Free speech rights in America are not absolute. There are lots of different restrictions on what a person might say. There are little to no restrictions when it comes to expressing actual ideas, though - they are broadly protected. That would end, though, if the Council on American-Islamic Relations got its way: they would apparently ban anything that "defames" religious figures like Muhammad.

The Daily Pennsylvanian reports on a panel discussion sponsored the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations:

“People have every right to give an opinion on something,” Rachel Lawton, executive director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, said. “You cross the line when you threaten, intimidate or harass, and that is when free speech is limited.” CAIR board member Mazhar Rishi agreed.

Notice that Rishi “agreed” that free speech is limited when you “threaten, intimidate or harass.” Does any of this describe statements which “defame” religious figures? No. So why say...

“The right to free speech is not absolute,” Rishi said. “It does not give a right to defame Prophet Muhammad or any other” religious figure.

It’s not reported that Rishi bothered to explain how or why such speech should not be protected.

“Overall the event ... was very informative,” College and Wharton sophomore Samir Malik said. “That Islam must respect the freedom of others to express what they feel while simultaneously condemning the slander about the [Prophet Muhammad] was right on key.”

Did Samir Malik simply not notice that a CAIR board member explicitly and unambiguously rejected the “freedom of others to express what they feel” when it comes to alleged defamation of religious figures? Maybe he went out for a cup of coffee at just the wrong moment.

I say “alleged defamation” because such a standard is impossible to impose. Traditional legal standards of defamation cannot be used because they only apply to a living person — I can theoretically defame Samir Malik or Mazhar Rishi, but I cannot defame George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. No matter what I write or say about those latter two, even the worst lies, no one can bring a defamation lawsuit against me.

So new standards would have to be created. Since the object of the alleged defamation cannot bring the lawsuit, who will? Who will decide whether the religious figure has been defamed? What if religious believers have different reactions to what I say — what if some find what I say offensive and charge me with defamation, but others simply regard me as annoying and not guilty of defamation? How can the courts privilege the reaction of certain Muslims or Christians over the reactions of others? Will the government decide what is “real” defamation and what isn’t? Would Muslims trust a secular government to make such decisions?

And why stop at religious figures? Why should deceased religious figures like Muhammad be singled out for special protection but not deceased political figures like George Washington, or deceased philosophical figures like Karl Marx? There’s no precedent for this in American law, that’s for sure, and it would be difficult to defend in most Western nations.

What people like Mazhar Rishi are demanding is never accompanied by any explanation of what they mean and how they would implement it; because of this, I rather doubt that they have given any serious thought to what they mean and how they would implement it. I find their efforts to insist upon fundamental changes in the legal system and free speech protections without seriously thinking about it to be offensive. Can I claim that free speech doesn’t give them a right to defame the freedom of speech?

 

Read More:

• Islam
• News About Islam
• Islam and Politics
• News on Free Speech and Civil Liberties