all those people who "got it".

We have existing laws that outlaw sedition that would apply to about any case that Paul can come up with in dealing with people calling for an overthrow of the country or an attack on it's shores.

But I'm actually more worried about the long term consequences of taking this action. Passing a law directed at the teachings of a religion opens the door for your side to outlaw even more types of speech in Christian churches. Obama could use it to ban talking about things like "Abortion is sin." and "The wages of sin is death." by saying that such talk incites bombings at abortion clinics. And that's just one way that this can be twisted....

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

It's the American values and ideas rooted in our cultural history and tradition that will win.

Not crap pop culture parading around immorality that clear to any culture on Earth. That's the only distinction I'm making, and if you disagree, I don't care to continue this.

But I hope you will not :)

which had considerable influence on the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Any links to scholarly articles?

That's the "oral tradition" version of history. AKA there is no real evidence to support this thesis as historical fact. I went to uber-liberal UMass Amherst and my professors used to always push this angle on me. It is shoody history at best. It usually followed the chapter - All Our Founding Fathers Where Ignorant Racist Sexists Homophobes.

nt

It seems there is considerable debate and it appears that the influence of Iroquois law on the US Constitution is tenuous.

It is interesting though that there are many similarities. It makes one wonder how both documents independently came to build similar constructs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Example_to_the_United_States

we do this everytime but here I go again...you cannot scream fire in a theatre and you cannot INCITE violence against the citizens of the USA...period....and if you do you are indeed afoul of the sedition laws.

I will gues you to find the NSA wiretaps a "constitutional" problem? NOPE they are not...we do what we must to protect the "homeland" and by the way I hate that word...but we must protect our way of life and our elected representatives take an oath to do just that...if you are any religion and you are calling on yours followers to kill another human being....you better believe I believe you should be arrested and thrown in jail.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

What was said was that discussion of Jihad, Sharia Law, Dhimmitude, and a host of other islamic CONCEPTS should be made illegal. That is wrong, that is punishing the IDEA. People should be allowed to express their support for Sharia Law, if a man wants to live in a country like Saudi Arabia and he wishes the United States was more like Saudi Arabia then he should be free to express that desire. The ONLY time that this crosses the line and becomes sedition is when that man begins organizing a militia to blow up buildings, kill politicians, and seize political power by force. THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! But merely discussing islamic precepts such as Jihad, Sharia Law, and Dhimmitude should not be.

While those ideas and positions are insidious and hateful until one acts on those ideas they aren't illegal to hold.

It is, in fact, illegal to merely advocate the overthrow of the country.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

It is perfectly legal and even encouraged, however, to advocate the non-violent overthrow of our government. We call that elections.

It is illegal to advocate a violent overthrow of the government. If somebody does that, I've got no problem with what you suggest. It's already illegal anyway.

Although I'm starting to think that we may take on some habits of some of the other nations and have fist fights, etc.

I'm not personally in favor of the sort of sedition laws Paul advocates, but as Leon notes, it's not actually all that difficult to make the distinctions needed to enforce them against pretty clearly defined types of speech.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

... I think it shows that the problem is enforcement. It seems like the Smith Act would already prohibit the promotion of Jihad, no?

Yet what would happen if we actually enforced it against Muslims?

They get labeled nasty names and have groups like CAIR attack them.

Outlawing religious ideology is a bad precedent.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

That it tends to get ignored by anyone who doesn't already know.

For example, Glenn Beck had a special on CNN Headline News. It had all time high ratings for the network. Problem is, his listenership drove those ratings. Everyone else buys the pigeon holes that the left and pop culture media has placed him into: a hate-monger attacking a peaceful religion.

against the practice or discussion of a religion (any religion).

Passing something like this will open the door for later laws that outlaw discussion of Christian or Jewish or Hindu practices as sedition.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Merely pointing out that people have tried. They have used video and audio messages and people will still stick their fingers in their ears. I point to one example, but there are many.

I just don't think the general population cares enough. The people that will care already do.

different than that brought to them by Katie Couric or other talking heads on the evening news shows. But this was a blog about outlawing certain types of speech. Failing to get people to listen to a message is not a reason to outlaw speech. That's a tactic usually reserved to the other side of the political spectrum.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

What if a religious text also provides rules about:

(1) how non-believers are to be treated
(2) forms of government which are to be obeyed or disregarded

The original blog was careful not to address religious belief per se, but aspects of those beliefs that could just as easily be classified as political/worldly.

