An American-Muslim Islamic scholar, who was also a biologist and a doctor that was always “hungry for answers to larger philosophical questions,” was convicted of inciting terrorism and sentenced to life imprisonment. His familial background is also very impressive as well; both of his parents were very well-educated as well, with his father being a lawyer and his mother holding her Ph.D. in psychology. By reading a list of accomplishments he and his family have made, you would have never guessed that Dr. Al-Timimi would even have the intention of expressing bad speech regarding terrorism or anything of that sort.
However, Ali Al-Timimi was indicted in 2004 and convicted in 2005 of charges of exhortation. According to FOX News, he was “convicted of charges including soliciting others to levy war against the United States and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law.” He supposedly told a group of young Muslim men in northern Virginia to carry firearms and levy war against the United States. It had been reported that Al-Timimi also told them that they were obligated to work for the Taliban, and that America was at war with Islam and would attack the Taliban – though this was before the United States had even gone to Iraq. Al-Timimi also made a comment about the Columbia space shuttle disaster, which upset people because they understood it as a way of saying that he wanted Americans to die. Jumping to conclusions like this is something that U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty said in a statement, “He not only wanted Americans to die, he recruited others to his cause at a time when our country was mourning the loss of more than 3,000 people who were murdered in a heinous act of terrorism.” Ultimately, this man was charged with treasonous speech and life imprisonment without parole, which came as a result of his firearms convictions. But I have to ask, where did Attorney McNulty directly read that Al-Timimi “wants Americans to die?” Al-Timimi described the shuttle disaster as something that perhaps God had willed, but I do not think that this automatically means that Al-Timimi was happy that thousands of lives were lost. Perhaps we should test out the truth in the Attorney, but even more so in Al-Timimi, to get to the core of what his statements actually meant.
John Stuart Mill’s concept on freedom of expression is that truth should be tested in every man. I agree that any opinion or statement may have truth and/or falsity in it, which would then make us challenge the particular statement. However, J.S. Mill is also concerned with intellectual truth and freedom, which I believe applies to Al-Timimi’s case. The philosophical reason for free speech is centered on the struggle for intellectual freedom and the search for truth, according to Mill. The political reason is based on at least three points that relate to self-government, including free and open discussion of political issues, promoting participation, and allowing people the right to freely express their opinions. Lastly, there is an individual reason, which is based on a belief that everyone has the right to self-fulfillment. I also agree with Emerson’s view that Al-Timimi rightly expressed his thoughts by means of speech, which should be protected absolutely. Though some may question whether Al-Timimi had actually given instructions versus pure oral expressions, I would like to then call upon Mill’s strategy to test the truth in Al-Timimi and find out whether he had actually given instructions or not.
Clarence Brandenburg was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan in Ohio, who made several remarks that were considered as threats against the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. Justices Black and Douglas argued in this case that the clear-and-present-danger test had “no place in the interpretation of the First Amendment.” In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court decided that threatening speech be protected unless the state can prove that it leads to such action. This case went beyond the use of the clear-and-present-danger doctrine, and established an incitement standard, which I believe draws a parallel line with the Al-Timimi case. We should only punish those who present an immediate danger to the public and if a threat seems very imminent. If not, then speech should be freely expressed as one desires as long as there is no consequence of harming the public.
As a result, strict scrutiny needs to be applied in Al-Timimi’s case. The government must prove that they have a truly compelling reason to charge Dr. Al-Timimi; therefore the burden of proof must be proven by the government. There must be room for the government to prove that it has a reason to regulate or punish the speech in which Al-Timimi expressed in order to punish him of any crime of misuse of speech. If there was only a rational reason to regulate speech, then it might be too broad to determine the result of Al-Timimi’s case, which is why I think that strict scrutiny should be applied.
Did Al-Timimi actually harm anyone directly? Did he even mean to, if he did? People get offended all the time and everyone has their secret conversations. But perhaps the United States is still afraid and judgmental, coming to decisions too quickly without testing the truth. Al-Timimi had only used oral means to express his thoughts and was accused of having secret conversations, but it is only fair to ask Dr. Al-Timimi of his intention and to test the truth. Furthermore, we have operated under the Brandenburg principle since the 1960s, and it still applies in this case. We must ask whether there is more than just a clear-and-present-danger in this case, and determine whether there was actual harm caused directly by Al-Timimi’s words.
