Posted on 06/05/2013 3:54:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee said that it's possible that some inflammatory criticism of Muslims posted on social networking sites could violate federal civil rights laws.
“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” U.S. attorney Bill Killian told the Tullahoma News last week. “This is also to inform the public about what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian, along with an FBI agent, are expected to attend a meeting Tuesday in Manchester, Tenn. hosted by a local Muslim group to “educate people on the First Amendment and its application in society.”
His comments sparked concern among conservative groups that the federal government is about to crack down on anti-Muslim rhetoric -- a claim the U.S. attorney denies.
“It has nothing to do with Sharia law,” Killian told me in a telephone interview. “It has to do with the United States Constitution and federal statutes. You have a right under the First Amendment to hate Muslims. You can hate all Muslims if you want to."
But he added a caveat -- "as long as it does not rise to the level of violating federal civil rights laws.”
The meeting comes after a Tennessee lawmaker posted a photograph of a man aiming a shotgun with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim.”
“It’s an open forum to discuss the First Amendment -- to discuss its application to all religions and to Muslim religions,” he said. “And to discuss federal civil rights statutes which we’ve done at other times and other places.”
Killian said the federal government has participated in at least a dozen similar Muslim education meetings across the state.
But Andy Miller, of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, believes the federal government is using those meetings to silence and intimidate critics of Islam.
“There’s an effort to step on free speech -- any speech that’s contrary to Islam,” Miller tells me. “It seems like our federal government is going down that path.”
Miller said Tennessee has become a battleground over what he called a crackdown on anti-Muslim speech.
“This is the Bible Belt,” he said. “There’s an effort to prove that if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.”
Killian said the supposition that the federal government would prosecute people for exercising their constitutional rights is “ridiculous.”
“We don’t prosecute people for the First Amendment,” he said. “In fact, this event is promoting the First Amendment for all people -- not only to exercise their religion, but to express their freedom of speech regardless of what it is.”
But the big question is where free speech might cross the line and violate federal civil rights laws.
“Could an Internet posting or letter in the mail or a phone call or a personal confrontation constitute a violation of those statutes,” he asked, citing 18 US Code 241 and 18 US Code 245. “Yes, it could.”
So what about the lawmaker who posted the photograph of the shotgun? Would that be a violation of federal law?
“I don’t know whether it does or not,” Killian said. “We’re treating that as if it were offensive conduct and trying to use this event as we have on many other occasions in the district -- utilize events of this nature to have people understand the Muslim religion and the Arab and Muslim people.”
Miller said the government’s explanation is problematic.
“It doesn’t make anybody here locally feel any better,” he said. “It seems as though they are creating a sacred group here that consistently gets attention from the federal government.”
“It’s interesting the Department of Justice and Homeland Security really seem to take up the banner for the Muslim population,” Miller said. “Why aren’t they having one for the Baptists? Why aren’t they having one for the Methodists? Why aren’t they having one for Jews?”
And Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, believes the Obama administration is using federal law to protect Muslims from criticism, Politico reports.
“In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S., the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights,” the group wrote online.
Yes... the KKK kills their own brain cells and loses their souls while islam kills everything and every one... including fellow muslims.
LLS
Arab is still not a race - Arabs are Caucasoid for the most part ... many are of Black African ancestry ...
Arab is more like Hispanic in that it is a linguistic sub classification of a larger group. Also - just as Hispanic are of various races. You may have seen the term - non Hispanic white... I would suggest equally there could be a non Arab white - as many if not most Arabs are quite light skinned compared to others.
And as far as our government (such as it is) is concerned - legal actions under American law would need to comply with recognized classifications.
And - no I don’t defend the obama Administration — I despise it.
It is!
“Arab is still not a race”
Then, someone should tell that to U.S. Attorney Bill Killian because he and other US Attorneys are prosecuting Americans for hate crimes against “Arab Muslims”. If they aren’t recognized by our government, then why the prosecutions?
The link below is to an FR thread today about Killian being at a meeting in Tennessee to warn the Americans they will be prosecuted for hate speech against Arab Muslims. Go to the link at the thread to read what happened. From that thread/link:
“He told the audience that despite 50 prosecutions and convictions of hate crimes in his district, “far too many people are still repeating the same vicious acts against the Arab-Muslim ... “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3027652/posts
Mohammed was a Child Rapist.