Nazis have a certain worldview embedded in a very nasty ideology.

Communists have a certain worldview embedded in a very nasty ideology.

Islamo-Facists have a certain worldied embedded in a very nasty ideology that it also intermixed with religion.

But they still have the right to SPEAK about their world view. Up until the point when they start actual plotting to kill people or overthrow the government or actually commit an illegal act, they have the right. I also have the right to stands up and say their views are abhorrent.

As for the specifics:
1. "How non-believers are to be treated" So what? They aren't polite to you so you want to outlaw their religion? There are other groups whose text spells out how to treat non-believers. My own religion has such rules in it's text. Things like "Love your enemy". Yes it's a different ideology, but I still get people who want to outlaw its beliefs. I won't abide that and I won't abide outlawing someone else's beliefs.

2. "forms of government which are to be obeyed or disregarded" Again So What? As long as they DO obey our laws what should I care what their belief is? Let them preach it right up to the point when they actually start breaking laws.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I am talking about the requirement that dhimmis (i.e. infidels) either convert, submit as second class citizens, or be killed.

How close to flying airplanes into buildings do we wait?

It is an honest question.

But again, talking about dhimmis and taking actions to actually commit such acts are considerably different things.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

What does society do to protect itself? How close to actually getting on board to fly a plane into a building do we wait?

Do you support infiltrating mosques to see what goes on?
What about organizations like CAIR?

I am not a fan of sedition laws, but I do think that we as a country need to realize that violent Jihadists are here in our country. Morover, there are people here who are sympathetic to those would-be terrorists.

Given those facts, what should we do? Are we relegated to simply sitting and waiting?

If you know what dhimmitude is, why characterize it as merely being impolite? You are diminishing what millions of people in the ME are subjected to. Kind of like suggesting that people in the USSR shared their property with others instead of owning their property individually. It is the most harmless way to describe dhimmitude---the type of description that CAIR would use.

Are you living outside the US? The actions you described are illegal in this country. Has someone committed those actions against you?

I support infiltrating mosques or any other organization if there is reasonable cause to believe they are committing or planning illegal actions. But those things are covered under our current laws. What this diary was suggesting is adding the discussion of Islamic practices specifically to the sedition act and allow the arrest of people just for talking about them.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Things like "honor killings" are occuring more frequently in the West, particularly in places like England. We will not be far behind.

The FBI tried to do some discrete investigations into mosques, but CAIR raised a big stink. They found 75% of the mosques to be hotbeds for anti-American preaching.

Dhimmitude is spreading. I am not subject to dhimmitude, but I am solidarity with those who are.

And the people involved were prosecuted for murder. That's an illegal act and treated as such.

Allowing discrete investigations in mosques should be allowed if the FBI can show reasonable cause.

The Communist party is also a hotbed of anti-American preaching, but I haven't seen calls to prosecute people who discuss the communist manifesto under sedition laws (at least not since the 50s).

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Islamo-Fascism is on the march all over the world. Nowhere are they losing ground (besides maybe Iraq). In many places they are gaining.

Democratic ticket and what they are advocating? We had an Obama supporter here yesterday that referred to the base of his party as the proletariat.

Frankly, I think THEY'RE more likely to get their agenda passed as the law of the land than the chances that we'll adopt Shari'ah.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

No matter Obama does, he has no capacity to turn the USA into a collection of gulags.

He is no Stalin or Lenin.

Saying the democrats are communists undermines what the word means.

And the agenda they have outlined for the next 4 years moves at a bit faster than a creep.

But I don't question their right to speak such evils. I just fight them when they do. I suggest the same attitude should be taken with regard to the principals of Islam that you object to. Again if they take criminal ACTION that's an entirely different matter.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Lenin was an intellectual version of a street thug, but he was still at thug.

When people come to my door with a baseball bat asking me who I am supporting, then we are on the cusp of communism.

We are in far more danger from Sharia (which is on the march) than communism (which is receeding, at least for the moment).

Don't fight the last war. Look to the future.

If we give up our liberties, for the sake of security the Islamic terrorists can win without taking over the country.

(1) overrespond
(2) underrespond
(3) respond in the wrong ways

I would suggest that (2) is more likely than (1) or (3) at this point.

arsenal. The slow creep and baby steps is a tool they have been using in the US for decades. You're right, Obama is no Lenin. He's not a thug. But his ideology is definitely moving us toward the left. And those ideas have a better than average change of becoming real law in the US.

