LA Times Allows Editorial Opposing Jihadist Threats

The Los Angeles Times is not exactly known for its opposition to jihadists, and it loves free speech threatening violence, so long as the free speech comes from Islamofascists threatening anyone who dares to say something un-Islamic. But it did allow an article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff to go into print.

The writers are proposing that instead of merely lamenting death threats against those who "dishonor Islam and its Prophet," it's time to pass legislation making it a crime to threaten death or injury to those who criticize either Islam or jihad. Now considering that America has a First Amendment, that's not a slam-dunk. The wording of the statute would have to be very carefully drafted so as to avoid restricting speech which is merely offensive toward non-Muslims. There is the clear and present danger test to go with the "realistic and reasonable fear" tests that death threats produce.

Given that Ayaan Hirsi herself had to flee the nation that had elected her to office, and the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh for mocking Muslim extremists, it doesn't seem a stretch to believe that such statutes could be enacted without torturing the meaning of the First Amendment. Consider also Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist who merely suggested "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" as a way of expanding the number of potential victims to such a degree as to dilute the threat. She is currently in hiding, having changed her name and canceled her identity to escape the very real Muslim threats.

Liberals will of course oppose any such legislation, complete with their idiotic misunderstanding of the purposes, intent and wording of the First Amendment. The same people who have no problem supporting "hate speech statutes" that apply to their voting pool of non-victims are unalterably opposed to restricting Islamic death threats. Of course their lily-livered fear of being targets themselves is also a major factor in their support of jihadists. They feed the beast in the hopes that it will consume them last.

Likewise, liberals will fail to see that they themselves obtained legislation that curtailed speech which contained realistic threats of death or bodily harm during the height of the abortion rights wars. Facing the realistic threats of radical abortion foes, they got federal laws making it a crime to threaten abortion providers and clients and providing for civil damages. But the right to threaten critics of Islam is deeply embedded in their mindset, while their belief in the right of free speech for those critics is a hole in their belief system.

The legislation would not be a cure for crazed jihadists, but it could at least make a dent in their ability to threaten. Just because a statute can't stop all crime, that is not an excuse for passing no legislation at all. It would gain international attention, and some judgments might even be enforceable overseas. Those convicted in absentia would be hesitant to come to the United States to carry out their threats. Those making the threats on US soil would be immediately subject to the jurisdiction of American courts. The civil portion of the statute would allow plaintiffs to do some severe damage to the pocketbooks of terror purveyors, and would also vitiate the problem of our current Department of Justice being reluctant to prosecute bullies, gangsters and jihadists.

While the liberals complain about "chilling free speech," threats of death or great bodily harm have never been protected by the First Amendment. Yet the liberals are incapable of seeing the chilling effect death threats have on genuine free political and religious speech, the only kind actually guaranteed by the Constitution. Citizen juries are capable of distinguishing between an idle "I'm gonna kill ya" threat, and a "you have defamed the Prophet, and we are now ordering your death" threat.

Violent hate groups such as the Aryan Church and Neo-Nazis have been prosecuted and sued into near-oblivion because of their threats to blacks and Jews. Why should Islamic terrorists be immune? When a radical antiabortion group posted the names, photographs and addresses of abortion providers on "wanted" posters, even the leftist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that to be a threat not protected by the First Amendment. There is no reason to assume that the US Supreme Court would hold any differently when faced with a clear and direct jihadist threat and legislation forbidding it.

Those of you who read my posts know that I am a strong advocate of the First Amendment right to be offensive as hell. I would protect without hesitation the right of Muslims to caricature Christ, and call Jews pigs. But when they threaten to kill Christians who criticize Islam or to kill Jews simply because they're Jews, I have no problem with law enforcement and the courts coming down very hard on them.