The case against Mizanur Rahman, where is the line between free speech and incitement to violence?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I just saw this on MSN:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/police-call-him-an-isis-recruiter-he-says-he%E2%80%99s-just-an-outspoken-preacher/ar-BBnmDph?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=msnHomepage

From the article:

 

Rahman is known for his loud and passionate online speeches extolling the Islamic State. He openly advocates for a global caliphate, a homeland ruled by Islamic law, which he says is a superior political, legal and economic system to democracy. He wants Britain to adopt Islamic sharia law, and he says the Islamic State’s black flag will one day fly over the White House.

Stirring a cup of milky Earl Grey tea, he said the militants will probably conquer Washington by military force, but he added that he does not necessarily advocate violence. Still, he argued, the concept of spreading Islam by force is no less honorable than Western countries invading Iraq or Afghanistan to spread democracy.

In a follow-up telephone interview last week, Rahman called the Islamic State attacks in Paris on Nov. 13 “an inevitable consequence” of French participation in coalition airstrikes against the militants’ de facto capital in Raqqa, Syria.

“I don’t think anybody should really be surprised at what happened,” he said. “In war, people bomb each other. I think it’s an opportunity for the French people to empathize with the people in Raqqa, who suffer very similar impact whenever the French airstrikes hit them — the civilian casualties, the shock, the stress. The anger that they must be feeling toward the Islamic State right now is the same kind of anger that the people of Iraq and Syria feel towards France.”

In person, Rahman is unimposing. Slightly built, he stands 5-foot-5 and has a wispy black beard. He is calm, articulate and charming — even as he argues that it is no worse for the Islamic State to behead American journalists than for the United States to kill Muslim civilians in drone strikes.

...

A senior U.S. counterterrorism official, who asked not to be identified in order to discuss sensitive intelligence matters, described Rahman as a “significant influencer” and part of an unofficial global network of Islamic State promoters.

In the coffee shop, Rahman called the allegations against him ridiculous and anti-Muslim persecution. He said that he has done nothing more than preach the virtues of Islam and that he has never specifically recruited anyone to join the Islamic State or urged anyone to commit violence.

“I’m not recruiting for ISIS. I’m not part of them,” said Rahman, a London native who speaks in perfect, British-accented English. “This is McCarthyist. If you have a different ideology of how the government or country should be run, then you are attacked or targeted as a terrorist.”

He's in the UK so US free speech laws do not protect him.  That said, if he's not actually recruiting for the Daesh should he be silenced?  This is a tough one for me.  People should have the right to advocate against the government that protects them.  That's fundamental to free speech.  That said if someone was advocating that the US stop fighting the Nazi's during WWII they would likely have been locked up for sedition.  Later in the article he admits that he rides the line between legal and illegal speech in the UK as hard as he can.

Where do we draw the line.  I'm not sure.

[First of My Name]

As much as I disagree with his views I think he has the right to express them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FOMN,

Normally, I feel the samw way but he is advocating eliminating the UK's constitutional monarchy and replacing it with an Islamic theocracy headed by a Kalifa with essentially absolute power.  When does free speech become treason against the Nation-state that fosters the right to free speech in the first place.

Conversely, how can speech be said to be free when it cannot be used to argue for its elimination?

[Lord Mord]

I see no evidence, at least in what's quoted here, of his actively instigating insurrection.  Or even hinting at it.  Simply advocating replacement can hardly be viewed as a crime, or something we must suppress, surely?  Surely, if our ideas are so great -- monarchy, constitution, human rights, etc -- then their greatness will be manifest through argument, and does not need to be imposed by force.

What the guys wants, with respect to a caliphate guided by single-digit-century principles, is stupid, or even insane, but he's got to be able to say it, unless we're ready to call it quits on actual "free" speech.  I mean, maybe we should, I'm just saying that we'll have to radically re-define it in comparison to how it's usually meant.