I see no such danger of Shari'ah becoming the law of the land here.

I'm not fighting the LAST war, I'm fighting the CURRENT war.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

sharia banking, Muslim-only swimming hours at a public pool, Sharia courts for family law issues, and other things are happening in western countries.

Sharia is creeping.

I think Obama would only be slightly left of center. We don't want to turn into Europe. But there the difference between free Europe and Communist Cuba, or the former Soviet Union is about the difference between heaven and hell - well at least as close as we can to that difference on earth.

Boo hoo, they called us names.

I understand it's frustrating but fight back! This rush to legislate instead of persuade, there's nothing particularly conservative about it.

Leon's first response to birdmojo above is, I think, unintentionally accurate. The vast majority of American citizens who weigh the merits of living in a free society where they aren't legally prohibited from listening to whatever music they want and going to the bar to drink and play pool versus a Taliban-esque prohibition of alchohol and a requirement that women wear burqas really should be extremely easy to persuade that they ought to support elected leaders intent on maintaining a very high degree of liberty for Americans - against all who would chip away at it.

more money than you pay for your mortgage, you may become more sympathetic.

Launch an organized online attack with a network of collaborating right-wing blogs starting with RedState. Disseminate so much anti-CAIR evidence from so many places that they can't possibly sue everyone. Make sure it's true, back it up with evidence, cite fair use to support using their rhetoric against them.

Use as your model the effective dissemination of Scientology facts and materials by anti-Scientology persons and organizations. Scientology has arguably many more funds available to them and have not been afraid to attempt to silence their critics using the judicial system. I will say I think it's their right to try, same as CAIR, but if it's a fight to persuade others then you actually have to throw some punches and absorb some blows. These anti-Scientology guys have done an admirable job, from what I can see. They care enough about their goal to put the time and effort into it, to fight back.

So spare me the "they'll be really tough on us" stuff and the "no one will listen to us anyway" talk. Lay down and get run over if you want. But don't act like you couldn't do anything else.

Scientologist critics are not found dead in the streat after being stabbed twenty times for making a short film

I seem to be essentially arguing with someone who has already given up the fight. So yes, maybe things really are going downhill fast in America!

On the other hand, I'm not aware that CAIR themselves have issues press releases with death threats. I'm not aware of any CAIR officials who have stabbed someone to death. However, I do believe that both death threats and murder are both sufficiently covered by existing legislation, so if CAIR engages in such activities, you have recourse to bring that to light and advocate for prosecution on those grounds. Don't you?

but I think the RICO laws would allow CAIR to be shut down and their members tried if they regularly advocated such actions.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

.

to stab people in the streets? What legal basis do you have to shut it down?

If they've been committing illegal acts, then they should be prosecuted. We have current laws for than. We don't need sedition laws outlawing the discussion of specific religious principals in order to prosecute criminal acts.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Foundation case. A case about the illegal providing of money to terrorist groups in the ME.

The leadership of CAIR is independently associated with terrorist organizations in a multitude of different ways. There are several websites that describe these linkages.

If they are already breaking the law why do you suppose they haven't been prosecuted by the Department of Justice? For lack of a specific "Islamic jihad" clause in the Smith Act or because the DoJ and/or the current administration are neglecting their existing law enforcement duties?

BTW, if there are "several websites" working to bring alleged law breaking to light, then evidently there are citizens willing to brave the waters to stand up to them, potential lawsuits be damned. So it seems to me the marketplace of ideas is quite healthy, active, and currently engaged in the battle for mind share.

I don't want to live in a state where groups can be shut down on suspicion of cooperating with criminals. Get some proof and shut them down.

I'm not defending the virtues of CAIR. From everything I've read about them I don't think I like them very much. But if you believe they are committing illegal acts, get them convicted and the problem is solved. If you just suspect it, talk and talk and talk. But they get to talk and talk and talk too to defend themselves.

If you shut down the talk of people who you don't agree with, you're no better than the Democrats (or do you support the "fairness" doctrine?).

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

But if we are in a war against Islamo-Facism and people are making public statements that mirror what the enemy is saying, and those saying are urging violence, then we are not talking about free speech in the realm of ideas, we are talking about urging on violence during a violent struggle.

