Islam’s prophet, Mohammad is in the headlines.
In the United States, there’s been an aggressive move to limit free speech.
If you are upset, sometimes you gotta man up and take it.
Verbal abuse is unnecessary, but it is not going to stop. This is not to say that I am respecting other religions above the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Lord Jesus walked the earth, even He was abused by His own people.
John 1:11 “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.”
Even worse, His own people crucified Him.
Acts 10:38-39 “…how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.”
Something was said with cartoons and the whole Islamic world is lit up like a fire on the country side. North Korea goes crazy for a movie about their leader and they want to do cyber war.
Sounds like folks are agitated, but many have spoken against the Lord Jesus Christ and yes, we do get upset, but not like the world. If they were really mad, they would probably launch a nuke if they had one.
While I am on this hit parade, I might as well march.
As a street preacher myself, many have approached me and considered the use of a loud speaker to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ offensive, it’s hate language, and they desired for me to turn my speaker in another direction or cease preaching altogether.
A few persons have challenged me to get a sound permit.
Let’s look at the law on free speech and street preaching.
1“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.” United States Constitution
2″We have the right to pass out literature, to preach, and to display signs on public areas.” Coates v. Cincinnati 402 US 61, Edwards v. S. Carolina 372 US 299, Furr v. Town of Swansea, F. Supp 1543
3“We have the right to exercise our religion and to speak in all quintessential (ideal) public forums.” Frisby v. Shultz 487 US 474, US v. Grace 461 US 171, 176
4We have a “guaranteed access” to streets, parks, and other “traditional public forum” and mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh our free speech interest.” Hague v. C.I.O. 307 US 496
5“Our freedom of speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.” Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 US 296, Simon & Shuster v. New York State Crime Victims Bd. 502 US 105, N.Y. Ties v. Sullivan 376 US 254
6“A city may not consider the listener’s reactions when permitting free speech activity.” Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 US 123.
7“Hecklers do not have veto power over a speaker’s right of free speech but police must control a crowd rather than arrest the speaker in order to maintain order.” Cox v. Louisiana 379 US 536
8“WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD.” Saia v. New York, 334 US 1943
9″We have the right to be protected by law enforcement if the crowd is offended by what we are preaching and becomes hostile.” Hedges v W.C.U.S.D. No. 118, et al 9F, 3d 1295
10″Permits are not allowed to be used to restrict a speaker’s right of free expression and permits may not be used as a prior restraint on free speech.” Kunz v. New York 340 US 290
11“A free speech lawsuit is a Federal case and allows us to sue policemen and guards in their official capacity and as individuals.” Freedom Restoration Act Title 42, Section 2000aa.
12“A free speech lawsuit will subject the police and those involved to pay our damages and all of our attorney fees. 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988
13Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.
2In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
No one has a problem when loud speakers are used when the president of the United States shows up inside or outside to be heard by the people. No one has a problem when you go to a sports arena and hear the music. No one has a problem when you stand outside and hear the music blasting from cars.
But there is a problem when a preacher with a loud speaker is on the street corner, preaching the Word of God.
Folks, you can’t have it both ways.
Every one is a sinner so there is no special class of people to discriminate against in this category. Specified sins that are preached about in the Bible is regard to sinful preferences of sinners.
You are what you do and you do what you are.
If you are an adulterer, then the Scriptures are clear. It’s not hate speech. It’s preaching the Word of God that adultery is a sin. If you are a homosexual, the the Scriptures are clear. It’s not hate speech. It’s preaching the Word of God that homosexuality is a sin.
You have the right to disagree or repent. You make the choice as to what you want to do. Neither God nor any preacher has the power to stop you from sinning against God. But you will stop sinning one day. If you repent, that’s good. If you do not repent, that’s bad.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Now when it comes to sexual orientation (another lie of the devil and his children), sinners want a special exemption category so that they would be protected from the undeniably clear statement of the Word of God that…..
