Skip to comments.War On Terror Hits New Front – The First Amendment
Posted on 10/02/2008 6:49:19 AM PDT by Victory111
British authorities arrested three Muslims in London on Saturday after fires broke out in the offices of the publishing house Gibson Square and at the home of the publisher, Martin Rynja. Gibson Square had been planning to publish The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones, a trashy novel sensationalizing the marriage of the Islamic prophet Muhammad to the child Aisha (Muhammad was in his fifties, and Aisha was nine, when the happy union was consummated).
(Excerpt) Read more at crossactionnews.com ...
“British authorities arrested three Muslims in London on Saturday after fires broke out in the offices of the publishing house Gibson Square and at the home of the publisher,”
England has a first amendment? What’s it say? What did they amend to?
I guess this is one book that the liberals behind the ALA won’t be including in their September “banned book week” displays.
No, they’d rather spin the lie about how Sarah Palin “banned” Heather Has Two Mommies in Alaska.
Name one thing that doesn't offend them.
There were also issues with the American potential publisher (Random House, iirc). However, there is no First Amendment right to have one’s book published, so I don’t see the point. If the author wanted to self-publish, or stand on a street corner and recite her work, then I’d say she has a right irrespective of others’ opinions.
I understand the point about the encroachments of Islam on free expression of all sorts, but I do think this particular book - a *positive*, if trashy, treatment of Mohammed’s marriage to a small girl - is a poor choice for taking a stand.
I think you're missing the point here. Three Muslims firebombed a publishers office BECAUSE they were GOING to publish a book. One they haven't even seen. Even if it is in the UK, not the US, it is still a First Amendment issue to us. And no, she's not guaranteed to have it published, but since lots of people like those trashy romances, and not all of them women, she does have the right to see it published when someones bought it for that purpose. Not only that, NO ONE has the right to tell her she CANNOT have it published. And that last sentence is the most important one, something some Muslims don't seem to get.
How many Christians rioted or burned theaters over “The Last Temptation of Christ?” Lots of people panned the film, lots more refused to see it, but I don't remember hearing that someone tried to firebomb the producer's place of business. Prior restraint is wrong. PERIOD.
"I understand the point about the encroachments of Islam on free expression of all sorts, but I do think this particular book - a *positive*, if trashy, treatment of Mohammeds marriage to a small girl - is a poor choice for taking a stand."
If I were her, and the book is not published, I'd release it as shareware, or freeware, just to irrigate some fanatics. Besides, it's a matter of principle. If you change your actions based on situations, you ignore the principle. If you won't take a stand here, where will you take a stand? Up against a wall?
Let’s just say we’re making different points. The First Amendment, however, is still irrelevant, particularly to Britain, but also to this particular situation in the U.S.
- is a poor choice for taking a stand.
Right on. We shouldn’t take a stand on issues that are “poor choice”, just issues that are good choice. /s
We should have taken a stand long before we found ourselves rallying around a bodice-ripper novel, imo.
Pro-pedophilia bodice-ripper novel, in fact.
In Britain, the US Constitution is irrelevant (How I wish that Scottish Law was deemed irrelevant in the US, but that's another story)
However, in the US these terrorists, besides arson and terrorism charges, would be in violation of US Code Title 18 section 241:
§ 241. Conspiracy against rightsIf two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
The ALA doesn’t draw distinctions between honorable books and trashy books when they draw up their politically motivated “banned book” list:
Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read
September 27October 4, 2008
Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year. Observed since 1982, this annual ALA event reminds Americans not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted. This year, 2008, marks BBW’s 27th anniversary (September 27 through October 4).
BBW celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express ones opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.
BBW is sponsored by the American Booksellers Association, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Association of American Publishers, National Association of College Stores, and is endorsed by the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress.
The 10 most challenged books of 2007 reflect a range of themes, and are:
And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group
The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Violence
Olives Ocean, by Kevin Henkes
Reasons: Sexually Explicit and Offensive Language
The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain
The Color Purple, by Alice Walker
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language,
TTYL, by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou
Reasons: Sexually Explicit
Its Perfectly Normal, by Robie Harris
Reasons: Sex Education, Sexually Explicit
The Perks of Being A Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
Off the list this year are two books by author Toni Morrison. The Bluest Eye and Beloved, both challenged for sexual content and offensive language.
The most frequently challenged authors of 2007
Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
How is the list of most challenged books tabulated?
The American Library Association (ALA) collects information from two sources: newspapers and reports submitted by individuals, some of whom use the Challenge Database Form. All challenges are compiled into a database. Reports of challenges culled from newspapers across the country are compiled in the bimonthly Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (published by the ALA, $40 per year); those reports are then compiled in the Banned Books Week Resource Guide. Challenges reported to the ALA by individuals are kept confidential. In these cases, ALA will release only the title of the book being challenged, the state and the type of institution (school, public library). The name of the institution and its town will not be disclosed.
The ALA can go peddle their swill in Saudi Arabia.
There’s no doubt that burning someone’s house is against the law (apparently even in Britain, who’da thunkit?).
However, that section 241 is very interesting. It seems like it would be useful in a lot of situations of Moslem pressure or intimidation that fall short of being actionable under other statutes.
“Lets just say were making different points. The First Amendment, however, is still irrelevant, particularly to Britain, but also to this particular situation in the U.S.”
No, I think not. However, from this story, it looks like the book will be released here, too, and soon. I may buy a copy just to stick a thumb in Mehmet’s eye.
It’s always a pleasure to see “Mehmet,” that good old transliteration. I make a point of using “Moslem,” myself :-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.