As I have repeatedly said, I am NOT in favor of using sedition laws in this context. What I am saying is that we are in a tight spot, and like Lincoln did the Civil War, there may be a time in the upcoming future where stronger measures are contemplated.

there have been multiple accusations regarding death threats and suspicious deaths of critics/apostates. (For starters, just google on scientology suspicious deaths)

It's hard to get to the bottom of these things, though, because of the extreme secrecy that surround Scientology, the ferocity with which Scientology pursues critics, and the "fring" aura that surrounds some of the more vocal critics.

Scientology may well be the Western "religion" closest in practice to Islamic jihadists.

And Rightly So!

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

but nobody has stepped up. I think I am going to put something together looking that GWOT in a comprehensive way. There has been a lot of bad developments (having nothing to do with Iraq) in recent months.

Sedition is sedition.

Sedition is not protected under the First Amendment. Urging violent overthrow of the government is more act than speech. "Free Exercise" does not protect criminal acts. There is nothing peaceable about rallying in support of violent overthrow.

The problem with Paul's approach is that it comes at the problem from the wrong direction. To say that some doctrines of Islam need to be explicitly outlawed because they are seditious is not necessary to the argument, and those predisposed to outrage over First Amendment fetishism will see it as inflammatory.

It is simpler to say that urging violent overthrow of government is a crime. Period. Leave it to the convicted to make the connection to whatever ideology incited the sedition.

Homaidan Al-Turki, upon being convicted of twelve felony counts and two misdemeanors including unlawful sexual contact with use of force, felony theft, and false imprisonment, said:

The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution.

Read the article. That is what he told the judge. A common thieving, enslaving rapist is quick to use Islam for a fig leaf with $400k worth of support from the Saudi government.

It would be no less ridiculous for an Imam preaching violent overthrow of our government to reach for that fig leaf. The important point, though, would be that the sedition is what is to be prosecuted, and any claim that the sedition is religious doctrine is immaterial.

It does not specifically target any religion or specific religious beliefs. It doesn't open the door that can't be reclosed that would allow the same logic to shut down Christian churches for opposing abortion.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

And make it illegal to compare people who criticize Islam with people who supported Jim Crow.

Surely the war on terror is important to the point where we need certainty of mind that isn't muddied by libertine equivocations.

Don't you sometimes wonder why there are people who take the Muslims' side every opportunity they get?

It makes you wonder if they have dual loyalties.

Don't the Muslims have a rule saying that you can lie to people who aren't Muslim?

Has Adam C said that he wasn't a Muslim? Wait... wouldn't he be allowed to lie if he was one?

There was a can of strawberries in the canteen. There were 14 scoops left. At dinner we only had 8. What happened to the other six?

Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers...

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Is the most sobering drink I know of.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

What use is the freedom to advocate violent overthrow of the government?

Taking that further, what use is the freedom to advocate that others commit a crime?

I believe that those who advocate removing our Freedoms is mockery, long and hard. Point. Laugh.

Whether they be Muslims who are wicked and evil and doing everything they can to make us submit to Allah or whether they be Good and Solid and Upstanding Conservative People Who Have My Best Interests At Heart.

Freedom works. And those who claim that we need a little less for the good of all of us need to be compared to other historical societies who argued that less freedom for the good of all of us. And laughed at.

Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Jew, Buddhist, or Zoroastrian.

Believe however you want in the privacy of your own home... but when you try to pass laws to limit my freedom for the good of us all: You commit Wickedness.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Again, what possible use is the freedom to advocate the violent overthrow of our government?

We have mechanisms in place to peaceably overthrow our governments. Violent overthrow threatens those mechanisms.

Anyone who feels diminished by the loss of the freedom to advocate the violent overthrow of our government deserves to be diminished.

You know who the biggest idiots are and who you need your professional wrestlers to emulate so they'll get the biggest boos when they wrestle against the guy who walks to the ring carrying an American Flag.

Fight Speech With More Speech.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

You say that advocating violent overthrow of our government is useful because it simplifies "spot the idiot."

Whether idiots or not, people advocating violent overthrow of our government threaten the foundations of our self-government. Put them in jail.

Prohibition will drive it underground.

I want as much sunlight as possible.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Allowing public incitement will incite many who would not otherwise ever consider violent overthrow of our government.

For those who might come to sedition on their own, punishment and the fear of punishment works.

There is no good that can come from allowing people freely to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.

Laws that are narrowly tailored to that purpose are legal and extant.

Laws that ban advocating particular ideologies are obscene in principle and execution, even if you're picking and choosing what forms of speech to ban.

