Free Speech

Free Speech and Criticism of Islam

By Gloria Merle Huffman

12/5/2012

967 words

Where and why must free speech be limited?

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater? Illegal, and rightfully so ... if the intent is malicious. BUT ...

1. This is not a case of the rightful curtailing of "free speech," because free speech presupposes that the person speaking (through any of various mediums) is communicating an opinion or personal perspective.

2. In order to be convicted of illegally shouting "Fire" in a public place, the motive of the speaker must be made clear. If the speaker has a good reason to suspect there is a fire, or mistakenly misinterprets sensory signals as indicating that there is a fire, or hallucinates or dreams and shouts "Fire" as a warning, he is not guilty of intent to harm, even if there was really no fire.

3. If the person simply wants to enjoy people's panic, regardless of the possible injuries that might occur, he is guilty, not of "abusing free speech," but of intentionally using speech as a weapon to cause others to injure themselves. What penalty should be imposed in this case? It should vary according to the severity of people's injuries, as in any other case of assault.

How similar is this to expressing criticism of Islam, if it is already known that some Muslims will automatically go on a murderous rampage if Islam is criticized?

It is not the same at all, for this simple reason:

(a) The hearers of "Fire" are not the initiators of the emotion leading to the injuries received. It is their involuntary panic, aroused by the person who shouts "Fire," that serves as the intermediary force leading them to injure themselves.

(b) The hearers of criticism of Islam, on the other hand, are the initiators of the voluntary, premeditated injuries and murders they inflict on other people.

THE MISTAKE many people make in comparing criticism of Islam to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is that they erroneously assume that a parallel exists between the shouter of "Fire" and the speaker of criticism, just because both speakers have their mouths open. That is not the true parallel.

The shouter of "Fire" is the initiator of panic, and, *depending on his motive,* may have acted from malice. The stampeding people are innocent, fleeing possible death or injury to themselves.

However, the criticizer of Islam is stating a protected opinion or perspective. The force impelling some Muslims to go on a rampage of retribution comes not from hearing the criticizer, but from the training they have received from their own Qur'an and from their leaders that leads them to believe that they must not only squash criticism of Islam but kill the criticizer. Such a stance is exponentially worse than bullying, involving guilty Muslims who go out intentionally looking for innocent people to injure or kill as a "lesson."

THE PARALLELS:

1. Person A is not malicious, but mistakenly shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater: GUILTY of UNINTENTIONAL infliction of death and/or injury on innocent people.

2. Person A shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater, whether from malice or as a twisted "joke:" GUILTY of INTENTIONAL infliction of death and/or injury on innocent people.

3. Person B (Prophet Mohammed in the Qur'an, Muslim leader) teaches followers of Islam the suppression of dissent or killing of dissidents. This is the equivalent of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, because it habituates the hearers to become knee-jerk *enraged* (not knee-jerk "panicked") whenever anyone at all (Muslim or non-Muslim) expresses criticism against Islam.

4. Person C expresses criticism of or dissent against Islam: INNOCENT.

5. Person D becomes aware of the criticism/dissent expressed by Person C and goes looking for Person C (or E, F, or even G, who have nothing at all to do with Person C) to injure or kill him/them: GUILTY of INTENTIONAL infliction of death and/or injury on innocent people.

ANALYSIS:

Those who would enact laws to suppress Person C are wrongly assuming that the violent behavior of offended Muslims is a response to an incitement originating in the communication of Person C (the criticizer), whereas the true GUILTY initiators of Muslim offense and rage are:

(1) Person B: the Prophet Mohammed himself (as taught in the Qur'an he authored),

(2) Person B: the leaders of Islam,

(3) rank-and-file adherents of the Prophet Mohammed (from whom the next leaders will arise), and, more specifically,

(4) Person D: the specific individuals who carry out acts of destruction and murder (in the name of Mohammed and of Islam) in response to criticism.

It is these latter intermediaries (Person D), acting on behalf of Person B, who must be brought to justice, not Person C, who expressed criticism.

In the meantime, it is important to maintain our ability to criticize the original malicious shouter of "Fire," Person B (Mohammed and his Islam).

NUTSHELL TAKE-AWAY:

The shouter of "Fire" is not analogous to a criticizer of Islam. The shouter of "Fire" is, rather, more correctly likened to the Prophet Mohammed, almost the same but not quite: shouting "Fire" taps into a predictable self-preservation response of panic, while Mohammed and his extremist leaders train his followers to respond with premeditated destructive acts.

There is no parallel between the stampeding theater crowd and the rampaging Muslims. The theater crowd stampedes in instant involuntary panic, injuring or killing each other in an attempt to save themselves, whereas the Muslims go on a premeditated, voluntary murderous rampage to kill other people, not to kill themselves. The premeditation, which proves the motive of murderous intent, occurs at or soon after the moment when the Muslims become aware of criticism of Islam and specifically decide to go looking for people to victimize.

INNOCENT: The criticizer of Islam is innocent.

GUILTY: The specific Muslims who kill or injure people as a response to criticism are guilty of premeditated murder and mayhem, and should be brought to justice for their deeds under non-Muslim laws.

© 2012 Gloria Merle Huffman

#