Bounded Agora Post

As individuals who stand up for free speech no matter what, it is our duty to defend speech, regardless of our stance on the issue.  In the case of Al-Timimi, who was convicted on ten counts of criminal charges including inducing others to carry explosives and inducing others to conspire to levy war, the situation becomes more difficult in determining if free speech should be protected—no matter what. In a modern day example of an age-old debate that has struck communication theorists, what is the limit to free speech? Over the years, the philosophical grounding for this debate has evolved and this evolution has influenced people in power have been able to use these ideals as a basis of law around the world, which makes it particularly interesting here in the United States that prides itself around freedom of speech. Looking back at the case of Ali Al-Timimi, if he were to file a First Amendment appeal for his conviction, using the groundings in modern philosophers and using the level of scrutiny that is precedent, the charges that got him a life sentence are protected speech and he should not be behind bars.

The actions and speech that were taken by Al-Timimi are not in debate between any of the parties involved in the case. As an expert in Islamic culture and an inspiration to many in the Muslim community, Al-Timimi became a role model for those around him. When the Al-Timimi came to the home of one of the men that would one day be known as Virginia Jihad Terrorism Network, he spoke about to the group of men about the role of Muslims in America and that tension will rise regarding their religion. He gave them information about how to get to places in the Middle East, which would one day be classified as a terrorist networks. Though there is a clear connection between the men that went to the Middle East to get the training in the terrorism camp, it is very hard to see any direct connection to the speech that Al-Timimi delivered and terrorism.

This reasoning can be justified by using dialogue that protects free speech when it comes to the freedom of expression and religious and political views. There is no evidence or admissions that Al-Timimi directly told any of the men that night to go out and kill Americans, terrorize the nation, and cause chaos. The issues that were brought up that night were legitimate concerns, which I can imagine were on the minds of many Muslims in the United States. Anytime there is a social issue, leaders across the world are looked upon for advice; this is one of those times. Zachariah Chafee says it best when he says we need to protect speech that serves the social interest. The social interest that he was protecting was those of Muslim Americans. He was touching on an issue so soon after the 9/11 attacks, they were not even being touched upon in the news media. Americans are so uncomfortable discussing conflicts when it involves culture or religion; he was advising fellow men on what to do in the future with hate and distrust shown their way in the future.  

Looking at the issue through another lens, one might say that by him telling the group of men that did have ill-will against the United States about the terrorism camps in the Middle East, it encouraged acts of terrorism. Telling someone about a location is not a crime, nor is knowing about the location a crime. Using this logic, any of us, us being Americans, knows about the location of a terrorism camp and tells anyone, we would be sent to jail. In turn, just by knowing about this location it would make it a crime. This would violate the United Declaration of Human Rights that states that we all have the rights to thought and opinion. It is also important to point out that the individuals who went to the camp have of rights that are protected in the United States Constitution and the United Declaration of Human Rights such as traveling internationally and having weapons, all of which lead to no one being harmed or injured.  This lack of harm is an important fact that can lead to a dismissal of Al-Timimi’s case.

 In the United States, we have a degree-of-danger continuum (Tedford & Herbeck p. 50) that determines the point of which the government will stop the antigovernment speech that is committed. I do not believe that the conversation that Al-Timimi had was antigovernment, but the continuum still will be used to justify the threat that was perceived by the United States for the actions that could have happened. Ever since the case of Bradenburg v. Ohio (1969), the United States has used the incitement approach to determine the time and point at which someone can be tried for political heresy. This approach identifies that the illegal act must be “both imminent and likely to occur.” It is appropriate to apply the strict scrutiny that was decided upon in this precedent in the case against Al-Timimi as well.

In the 1969 case against Ku Klux Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, the Supreme Court reversed the decision that convicted him of “advocating the use violence and terrorism to accomplish industrial or political reform.” A television crew had him on video speaking at a rally calling for “revengeance” against the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. The court said that threatening speech was protected and it was only when it was a real danger, not imaginary, that it would not be protected. In this landmark case that has continues to set the precedent to this day, this should be the scrutiny that is used by the courts in relation to First Amendment speech. Comparing both cases, both allegedly claim to engage in acts of terror to the United States. In the case of Al-Timimi, he never clear denounced his plan for terror. It was the conclusion by the courts that determined that his speech meant terrorism. This contrasts Brandenburg that clearly calls for action to participate in terror against the government. If Bradenburg can be cleared of charges that there is no real threat, even though he blatantly called for violence, then there is no reason that Al-Timimi presents a “clear and present danger.”

Of the 11 “overt acts” that were cited in the grand jury’s case against Al-Timimi, only two of them can be legitimately tied to illegal behavior that can be limited by the United States, both of which never fully discussed in any of the information in the case. The acts that seem to not pass the scrutiny principles include: (20) also advising they were obligated to help the Taliban by (21) “body, wealth, and work” and…

All of the other acts that were identified as overt acts are aspects of speech that should fully be protected. (1) speaking to Muslim men assembled peaceably in a home’ is clearly the most discriminatory overt act that was identified. In no way would this act be identified as an act that would be considered to be terrorism. Even the message of ‘(25) subsequently providing a message about Muslims being overjoyed by the crash of the shuttle Columbia’ would never be considered an act leading to terrorism. Although this would considered to be an act of speech that would not be accepted by most of the country and most Muslims, Al-Timimi has every right to say and think this.

Although I do not believe Al-Timimi belongs to a marginalized group that historically been subject to speech discrimination and the United States, I believe that post-9/11 Middle Eastern and people believed to be Muslim have been discriminated against because of appearance and race. I would say ignorance is the biggest culprit to this discrimination and I believe that people are acting in fear. This fear of another 9/11 has prompted this discrimination and it is because of public and political pressure to criminalize anything that happens to resemble terrorism. This is why Al-Timimi is in jail.

The final justification for Al-Timimi to be in jail, which I also disagree with, is designation that his conversation with the men that night resembles the Rice v. Palidin case in which constitutes specific instructions “aiding and abetting” a crime. This accusation is ridiculous because no direct crime actually happened. It was the threat of terrorism that imprisoned Al-Timimi. He never told them how to kill anyone. He never told them how to overthrow the government. He never told them how to commit a crime. He really was there to give advice. This contrasts the Hitman book that gives step-by-step instructions on how to commit the worst crime imaginable, murder. Anytime you end someone’s life, it is the means for prosecution. The book not only identified specific steps for individuals to follow, but it also was the reason for crimes to be committed. In the case of the book, it actually inspired crime. No crime ever came out of meeting that night. The only thing that came out of that meeting was a trip to Pakistan for the guys and life sentence for Al-Timimi.