Laws shouldn't target demographics unless they absolutely positively MUST, and such laws must be (where political speech is the issue) narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means.

You don't need to expand prohibitions on incitement to violence.

Where did I suggest that we make laws banning advocating particular ideologies?

Where did I suggest that demographics should be targeted?

Where did I suggest that we expand prohibitions on incitement to violence?

Where?

I have been saying that advocating, inciting, or urging the violent overthrow our government should be prosecuted.

There is a strong undercurrent of First Amendment fetishism in these comments to the point that people openly declare themselves uncomfortable with or opposed to the idea of prosecuting sedition.

As I have said repeatedly in this thread, one can advocate for several of the things on the list up top without doing so violently, or advocating violence, or more usefully:

without *inciting* it!

It isn't fetishism! I understand that some others place more emphasis on the Second Amendment (not anyone in particular here, this is no dig at anyone here), but for me the First Amendment, all provisions, is the core of our country.

A mans's thoughts are his own, and he should be able to convey them, WHATEVER THEY ARE, unless they incite violence or similar activity.

I would equate a Neo-Nazi with someone who wants to impose Sharia. I would love, absolutely love (!) to shut up anyone who holds and professes Neo-Nazi views. However, my better angels win out and I remember that the words aren't the problem. They're normally just words.

Show me a causal link, for the tenth time, and I have no problem with proscribing speech. However, it's ALREADY ILLEGAL to incite violence through speech (as I understand it, please don't make me dig up god knows how many cites). Such laws are certainly Constitutional.

Anybody can say "Sheesh, it'd really be great if we all were forced to pray several times a day, had to dress a certain way, and could be put to death for apostasy. I'd really like a government like that! You folks should probably agree too! Let's talk about it, maybe I can change your mind." That person would be doing, I'm pretty sure, what's at issue in the OP. I don't care if it is fanciful, it is certainly possible.

Call it fetishism if you like, but it is precisely THAT kind of fetishism that sets us apart from the Wahhabists and so forth.

I have been only tangentially addressing the OP. In fact, I said somewhere else in these comments that I think that the OP approach is wrong.

I was specifically addressing Birdmojo's insistence that sedition should not be prosecuted. He implied upthread that advocating or inciting the violent overthrow of our government is a valuable freedom worthy of protection.

The point I am making is that nothing in the First Amendment protects advocating or inciting the violent overthrow of our government, and an examination and understanding of why this is so will keep us from conceding the Bill of Rights as a weapon for our enemies to use against us.

Agreed on all counts, thank you.

Sedition, or not?

There are definitions of sedition that would be broad to the point where certain songs would be illegal to sing.

And you're not only speaking of sedition as according to laws we have now, but you're speaking of expanding them.

I say... no thanks. I'd rather take my chances with Liberty than with the Federal Government trying to decide whether something is sedition or not, holding trials, and losing to a judge who says "this law is unconstitutional" and then we get to hear about judicial activism vs. checks and balances in deference to the Constitution.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I haven't listened to "current" music since 1985.

I've read through the lyrics, and I don't see a call for violent overthrow of the government.

I am speaking of the sedition laws we have now. I think that the sedition law, as it is already written, is sufficient to protect us.

If, however, you want to see a "personal freedom" exception, and you want to add an "artistic freedom" exception, then a "free exercise" exception is not far behind, and the law is useless. I suspect that a sizeable majority of the country takes your view.

We, as a country, failed to prosecute blatant cases of treason during the Vietnam War, and thirty-five years later, instead of being booed off the stage for providing aid and comfort to the enemy, traitors are winning Academy Awards.

I don't think that artists are different from citizens.

I have a journalist friend who argues that journalists are different from citizens too. "We need more laws protecting Freedom of the Press for journalists!"

I try to explain to her the nature of Freedom of the Press. She doesn't get it.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

the grand and true freedom always afforded by Americans to those who would overthrow all the freedom that they have, to replace it with a iron code of ever-present tyranny! We are giving it away!

O precious Muse of Liberty! Suffer not the attacks upon thy soul when Muhmmad Atta and Khalid sheikh Muhammad cannot speak as they would like!

______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

I think we need to give Muhmmad Atta and Khalid sheikh Muhammad a little more Rock and Roll.

Commission Elton John to write a song about bacon and CGI Muhmmad Atta and Khalid sheikh Muhammad into the video (have Bernie Taupin write the lyrics though... Reg just isn't a wordsmith).

