Cowardice Rules on Speech Rights & Islam

by Adam Turner  •  Oct 17, 2010 at 10:34 pm

https://www.legal-project.org/blog/2010/10/cowardice-rules-on-speech-rights-islam

Recently, I contacted the ACLU of NJ to find out if they were preparing to defend Derek Fenton, the NJ Transit employee fired for burning the Koran. Granted, Mr. Fenton's Koran burning may be considered offensive by some. However, the ACLU is well-known for defending the free speech rights of even the most unsavory characters (e.g., Klansmen, neo-Nazis, communists, etc.). Moreover, experts (including an ACLU spokesman) agree that Mr. Fenton has a strong case.

Surprisingly, the NJ ACLU representative on the phone denied any contact with Mr. Fenton. When I asked the inevitable follow-up question, "Why not?," he replied in a monotone "I cannot respond to that." I gathered from this conversation that the NJ ACLU is not planning to protect Derek Fenton's free speech rights from the NJ government's interference. This is a major problem, because the fact is that laws by themselves don't protect anyone: it is the willingness of society to enforce them that protects people.

So what makes Mr. Fenton's case so disagreeable to the ACLU? I suspect they, like many others, are simply afraid to take on violent Islamists. It is one thing to defend neo-Nazis; the folks they offend understand the concept of freedom of speech. They won't be happy, but they won't try to kill you either. But to defend someone who inflames Islamic Jihadists, who threaten and riot and murder and maim…well, that requires real bravery.

Sadly, Islamist violence against free expression, once confined largely to Europe, is seeping into the US and the fear it generates is damaging our willingness to stand up for free speech rights whether in print or court. Other recent examples include:

• On Sunday, October 3, the Washington Post and other newspapers chose to rerun an old Non Sequitur cartoon by Wiley Miller rather than use Miller's submission for that day. The papers' objection – Miller's use of a "Where's Waldo?" gag that replaced Waldo with Muhammad, which was meant to satirize the media's hesitancy to offend radical Islam. The Post's Style Editor Ned Martel defended his decision, saying the cartoon "seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." However, as Reason magazine reasoned, cowardice seemed the more likely culprit.
• On Sept. 11, in East Lansing, Michigan, an unidentified man burned a Koran and scattered its ashes and torn pages outside of the Islamic Center. The response from the police – a full court press to track down this man, including a ridiculously excessive $10,000 reward for information relating to his capture. When the man voluntarily turned himself in, however, the Assistant City Attorney chose not to prosecute, not in the name of First Amendment freedoms but because there was no basis for trespass and "(f)rom a littering standpoint, my understanding is that no one would consider a desecrated version of the Quran as litter. That would be potentially insulting and provocative."
• In a follow up to the Koran burning case that started it all, Gainesville, Florida hit fringe pastor Terry Jones with an $180,000 fee for security costs. This in addition to his insurance being canceled and website being taken down. And Jones never even went through with the burning, ceding to the Administration's warnings that American troops would become targets in the Middle East. (I thought they already were?) If this fee is enforced, Jones will undoubtedly go bankrupt, and those contemplating a similar act will have been suitably 'warned' not to exercise their constitutional right to do so.
• Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist whose "crime" was merely sponsoring "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" has "gone ghost" -- changed her name and identity and abandoned her livelihood – at the insistence of the FBI after Islamists marked her for assassination. Have many members of our government or the Western press stood up to defend her speech from the radical Islamists? Nope. Will any but the most courageous cartoonists be willing to take on radical Islamists in the future? Nope.

In modern Western society, religious persons of almost every faith have had to accommodate themselves to offensive speech targeting their religion. Ask any Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. But one religion alone – Islam – is protected from criticism these days. And everyone knows why Islam is so protected. If the adherents of Islam are offended, you see, the offenders of Islam will be targeted for death. Today, cowardice rules, and, as a result, Islam is untouchable by commentary or criticism.

Just like Sharia law demands.

UPDATE 11/06/10: As demonstrated by this article (http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Quran-Burned-Conductor/2010/11/05/id/376199) the ACLU has indeed taken up the case of Derek Fenton. Congratulations to them, and - in the words of a famous SNL character - "Nevermind" when it comes to my specific criticism of the ACLU.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.