Would you please elaborate on that?
Well, what’s Holder going to do about anti-Jewish or anti-Christian rhetoric? Not a thing, because the Administration doesn’t care about those religions.
Pandering for Muslim votes.
Thanks for the link. I’ve read a few reports of the meeting last night. Someone should have stood up and asked Killian if he considered: “Behead those who insult Islam”, to be a violation of anyone’s civil rights.
He’s just acting PC and sucking up to Islam, maybe to impress Holder and Obama. I think there still must be a specific threat to some specific person before any law has been broken.
You can say that again.
Let me know when we get started re: testing the waters.
http://tmq2.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/the-real-meaning-behind-mecca-lecca-high-mecca-hiney-ho/
Islam sucks Navy Seal balls. Muslims are not worthy of eating the dirt Jesus walked upon. Arrest me, you treasonous, commie pigs.
I have read it ... and the Federal Attorney is threatening to prosecute - based on a photo of a man with a shotgun making references to Muslims. That was his original assertion. But he cannot do so - it is only an obama Administration induced threat. Yes - and WHERE your excerpt is the word RACE mentioned?
Islam is supposedly a religion - Muslims are followers of Islam. Neither term refers to RACE. Arab is also not a race.
Here is something for you to think about.
First Amendment Center president and executive director Gene Policinski said before the Manchester meeting on Tuesday that the details of the threat (photo of a man with a shotgun) and the specificity of its target are significant in determining how federal law applies to comments made in a public forum.
The threat “has to be likely, imminent and directed at a specific person,” Policinski said.
He said remarks such as those made by West (guy who posted the photo) are protected speech.
Killian didn’t address West’s post, except to acknowledge that it created a stir in the community.
“While [West’s] cartoon might be tasteless and crass and juvenile and even hateful, I think the founders of this nation provided for people to be able to express those views,” Policinski said. “When it comes to a public official, I think the market place idea is protected under the First Amendment, where voters can decide if this is the kind of person whose opinion and whose judgment they trust to hold public office.”
In all instances, the First Amendment “requires government to really demonstrate that it’s a true threat before they can restrict our speech,” he said.
And ‘Vicious Acts’ are not speech ... this is referring to acts such as burning a Mosque or destroying property ...
” Islam sucks Navy Seal balls. Muslims are not worthy of eating the dirt Jesus walked upon. Arrest me, you treasonous, commie pigs.”
And the 72 virgins all look like Helen Thomas!
Obviously you haven't read much of the queeranus.
Islam delenda est!
The point I was making is, the government cannot be trusted to follow any law as written - they follow it the way they “want” it to be. In other words, what they would decide is “a true threat” would be whatever they want it to be. They get to define it and act. What we think it means, means nothing.
As far as ethnicity, they can also label anyone what they want. Hussein has labeled himself an American born on American soil in Hawaii. I have no idea what race he has labeled himself. A person may think he/she is of (whatever) race and the government can label them anything they want. I am labeled as a white American - I may personally change that to white “used to be an American before it became a communist Muslim country”.
I used to think laws meant something concrete - with Hussein, they mean whatever he wants them to mean. Hussein turned a penalty into a tax - he can do whatever he wants to interpret laws so they benefit his cause.
You are using rational thinking and facts - those mean nothing to Hussein and his government.
You and I are not on opposite sides - I have no quarrel with anything you have written but that doesn't mean Hussein acknowledges it as fact. He will do what he wants which is my point.
http://biblehub.com/proverbs/22-6.htm
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
I must apologize for Wimp Lo, he is an idiot. We have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke. Ha, face to foot style, how'd you like it?
I can hate whomever I please. I can love whomever I please.
I will comment on both. I will state facts, opinions, conjecture, speculation, analysis, and synthesis at will.
I will not be silenced.
The Ministry of Truth will not censor me.
God gave me the right to self-expression, self-defense, self-determination, and the ability to sustain myself. Only God can take away that which He has given me.
Eric Holder has no authority over me, even if I choose to comment on a group he seeks to protect and advance in society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.