Doc's Talk: Long "South Park" Sentence a Win for Free Speech

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Long "South Park" Sentence a Win for Free Speech

IPT News

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3635/long-south-park-sentence-a-win-for-free-speech

A convert to Islam who helped promote death threats against the producers of the animated television show "South Park" after it featured a character representing the prophet Mohammad will serve 11½ years in prison, a federal judge ordered Friday.

Jesse Morton pleaded guilty in February to conspiracy and two counts related to issuing threats in connection with actions after an April 2010 episode of the comedy. He asked the court for a sentence less than half of what he received, arguing he never tried to carry out the threats and since had moderated some of his extreme views to the degree that he hopes "one day help build bridges between the West and the Muslim World."

He apologized in court, the Associated Press reports, saying he "justified atrocities by Muslims simply because they were carried out by the weak against the powerful."

Regardless of Morton's current attitude, his actions in this case and through a radical website he helped launch inspired a host of others to plot terror attacks, prosecutors said. They will haunt the victims for the rest of their lives and stand to let threats silence public discourse.

U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady seemed to agree with the prosecution argument that the threats will live on indefinitely for those targeted, and that a strong sentence is needed to stand against such brutal assaults on free speech.

"You were rubbing elbows with some of the most dangerous revolutionaries of the past few years," O'Grady said Friday, adding "there has to be religious tolerance in the world. There has to be freedom of speech."

Co-conspirator Zachary Chesser received a 25-year sentence last year. As he did with Chesser, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg wrote a forceful sentencing memorandum for Morton detailing the perpetual nature of the threats conveyed.

Morton, 33, was a founder of the radical website Revolution Muslim, created in 2007 for posting material "supportive of violent jihad," court papers show. That's where the "South Park" threats were published, along with excerpts on bomb-making from al-Qaida's English-language Inspire magazine. The posting included a picture of slain Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was killed after producing a short film considered offensive to Islam. Producers Matt Stone and Trey Parker faced a similar fate, the posting said, suggesting Revolution Muslim supporters "pay a visit" to them. It also included audio files of American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki justifying the killing of anyone who defamed the prophet.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) minimized the significance of the threats when they first were issued, dismissing Revolution Muslim as "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community." National spokesman Ibrahim Hooper even speculated the group was "set up only to make Muslims look bad."

But Morton's plea makes it clear that the group enjoyed a vast reach.

Revolution Muslim posts inspired others to plot and wage violence. In a statement of facts, he acknowledges interacting with at least a half-dozen other radical Islamists, including those who plotted to attack sites in the United States, Britain and Denmark.

History shows that those targeted for death threats never fully escape risk, Kromberg wrote. Plots targeting Danish cartoonist Lars Vilks continue. Writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali still lives with constant security protection.

"Morton may sincerely regret his actions today, and we hope he does," Kromberg wrote. "Nevertheless, the solicitations for murder that Morton posted on an internet site patronized by terrorists and their sympathizers likely will never disappear."

Morton admitted to investigators that he never saw the "South Park" episode that prompted the threats. It featured a character – fully hidden in a bear suit – that was supposed to be the prophet Mohammad. Even the irreverent comedy team was reluctant to actually show an image of the prophet out of fear of a resulting violent backlash.

"Mohammad is the only person in the world that can't get ripped on," the character Cartman says in the episode.

When Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris responded with a proposed "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day," she too, faced threats. The three "will always be marked as enemies of Islam and targets for those who seek to gain entrance to heaven by killing one - - and this is true regardless of Morton's regrets," Kromberg wrote.

Morton's ironic response – issuing threats to those who suggested Islam might be intolerant or "that some Muslims are too quick to resort to violence" – required a strong statement from the court to protect those threatened and those who might express opinions in the future.

"Morton did not call for 'An eye for an eye.' He did not incite Muslims to retaliate against a television show he found insulting by making another television show, nor did he incite Muslims to retaliate against a cartoon he found insulting by making another cartoon. Instead, he incited them to slit throats for a television show and for a cartoon - a throat for every drawing, book, speech, or movie that he deemed to be 'insulting.' Offend us, Morton said to his fellow Americans, and you will end up in hiding like Salman Rushdie, Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, attacked like Kurt Westergaard, or dead like Theo Van Gogh. The law must resist this violent intimidation at all costs."

The entire case represents a threat on free speech, the government argued:

"The natural consequence of Morton's actions is for people throughout the country to fear speaking out – even in jest – lest they also be labeled as enemies who deserve to be killed. The role of Muslims in the United States, the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world, and the existence of links between Islam and terrorism are issues of major public importance. Yet, anyone choosing to address them publicly must carefully weigh the risk of being marked for death by the likes of Morton for saying or writing something perceived as insulting while doing so. Left unchecked, that risk will hamper public policy decision making by dampening public discourse over some of the most consequential issues of our age.

While the drafters of the Sentencing Guidelines may have contemplated the kinds of harm that Morton caused to MS, TP, and MN, we doubt that they ever contemplated a harm of the magnitude that Morton caused our society as a whole by making people shrink from expressing their opinions - - or even telling a joke - - lest they be accused of being an enemy of Islam for whom beheading is the only appropriate punishment. Regardless of the need to punish him for his other offenses, his sentence must deter others from engaging in similar conduct that would chill free expression in our society.

We have an obligation to do our utmost to ensure that violent fanatics do not dictate what Americans draw, what Americans say, and what Americans read. We have an obligation to resist their suffocating rules and thuggish demands at every turn."

Read the full memo here.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk