How Much Free Speech is Too Much?

A few days ago, my friend Jake brought to my attention a mini-comic handed to him by what could only have been a religious fanatic. The comic is titled "Allah Had No Son" and can be read in its entirety by clicking on that title. The story opens with a Christian man and his son walking past a mosque with a group of men outside praying. "What are they doing, Daddy?" the boy asks of the kneeling Muslims. The father answers, "They're praying to their moon god, son."

One of the praying men overhears this and confronts the father. "I heard what you said, you infidel. The holy Qur'an says I could KILL you for saying that!" The demonized Arab goes on to say that the boy and his father should fear his people and that a Muslim flag will soon fly above the White House. "Think it's impossible? England was our first target... And the Islamic religion is bringing England to her knees."

In a manner loyal to Teddy Roosevelt's famous slogan, the Christian man explains the origins of Islam, stating that Allah is a mere idol upon which the Prophet Muhammad founded his phony religion. Coincidentally, the man has photographic evidence to back up his argument -- which is funny until you realize how absurd the pamphlet is.

(The Bible scripture he quotes is incredibly confusing and contradictory, and would not be my first choice if I were in his shoes: "All things were made by him (Jesus); and without him was anything made that was made... (John 1:3) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:10))

As the pages move forward, we see the Muslim man lose focus of his argument and, ashamed, accept that Allah is not the way with embarrassing haste. (The clincher, I think, were the mansions; the Christian said God wants "the lost people of Islam" to "live with Him in mansions in Heaven.") He learns that Allah had no son to save his followers from Original Sin and begs for forgiveness. The Christian man says God loves and forgives him and the boy sees how much smarter his father is than the silly turban man.

This whole thing got me thinking about a recent Detroit Free Press article I read about the Hutaree. The extremist anti-government Christian militia briefly put Southeast Michigan on the national radar when its plans to attack law enforcement officials were debunked. Until recently, a federal judge was to release the nine members until their court hearings. What reminded me of the article was this quote by U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts:

“The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators. But, the Defendants are also correct: their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection.”

"Hate-filled, venomous speech." To me, it is absolutely no contest that these Hutaree members should be locked up until their hearings. It matters very little to me that there is no evidence proving they were actually going to carry out their plans. The only evidence that can prove that is if they actually carried out their plans.

Similarly, I don't think the Constitution should protect the speech of the above comic. As a journalist, this puts me in a strange place. During a class period of one of my last semesters in college, I got into a short debate with a visiting law professor who contended that ALL speech (except "FIRE!" in a theatre, and the like) is protected under Constitutional law. I asserted that some should not be, like the above examples. Of course, my opinion held little clout, but it was fun to pretend it did.

Is there actually a place in society for hate-filled venomous speech? Is that the same as asking whether we need to protect those who can't protect themselves? I ask because, if so, it is OK to make outlandish accusations to get your point across, just as it is OK to plan killings without actually doing them. Very different examples, yes, but more similar than you'd think. Individuals like the Hutaree members -- anyone who feels they've the right to murder whomever they see fit -- are who they are because they read the stuff presented above. And believe it.

Aren't they kind of the same? One is blatant murder, and the other sets the groundwork for it.