Incidentally, the points he makes about comparing what we're doing in Muslim counties to the violence Muslims bring home to us are very well made.  Maybe if for the past, well, few decades anyway, we'd spent more time tending our own damn garden and left everyone else the hell alone, then we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.  A discussion, that is, about whether or not this man should be allowed to call into question the very systems by which we decided to do all that murdering.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I see no evidence, at least in what's quoted here, of his actively instigating insurrection.  Or even hinting at it.  Simply advocating replacement can hardly be viewed as a crime, or something we must suppress, surely?  Surely, if our ideas are so great -- monarchy, constitution, human rights, etc -- then their greatness will be manifest through argument, and does not need to be imposed by force.

What the guys wants, with respect to a caliphate guided by single-digit-century principles, is stupid, or even insane, but he's got to be able to say it, unless we're ready to call it quits on actual "free" speech.  I mean, maybe we should, I'm just saying that we'll have to radically re-define it in comparison to how it's usually meant.

Incidentally, the points he makes about comparing what we're doing in Muslim counties to the violence Muslims bring home to us are very well made.  Maybe if for the past, well, few decades anyway, we'd spent more time tending our own damn garden and left everyone else the hell alone, then we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.  A discussion, that is, about whether or not this man should be allowed to call into question the very systems by which we decided to do all that murdering.

I disagree. There is no moral equivalence between the terrorism in France and air strikes against ISIS. The legitimacy of your target matters. Killing ISIS leaders, who have openly declared war against the West, is perfectly legitimate. They are legitimate targets to kill. In contrast, the French terror attacks had NO legitimate target. The French civilians who were gunned down eating dinner, or listening to a concert - they weren't collateral damage. They weren't the unfortunate but unintended victims of an attack designed to kill a legitimate target. They were the target. The French terror attacks were illegitimate in their conception, not their execution. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Nestor,

Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo. MSF Kunduz. Just to name a few cases where we didn't just target legitimate opponents in legitimate ways but rather went about what we did in the most inhumane way possible, legitimacy of the victims be damned. We may be targeting people who deserve it most of the time, but we definitely don't care enough about reducing collateral damage or only hitting those who really deserve it. Khod and Radda are just two examples where we failed to do due diligence. I'd say the comparison is largely on point, if depressingly so. But people in the West seem all too willing to throw our values under the bus. Torture? Sure, they deserve it. Extrajudicial killings? A-OK as long as the targets are brown or black people. Bombing a hospital? Well, there might be terrorists hiding in there...

I admit I have no easy solutions to the mess that is the Middle East. But our unwillingness to apply the principles we so proudly declare to be our values once we act in that region sickens me. And I fear that as long as we're unwilling to take the long and hard look in the mirror and see the monsters we are when acting on that stage, we're not going to be solving any of the problems that region is posing to us.

[Ramsay Gimp]

FOMN,

Normally, I feel the samw way but he is advocating eliminating the UK's constitutional monarchy and replacing it with an Islamic theocracy headed by a Kalifa with essentially absolute power.  When does free speech become treason against the Nation-state that fosters the right to free speech in the first place.

Conversely, how can speech be said to be free when it cannot be used to argue for its elimination?

Words alone should never be considered treason. If we are not allowed to advocate a new system of government, what is the point of free speech? Is it treason to call for a Communist revolution, or just an Islamic one?

 I'm not sure what UK law is, but in the U.S. someone can loudly advocate replacing our government with a Communist dictatorship or a Sharia state and it will be constitutionally protected. If the person starts plotting, or moves from words to deeds, thats when the state should step in. Are you just playing devil's advocate? I thought you were a libertarian?

[karaddin]

Is this specific case the line for you Scot? Does the example of To Train Up a Child cause a similar conflicted position in you? Because to me if he rides the line of not actually advocating for terrorism/recruiting in any capacity etc, then that is the clearer example of speech inciting harmful behaviour (as far as I'm concerned it's violence and child abuse) that shouldn't enjoy free speech protections.  I find this one a lot harder to draw the line on as he sounds like he is careful in what he says, as long as he's not directly advocating for the criminal activity I suspect I'd continue to see him on the safe side of the line.  Generally speaking I'm a lot more supportive of restricting harmful speech than most on the forum, so I find it interesting that we are a little flipped on this occasion - although I'm just going off your summary of what he's said.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karaddin,

Read the article.  Then I'm curious to hear your assessment.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Surveille and monitor Rahman, absolutely. But no pre-crime or criminalized opinions, please

[Biglose]

Generally speaking I'm a lot more supportive of restricting harmful speech than most on the forum, so I find it interesting that we are a little flipped on this occasion - although I'm just going off your summary of what he's said.

