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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gina does a very nice job of expressing her opinion on the Al-Timimi case. She does not believe that he was tried the way he should have been. She argues that he should be tried using strict scrutiny, forcing the government to come up with substantial evidence and reasoning for convicting him. She strengthens her argument by using the work of John Mill as well as Emerson.
ReplyDeleteGina notes that he did make remarks about the shuttle crash and people where severely offended. She then brings up the work of Mill and explains that there was no clear and imminent danger. There is no proof that the words said by Al-Timimi brought on the threat of imminent danger. I like the way she tied in the case of the Klu Klux Klan leader, who was tried for giving hate speeches. The court ruled that the speech would be protected as long as it did not directly cause or incite immediate harm or danger.
I agree with Gina when she says that the case should be looked using strict scrutiny. This case is not to different from the KKK leaders case, the only difference here is that Al-Timimi made his speech days after major American tragedies and offended thousands of people. If we are to protect the speech of the KKK leader then we should be obligated to protect the speech of Al-Timimi, since there can be no direct connection with his words and any imminent threat of danger. After all the only thing that happened from his speech was a few paintball players decided to travel to a Muslim training camp, and that’s as far as they got. Had his speech gave clear instructions to thousands of Muslims to take up arms against America then his speech should not be protected.
Gina’s analysis is centered on the idea of truth. She wrote that the USA’s government should test the truth before take any decision, which may harm someone’s life, and in this case is Ali Al-Timimi’s life. I do agree with Gina that someone’s who present an immediate danger should be punished; however, in Al-Timimi’s case, he did not present an immediate danger that will harm anybody’s life. Therefore, I do agree that his punishment should be lightened. I do agree that in every expression there may have truth or falsity; therefore, before make any decision, we should test the truth based on their expression. Back to our freedom of speech that everybody has their own individual freedom. Everybody can express themselves freely in every medium, such as, writing a song, poem, or painting a wall (434, Tedford and Herbeck). So, back in Al-Timimi’s case he had his freedom to say anything he wants. However, nowadays, people do not have their privacy anymore. Everybody can access anybody’s secret file, and make it a big deal; therefore, will we have our absolute protection anymore? Furthermore, the question that Gina raised about “Did Al-Timimi actually harm anyone directly?” is a good question to think about. Why the government made his speech seriously, while he did not harm anybody. We did not the mission of Al-Timimi when he talked to the group of Muslim people. There is an opportunity that he just wants to express himself with no bad tension to do anything. In conclusion, I do agree with Gina that in every case we should try our best to test the truth/falsity behind it.
ReplyDeleteAs I have mentioned in Larkin's blog post, it is up to Ali al-Timimi's intentions and the follower's perception of the message whether al-Timimi's speech was in fact, an action. As I look at this case more closely, al-Timimi's speech looks like it could be a “green light” to an action. But at the same time, there's that blurry line due to not knowing what could have happened if he wasn't accused of jump-starting a terrorist attack.
ReplyDeleteGoing off on that idea, I appreciate Gina's venture on John Stuart Mill's strategy to use upon Ali al-Timimi's case. Since we are not sure about his intentions, further investigation should be made and not punish al-Timimi immediately. However playing devil's advocate, On J.S. Mill's second basic reason, it states “even truth needs to be challenged and tested, else it becomes a 'dead dogma'” (Tedford & Herbeck, 13) Even if Ali al-Timimi has been proven innocent, eye should still be kept on him because we never know what would have or could have happened if his speech did not come to the surface and and paid attention to.
I agree with Gina that a strict scrutiny should be administered for Ali al-Timimi's case. In order for Ali al-Timimi's freedom of speech to be protected, the government should have a compelling reason to punish him since nothing really happened and nobody was harmed. I also admire Gina's honesty in talking about the tendency of America's fear to dictate judgments and decisions. But at the same time, fear causes anxiety and the need to be protected.
Overall, Gina supported her argument very well. And through this, it made me think about the 'other' side and play devil's advocate for a little bit.
Gina has an extremely well-supported argument for al-Timimi on many levels. Laying the foundation for her support by determining exactly what got al-Timimi in so much trouble with the law gives a better understanding of why his speech perhaps should have been protected to some extent. First, John Stuart Mill's ideas are used to prove the point that every man has his own truth and that perhaps a deeper look should be taken to see whether he was instructing others to participate in Anti-American activities or simply expressing a political opinion, to which he has every right. Next, Gina moves into Brandenburg v. Ohio as precedent for this case with the whole "Clear and Present Danger" issue.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though in the end, clear and present danger is what most concerned the Court and that is why his sentencing was so harsh, but the consistent argument throughout these posts is: was there a clear and present danger posed by al-Timimi's speech? Did he mean to incite terrorism, or was he freely expressing opinions? Was his punishment heightened due to recent terrorist attacks, and would things have been different in another time?
Back to the argument, I'd like to say that the conclusion gives the entire argument so much strength as a whole. Gina does a great job of tying everything together and raising important questions to consider regarding the circumstances in this case and the precedent set by Brandenburg v. Ohio. I completely agree that if Brandenburg v. Ohio was ruled not a clear and present danger, neither should this because the court failed to prove whether these statements actually caused anyone any harm. However, there are non-textual, non-academic reasons for why this case may have turned out the way it did and Gina presents this information in such a way that is very convincing.