Translate The Satanic Verses into more and more and more and more and more languages.

Don't pass laws saying that folks can't talk about stuff.

Pass laws mandating that X books a year need to be translated into Arabic. PJ O'Rourke. Buckley. Voltaire. Rushdie. Simon Cowell. Morressey. Harry Potter. Timothy Leary. Abbie Hoffman.

This is what will cause the horrible authoritarian strain of Islam to crash to the ground.

Passing a law has no chance at all.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Commission Elton John to write a song about bacon

That's a great line. I'm going to remember it. But as policy it is perfect rubbish.

Would that rock 'n roll could defeat the Jihad! "We'll play Dylan's Blonde on Blonde on repeat for six months straight on all Arab media! The enemy shall fall before us!"

Ah, but this is a dream. A good dream, but a dream.

The real world works on law.

_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

It'll topple Islam.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Reagan, Thatcher or John Paul II, each alone was more important to the overthrow of Communism than rock 'n roll.

______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Along with whomever is in charge of the US in a few months as well as that British guy who isn't Blair. Whatshisname.

You know that Stalin had a special screening of The Grapes of Wrath and he allowed it to be shown as a warning against the perils of Capitalism?

Audiences left the theater whispering about how even the poorest Americans had cars.

I do not underestimate Reagan/Thather/JPII... but the core of Socialism is rotten.

The core of fundamental Islam is rotten as well. What will help topple that rotten tree is visions of what life might be like if only you didn't have bearded men staring down at you telling you how to live your life.

And it'll help if we don't send Harvard-trained economists to help with the reconstruction as well.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

but that doesn't make victory inevitable.

Islamo-Faciscm is clearly on the rise. From between 1683 and 1945 it waned.

But it is back, in large part due to the PC culture of the west in a post-modern world.

Is the internet. A close second would be DVDs and CDs.

Get a team of voice actors and translate Titanic!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

which emboldens the ambitions of our enemies.

The excessive attention we pay to someone like Britney Spears convinces many (including the fence sitters) that we will lose.

You know that Stalin had a special screening of The Grapes of Wrath and he allowed it to be shown as a warning against the perils of Capitalism?

Audiences left the theater whispering about how even the poorest Americans had cars.

That's really fantastic! I like this story. Is it true? I don't suspect it isn't necessarily but would love a cite to something authoritative...

I actually think you're making a pretty reasonable argument vis-a-vis preferring to let people openly air their opinions so that we all have better information on who we object to. At some point speaking may turn into planning and pre-meditation and at that point you probably have conspiracy to murder or some other existing violation that you can prosecute for.

But the gist of your argument isn't unlike my own position against "hate crime" speech or anti-discrimination laws. I could never figure out why proponents would rather drive, for example, racial discrimination underground rather than allow, say, an apartment manager to openly discriminate against a certain racial group. In the latter case we gain great information and can adequately "punish" the owner by exposing their behavior and discontinuing patronage of their business. But instead we force the guy to serve persons he still privately disdains. What then? Is his bigotry manifesting itself in little ways no one can notice? He doesn't wash their sheets very well? He doesn't change the furnace filter in their apartment the same as he does for others? He introduces cockroaches into their kitchen when they're away? Personally, I'd rather we just let him be out in the open with his feelings and let him accept/reject who he wants, then we clearly know who to avoid.

I've heard many variants on the story. How they only allowed musicals like "Singing In The Rain" and people walked out of the theaters talking about how everyone had new shoes.

But the Grapes of Wrath story is one I've heard more than once, most recently here in this Washington Post story (note: it was written by Reason guys).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Thats good stuff, thanks...

Reagan and Thatcher beat the Ruskies.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

i.e. without any outside pressure?

Not a lot of history in support of purely internal revolutions against modern tyrannical states

They actually were simply there to apply the coup de grace. Defeating Soviet Communism was a 40 year effort and Reagan and Thatcher were merely the last of the great freedom fighters.

We were losing . .. on multiple continents.

The tide of the struggle clearly shifted with Reagan (who with Pope John Paul II and Thatcher applied some necessary pressure in a multitude of ways).

Look at what people were saying in the late 70s and 80s. The fall of communism was not looked at as inevitable by anyone, including those who very much knew the system personally and hated it.