So he is advocating for a system which considers the murder of people because of their sexual orientation justice among many other things. How does it get more harmful than murder?

I am on the opposite side though anyway, I think people should be allowed to voice their oppinions, even if they think our society is a rotten corps of moral decay or something...
 

[karaddin]

So he is advocating for a system which considers the murder of people because of their sexual orientation justice among many other things. How does it get more harmful than murder?

I am on the opposite side though anyway, I think people should be allowed to voice their oppinions, even if they think our society is a rotten corps of moral decay or something...
 

I may (and do) disagree with him completely and utterly, but advocating to change the law/the system has to be OK, murder is inherently acting outside the law.  

Scot - I'll read it a bit later.

[baxus]

I disagree. There is no moral equivalence between the terrorism in France and air strikes against ISIS. The legitimacy of your target matters. Killing ISIS leaders, who have openly declared war against the West, is perfectly legitimate. They are legitimate targets to kill. In contrast, the French terror attacks had NO legitimate target. The French civilians who were gunned down eating dinner, or listening to a concert - they weren't collateral damage. They weren't the unfortunate but unintended victims of an attack designed to kill a legitimate target. They were the target. The French terror attacks were illegitimate in their conception, not their execution. 

First of all, ISIS did not came into being of its own. Western countries did some things in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria that significantly changed the political landscape of the region. They may or may not have been right to do so (that's probably a topic for a separate thread) but their actions played a part in what lead to ISIS happening.

Second, there have been quite a few people eating dinners who died in Western countries operations in those countries, as well as in attacks on ISIS. Killing French people eating dinner is no worse than killing Afghani or Iraqi people eating dinner.

Third, the term "collateral damage" is about as insulting as you can think of. Killing someone by accident doesn't take away the blame or the responsibility. You may want to think about that next time you chalk loss of human lives up to an unfortunate turn of events.

[Grimbold]

I've already seen several online debates on this matter, specifically from British talk show. Peter Hitchens presented his view with which, although a bit conflicted, i ultimately agree: no matter how revolting one may find another's opinion to be, freedom of speech grants the first the right to express those views.

That said, even if im entirely opposed to his proposition of bringing islamic law into the UK, i agree that it's right to advocate for that ideology.

What's on our side though is that the principles of an islamic ruled state are so outlandish, ridiculous and downright disrespectful of the human condition, that is should be quite easy to destroy his arguments.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

First of all, ISIS did not came into being of its own. Western countries did some things in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria that significantly changed the political landscape of the region. They may or may not have been right to do so (that's probably a topic for a separate thread) but their actions played a part in what lead to ISIS happening.

Second, there have been quite a few people eating dinners who died in Western countries operations in those countries, as well as in attacks on ISIS. Killing French people eating dinner is no worse than killing Afghani or Iraqi people eating dinner.

Third, the term "collateral damage" is about as insulting as you can think of. Killing someone by accident doesn't take away the blame or the responsibility. You may want to think about that next time you chalk loss of human lives up to an unfortunate turn of events.

I'm not sure what your first point is. Certainly, it's undeniable that US involvement in Iraq and Western involvement in Syria have created an environment where ISIS has been able to thrive. I have no problem conceding this, although I don't think any moral judgments about the United states or Western foreign policy or ISIS actually flow from this. I'm not suggesting that the actions the US undertook in Iraq were proper or justified, and I'm not suggesting that they were not justified, but the mere fact that something bad (ie: ISIS) has sprung up in the aftermath does not tell you anything about whether those actions were justified or not. Sometimes bad things spring from good actions; sometimes good things spring from bad actions. 

