Tuesday, June 04, 2013
U.S. Attorney: Anti-Muslim Speech Could Be a Civil Rights Violation
Does civil rights law trump the 1st Amendment? Simple answer: NO
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly suggesting that anti-Islam postings on social media could actually be considered civil rights violations.
Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, told the Tullahoma News that inflammatory or hateful posts could potentially run afoul of the law. He will speak next week alongside the head of the FBI’s Knoxville office at a meeting sponsored by a local American Muslim advisory group.
He pointed to a Tennessee county commissioner who posted an image of a man aiming a double-barreled shotgun to Facebook with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request from Politico about what it considers offensive speech about Islam, or about using civil rights law to prohibit it.
Source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Anti-Islam speech? You mean pointing out that the damned Islamists are the most violent scourge on society today? Or perhaps pointing out that almost all of the rest of Islam is either too timid to speak out and end that abomination or quietly supporting those violent actions.
We need a President who will be willing to say that Sharia law is completely unacceptable as the basis for the laws in ANY nation and that those who are pushing for the use of Sharia law anywhere are the enemies of civilization.
"We need a President who will be willing to say that Sharia law is completely unacceptable..."
If the weak, gullible, and mindless American people really cared about this, they would not have elected, then reelected, a Kenyan-born Marxist Muslim to be their president. They richly deserve anything and everything he does to them.
As usual politicians desparately try to contain problems they created in the first place (multi-cultural, mass-immigration) with more problem-causing effects, in a never-ending cycle (much like "the Sorcerer's Apprentice". The religion of Islam is at the source of the problem, just as other religions have led to civil strife throughout history (not least Christianity, whatever else JC might have intended originally).
Europeans are unaware of the very foundations of Islam, notably the cynical imperative of the three stages of conquest. Initially a Muslim community established in a foreign land and still forming a minority practices Dar Al-Sulh, "temporary peace," because the Infidel, in his blindness and naivety, permits Islamic proselytism in his country, without demanding any reciprocity on Muslim soil. This is the stage that Europe is currently experiencing, which makes many believe that a "secular and Europeanized Islam" is possible.
Only in the second stage, after the settlement of an Islamic community has been established, does the requirement of conquest and violence become apparent. This is Dar Al-Harb, in which the Infidel's soil becomes a "zone of war," either because of resistance to the establishment of Islam, resistance that must be broken, or because Muslims, now in sufficient numbers, no longer need peace and can abandon the prudence that marked the first stage of their conquest. This phase will soon be upon us: We can already see its premises.
In the third stage Muslims end up dominating. This is Dar Al-Islam, the "reign of Islam." The Jew and the Christian are tolerated but reduced in status, enjoying at best an inferior position, that of dhimmis ("protected") paying a special poll-tax and deprived of most of their rights; pagan polytheists ("idolaters") and atheists are persecuted; and the whole population must submit to Islam's social regulations. Under this "reign of Islam" the non-Muslim has no chance of occupying any leading social position. In Morocco, where Christians and Jews were the most tolerated and protected, they were nevertheless compelled to leave at the end of the French protectorate, even though there had been no war, as was the case in Algeria.
Dar al-Islam : In the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of God, and dar al-Harb, the house of war; the home of the infidels or unbelievers. The goal of the Islamists is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb, and to create a universal Islamic community. This is one meaning of the term Jihad. The Saudi Wahhabists and their philosophy are a prime example of this doctrine. Bin Laden's rhetoric was also reflective of this dichotomy.
This guy is an attorney? He should be fired immediately.
Anon 3:41, thank you for your outline. It's 100% on target. Unfortunately, the American people have a history of needing to be crushed and decimated before they even wake up, so your facts will not help them.
It's quite obvious that America is in "stage-2", and they still don't get it.
"The further a society shrinks from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it..." -- George Orwell
Here is the best line I ever heard about free speech:
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
"...Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
h/t "The American President"
Post a Comment