US Attorney Bill Killian: “Posting something mean about Muslims on
social media might be a criminal action under federal civil rights laws.”
Wait…. huh?
Bill Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, and an Obama appointee, along with Kenneth Moore, Special Agent in
Charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division, will speak at a special meeting in
Manchester, Tennessee, next week to provide input on how civil rights can be
violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social
media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into
freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News
Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what
the consequences are.” Killian said
Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal
jurisdiction.
Aside from direct threats against a group of people,
regardless of who they are, what is criminal about someone voicing their
disagreement, contempt, or even downright hatred of Islam and Muslims in a free
society? Or are we not still free?
The First Amendment specifically states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.”
I’m not understanding how someone’s words against Muslims
constitutes a violation of civil rights unless Muslims have more rights than
the average American. People in this
country, including Muslims, disagree with, and express contempt and even hatred
for Christians on a daily basis? Are
they protected? It seems they’re not –
at least they’re not mentioned by the government as being protected from hate
speech. Only Muslims seem to have that
protected status.
"This (meeting) is an educational effort with civil
rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of
religion, Killian said. He also
mentioned that Coffee County Commissioner Barry West had posted a photo of a
man aiming a shotgun with the caption "How to wink at a Muslim."
“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could
you imagine what would have happened?” Killian told The Tullahoma News on
Tuesday. “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and
as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”
I can answer Mr. Killian’s question about what would have
happened if that picture had been posted about Christians. Absolutely nothing. The government, including Mr. Killian, would
have said it was free speech and nothing more.
"He’s just wrong," said Floyd Abrams, a First
Amendment attorney. "The government
may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people
not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may
not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed
as hostile to a religion. And what it
most clearly may not do is to stifle political or social debate, however
rambunctious or offensive some may think it is."
So it seems the federal government will now be deciding what
is and isn’t protected speech when it comes to religion. The far reaching implications of this could
be that Christian pastors could face civil rights charges for preaching against
the evils of Islam as guided by the Bible - even as the Quran tells Muslims
that non-believers should be converted or killed. When is American going to wake up and realize
that Islam is in the process of taking over the world and we are helping them
do it. Think I’m exaggerating? Take a close look at Europe today…
No comments:
Post a Comment