|
|
An Ugly, But Legal, Form of Free SpeechThe Dove World Outreach Center plans to commemorate the September 11 terrorist attacks by burning copies of the Quran in a presumably sincere, but woefully misguided, belief that America is at war with the Islamic faith. Burning books conjures up images of a time when Nazi brutality against a religious minority was state-sanctioned policy. The community will surely respond as suggested by University of Florida President Bernard Machen; by condemning post-9/11 intolerance of Muslims and people of Arab and south Asian descent and reaffirming a commitment to religious and ethnic diversity. Such a reaffirmation is urgently needed at this sad period in American history, when Islamophobia (really, anti-Muslim bigotry) may be becoming mainstream political rhetoric. The ACLU of Florida encourages its members to stand with others in the community to protect the Muslim community's religious freedom to practice its faith. It is important that the voices of decency not let the book-burners and taunts of the bigots dominate the conversation — and ensure that the German writer Heinrich Heine's prophesy ("Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.") is not repeated. But with the guarantee of religious freedom for all, the fundamental American right to protest — an essential element of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression — should also be honored. As the Constitution protects the right to burn an American flag as a political protest, for the Ku Klux Klan to rally at a state capitol, for neo-Nazis to march down an American street, then surely there is a right to burn a Quran or any other sacred symbol. As the Supreme Court said more than 60 years ago, a principal "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." That constitutional principle protected freedom of speech for the racist and virulently anti-Semitic Father Terminello, who gave a racially charged rant to a restless crowd in Chicago in the 1940s. But it also protected the right of black college students to peacefully protest racially segregated restaurants in Louisiana — and Rosa B. Williams' protests of racially segregated facilities and department stores in Gainesville, almost two decades later. The Dove World's religiously intolerant book-burning stunt should remind us that constitutional principles protecting their right to protest also protect everyone's right to protest — including the Gainesville community's right to protest Dove World's intolerance. But defending the right of everyone to advance their point of view by whatever nonviolent methods they choose does not mean we should refrain from condemning the objectives of the protest. Bigotry should be condemned for what it is. Those of us who will use freedom of speech to condemn the burning of Qurans and the distressing intolerance that will be on display on September 11 also need to protect the constitutional right to engage in hateful and bigoted speech. The legal principles that protect the Dove World's freedom of speech, as ugly and intolerant as it will be, also protect freedom of speech for everyone else. Weaken it for them, and we weaken it for everyone. September 11 should be a reaffirmation of the principles that make America the beacon of liberty it still is — religious liberty and freedom of speech. We should demonstrate to the nation and the world how these uniquely American values work together. (Originally posted in The Gainesville Sun.)
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 7 Responses to "An Ugly, But Legal, Form of Free Speech" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Sep 10th, 2010 at 9:11am
Given the international situation, why isn't this the equivalent of shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre?
Sep 10th, 2010 at 11:51am
So will you defend the free speech of Terry Jones. You should if you run your organization by it tenants.
Sep 10th, 2010 at 12:55pm
Could someone explain why the "fighting words" exclusion does not apply.
Thanks
Sep 10th, 2010 at 3:19pm
anon #2. If you read the blog...
Sep 13th, 2010 at 9:58am
The proposed actions of hate-meister Jones are in the same category as burning of the American flag: despicable, but protected. Either the Bill of Rights applies to everybody or to nobody.
Sep 19th, 2010 at 10:02am
Why isn't this considered free speech what about Muslims saying death to America because of Islam teaching should that be considered hate speech too
Nov 8th, 2011 at 10:14pm
corruption of U.S legal system will corrupt any institution striving to defend it.