My dad thought Reagan was going soft when Reagan proposed nuclear arms reductions. He also thought the bit about ash heap of history was merely rhetorical flourish not to be arrived at in his lifetime. My dad new the system personally and painfully. He never dreamed it would end in 1990. He certainly didn't even fathom that in 1979.

helped beat the Ruskies. But our enemies were Commies, not Ruskies. Communism, you see, is a doctrine, which can be judged wicked and proscribed.

______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

For a long, long time.

Always as a 3rd party, mind. But there they are.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Freedom of speech and religion are two of our most important rights, but they have never included advocating, assembling, and plotting to murder civilians, overthrow the government, and install a theocracy.

Are there times when treason laws can be abused? sure, but that just means you have to be diligent. Letting people recruit, and gather together to teach and direct others to commit terrorism is not really free speech under any definition.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Will be approximately as effective as passing laws against handgun ownership.

I have suggested, multiple times, a solution to the problem (which I agree is a problem).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

we already have those laws. That is my point, it has NEVER been legal to organize to cause terror or overthrow the government.

Now that might mean that a cleric can get away with some sort of generic sermon on the evil of the USA, that's perfectly OK,

But when you start to recruit, organize and plan to bring about the downfall of the great satan it is call conspiracy and it has plenty of laws already.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

If all this diary is is nothing more than a primal scream that "SOMETHING OUGHT TO BE DONE" then I apologize for getting in the way of some much-needed therapy.

I suspect it wasn't though. It struck me as a legit call for policy.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

that we already have groups in this country who are doing these things, but we are not trying to stop them. (as far as I know)

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"My goodness, you get 74 channels for $29.99/month? I'll blow up next week."

"What do you mean that there are 14 different scents of fabric softener. I'll blow up next week."

"Did you see the sinful and heretical tomatoes on that infidel? I'll blow up next week."

"The McRib sandwich is only $1.99? And it's only here for a limited time? I'll blow up after it goes away again."

And so on and so forth.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

many of the worst terrorists in the last decade were recruited from well to do families living in the west.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

OBL didn't become so addicted to porn that he was precluded from starting AQ

This is an important question and contains the answer to why I think this stuff will work.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

he and cohorts went to strip clubs drank and all those "things" American guys do to fit in....and damn Birdmojo they still flew those planes into the World Trade Towers....I guess they didn't get your memo on how rock n roll is going to change their minds.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Maybe we just need stronger laws and better enforcement.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I am in favor of letter government law enforcement agencies take more proactive measures to look around and join various organizations.

The problem with terrorism is that there can be a very short period of time between talking and dead bodies. Lots of people are capable of talking trash. Relatively few will do something violent or directly support a terrorist act.

I would prefer an ideological confrontation, but we don't seem to have it in us.

My "legit call for policy" amounts to a proposal for a small amendment to 18 USC 2385, which, taking specific cognizance of the Islamic threat, designates or establishes as a felony the crime of Jihad-sedition.

The drama of your preachment against this proposal makes it sound like I advocate the repeal of the First Amendment.

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Are not calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment either.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Ridicule works.

I saw your post making two arguments: 1) that sedition laws should be changed to explicitly deal with certain Muslim views and 2) that your right to advocate for that change should not be curtailed. I apologize if I misread you.

I agree with number 2. You have every legal right to advocate such a view and the larger view that Muslims are dangerous which underlies this and your immigration view. I think you should have every legal right to publish the idea, preach it, and advocate it. I think that right should be true for all views no matter how noxious (i.e. Jim Crow advocates).

I don't agree with number 1. I think targeting Muslims for their religious views is dangerous and should be unacceptable in polite society the way targeting blacks for their skin color is unacceptable. I know that is not the common view here, but it is mine. I don't think banning Muslim immigration and putting cameras in mosques to see if they are debating about "jihad" is a good idea.* I think you have repeatedly shown a willingness to lump Muslims together regardless of views (i.e. preventing immigration from Muslim countries) and I don't see why that shouldn't be taken into consideration when you advocate special treatment of Muslims under sedition laws.

If people are advocating overthrow of the government or treason, we have laws that cover that. I don't see why singly out Muslim religious views for special treatment will help in that effort and I do see how (along with your other views) it is part of an anti-Muslim worldview that accepts the idea that the US is at war with Islam or most of it. I don't think that is US policy, my view, or a good way to go. And I definitely don't like the idea of picking one religion for special governmental surveillance or inspection of their views different from how other religions are treated.

*Noting again that you use your interpretation of the word without recognition of the religious meaning used by many/most Muslims.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard