While speaking at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner on Thursday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that she intends to prosecute those who use “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence." Telling those assembled that “we stand with you,” referring to the current administration, she promised to use the Justice Department to protect Muslims from “violence” and perceived discrimination. Her promise sparked a great deal of criticism from many on the right.
“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted,” she said. “My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,’” she added.
I actually read the article. Somehow the part about prosecuting Muslims who preach hate and violence against Christians and Jews was missing. So was the part about prosecuting groups that shout that they want dead cops. Maybe Louis Farrakahn wrote her speech. Some of his speeches are pretty edgy.
Another AG who doesn’t understand the Constitution. There is a whole string of cases dealing with free speech vs. “true threats”. Inflammatory speech like “Send Them All Back” or even “First Let’s Kill all the Imams” is protected. Or it is until the current crop of law school students are old enough to take their place in the Federal judiciary.
[FONT=Arial]Lynch made it clear that she shares those concerns, but vowed to use the DOJ to protect Muslims from discrimination and violence. Noting the rise in violence against Muslims and mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks, Lynch added that, “When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”[/FONT]
So anyone who says something Lynch thinks is bad is responsible for any nut who goes off the deep end.
I’m curious what she was doing at a Muslim Advocate dinner-- apparently in her capacity as US attorney general. It was described as a fundraiser in another news story. Does the attorney general also attend Christian advocacy fundraisers? Jewish ones? Would the usual suspects being screaming about separation of church and state if an attorney general spoke out for Catholics or Baptists? (Real questions, btw, not rhetorical).
It sort of is inherently bad, though (however much it might be protected speech), to suggest “Send them all back!”, or whatever.
Certain rights (like free speech) are inalienable, but that doesn’t mean that for the common good they might not by consent be regulated, (the proverbial ‘“fire!” in a crowded theatre’ argument), in some way.
The reason why “Send them all back!” might fall into this category is because of its rather inflammatory nature (which surely no one can deny; that’s why someone says it after all). Apart from anything else, it is inherently a national security issue because such insane rhetoric (and I have charitably to assume that it is only rhetoric) plays directly into the hands of ISIS and their ilk that ‘the West is against all Muslims’.
It is not merely pigheaded and ignorant to want to treat or speak of the 3-ish million American Muslims in a particular way. Pigheadedness and ignorance are proud American traditions just as much as generosity and learning and in any the pigheaded deserve protection to say pigheaded things. But in this case, saying such things puts everyone else in danger. I hardly think giving a slight signal that they won’t be persecuted to less than 1% of the country’s population is wrong, given the consequences for the many if a tiny minority of that tiny minority get awful ideas in their heads. No one sadly can stop radicalization but we need not give incentives to those who ought to be our friends, and we certainly should not give ammunition to our enemies.
On the other hand it does have to go both ways. While Christians broadly can be comfortable in their religious majority in the US, it doesn’t mean those who preach violently anti-Christian messages shouldn’t similarly be prosecuted. I suspect, in fact, that they are, but it probably makes less of a good story to report it so much…
Wonder when she’s going to arrest Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, members of the CIA and Joint Chiefs who use the terms “Islamic extremists” and advocate violence against Muslim extremists in the Middle East. After the Dem primary, she might even have to arrest Hillary Clinton, who will go hawkish once she gets the nomination.
For an administration that did everything to blame Benghazi on an internet video, there is consistency in the appointment of Loretta Lynch.
Instead of fighting Islamist terrorism,the Obama administration is fighting American free speech as the bigger culprit.
This is all part of the fundamental change of America that has been promised since the beginning of this administration. This administration does not trust in American freedom, and the ability of a free people to sort things out and come to a correct decision through unencumbered freedom.
More and more Americans agree that it is indeed their freedom that is the bigger problem.
A lot of us have known since the 2008 election that this faction sees people who disagree with them as the enemy. It’s a warped sense of thinking and it boggles the mind that there are so many people who are ok with it and/or refuse to see it
I don’t really speak from the left, but in case no one who does turns up on the thread, I feel duty bound to point out that they tend to see the right as doing or desiring the same thing. I won’t articulate their argument further, unless asked, because I’m fed up with being attacked just because I like discussions to be balanced and where one might feel duty bound to play the Devil’s advocate in the interests of fairness.
The issue in any case is a divisive political discourse much more than the unlikely totalitarianism of ‘the Liberals’ on the one hand or a particular subset of neo-conservative on the other.