As to the second point, you're just wrong. To equate incidental or accidental civilian deaths in pursuit of a legitimate military objective with the deliberate and intentional targeting of civilians as a tool of terror is a moral confusion of the highest order. Every innocent human death may be a tragedy, but every innocent human death is not also a travesty. The former are tragedies, the latter are travesties, and the two are not equivalent. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Baxus,

The US had cut off the Japanese supplies of various raw materials they needed for their nation.  Had the US not done so there is no gurantee the Japanese would ever have attacked Pearl Harbor.  Does that pre-condition make the Japanese attack justified?

Had the terrorists in Paris targeted French military units or the politicians who authoriized French involvement in Syria your point might be stronger.  They didn't they went after random civilians.  That action does not equate, as Nestor pointed out, to people being killed accidentially while a legitimate target is bombed.  

You are correct that it doesn't matter to the dead but to claim the two actions are qualitatively and morally equivalent is just baffling to me.

[Mr Fixit]

That presupposes that all US targets are legitimate which is far from certain. How many thousands of "collateral damage" can one stomach anyway?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

Fair enough but if US or NATO "collateral damage" is immoral and unjust the actions of the Paris attackers in deliberately targeting random civilians are no better I would argue that they are worse but at best, for their point of view, they are also immoral and unjust.

[baxus]

As to the second point, you're just wrong. To equate incidental or accidental civilian deaths in pursuit of a legitimate military objective with the deliberate and intentional targeting of civilians as a tool of terror is a moral confusion of the highest order. Every innocent human death may be a tragedy, but every innocent human death is not also a travesty. The former are tragedies, the latter are travesties, and the two are not equivalent. 

See, that's the thing. I'm most definitely NOT wrong. And I'm not saying that as someone who has seen this kind of thing on TV but as someone who's spent two and a half months living with the possibility I'd end up as "collateral damage" like a fair few of my compatriots have. As such, you can trust me when I tell you that term is very offensive and nothing more than a way to diminish importance of other people's deaths.

Also, I don't see much of a difference between bombs being dropped in the middle of hospital's courtyard, meters away from maternity wards in Belgrade in '99 or US airstrikes hitting a hospital in Syria last month on one side and what happened in Paris almost 2 weeks ago on the other. Other than the fact that the latter one was given substantial press coverage while other two were swept under the rug rather quickly.

Had the terrorists in Paris targeted French military units or the politicians who authoriized French involvement in Syria your point might be stronger.  They didn't they went after random civilians.  That action does not equate, as Nestor pointed out, to people being killed accidentially while a legitimate target is bombed.  

You are correct that it doesn't matter to the dead but to claim the two actions are qualitatively and morally equivalent is just baffling to me.

And I am telling you that if a bomb ends in a hospital and kills innocent civilians, there MUST be someone who's responsible. Someone needs to face charges and punishment. Killing someone accidentally doesn't relieve one from guilt. Official military forces need to be held to a much higher standard than a bunch of brain-washed religious fanatics.

It doesn't matter to the dead one way or another, but it matters to the living a great deal.

Causing all kinds of havoc halfway across the world, not expecting any retribution and getting all appalled when something like this happens is even more baffling to me. It doesn't matter if you cut off Japanese supplies or bomb Afghanistan back into the stone age, you need to expect some reaction. Japan attacked USA directly, with military force. ISIS can't do that because it doesn't have the capacity to do so. As a result, they will pull this kind of crap. It's not a good thing, I'm most definitely not trying to find excuses for neither ISIS nor Japan actions or glorify them in any way. I'm just saying that when you put people in a position where they have little or nothing to lose, you can expect any sort of crazy behavior from them.

[Mr Fixit]

You're right, they are immoral and unjust. However, since many in the Muslim world feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are persecuted and downtrodden by both their domestic rulers and their foreign enablers/supporters, they resort to tactics and weapons at their disposal. Please don't take this as evidence of me advocating for terrorism.