“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
And Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned —”
When it comes to “religion,” they want to be left alone too.
If you speak against Mohammad, you will be killed.
Many people use the name of the Lord is vain every day. No other name is used as a cuss word more than the Lord God, and Jesus Christ.
But look at what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 12:31-32.
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
If what is being said about a dead prophet is offensive, why not take the high road and let the dead prophet fight for himself and annihilate all who dare blaspheme him?
A friend of mine emailed to me the following….
Journalism dean: Free speech doesn’t protect offensive images of Mohammad via The College Fix
Free speech attorney says scholar is way off the markDeWayne Wickham, dean and distinguished professor of journalism at Morgan State University, published an editorial this week in USA Today that essentially argues free speech rights should not and do not give people the right to make fun of Mohammad.He argues that Charlie Hebedo, in its latest cartoon image of Mohammed, has “gone too far.” The “offensive depiction of Mohammed” should not constitute free speech, the journalism professor suggested.The College Fix reached out to Wickham via email to confirm whether he was suggesting that the First Amendment does not protect insulting Mohammad. He replied that interpretation was incorrect but did not elaborate, nor respond to follow-up emails.
The image he referenced in his op-ed appeared on the cover of Charlie Hebedo only days after the attack on its office in Paris earlier this month, when radical Islamists killed 12 people. The image shows the prophet crying under a headline: “All is Forgiven.”Wickham suggested in his op-ed that the Charlie Hebedo cartoon is to blame for several violent riots that have occurred in the Arab world following its release. He then proceeded to call for broad limits on free speech, basing his argument in his understandings of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, writing that:
… given the possible ripple effects of Charlie Hebdo‘s mistreatment of Islam’s most sacred religious figure, at least people in this country should understand the limits America’s highest court has placed on free speech.
In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying “fire” in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”
Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment. …
Ari Cohn, a free speech lawyer at The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told The College Fix in an email that Wickham’s analysis of free speech “misses the mark in several ways.”
“The ‘clear and present danger’ test he cites comes from an early 20th century wartime case holding that voicing opposition to conscription could be prosecuted as an attempt to obstruct the draft,” Cohn said.
Notably, Wickham also fails to mention Brandenburg v. Ohio in which the court clarified “clear and present danger” by establishing an imminent lawless action test. It set a precedent that the state cannot ban speech unless the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.
Cohn said the satirical cartoonists at Charlie Hebedo “did not advocate, and could not reasonably be interpreted as advocating, for anyone to break the law. They were nothing more than social commentary.”
Wickham also references Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Supreme Court defined “fighting words,” which is a type of unprotected speech.
But characterizing the satirical cartoon of Mohammed as “fighting words” is also inaccurate, according to Cohn. He said “fighting words” are “an extremely narrow category of speech limited to abusive epithets spoken face-to-face to a particular individual, which would tend to provoke an immediate violent response.”
Wickham concluded his editorial by arguing that because the satirical cartoons incite violence in the Arab world, they push “Charlie Hebedo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.”
Using similar logic, Cohn noted, one could conclude “that the civil rights advocacy of the 1950s and 1960s was not protected by the First Amendment…This advocacy could, would, and did lead directly to violent and heinous acts of reprisal and intimidation by groups like the Ku Klux Klan and other segregationists. The irony of Wickham’s article being published on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is breathtaking and inescapable.”
Cohn was particularly troubled by Wickham’s understanding of free speech and the role of the press, given his standing in academics.
“If student journalists are being taught that their First Amendment rights are or should be limited by how others might react to their work, the profession is in significant trouble,” he said.
Prior to coming to Morgan State University, Wickham was scholar-in-residence and distinguished professor of journalism at Delaware State University, distinguished visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and distinguished professor of journalism and chair of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at North Carolina A&T State University.
College Fix contributor Alexandra Zimmern is recent graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
IMAGES: Internet screenshots
Now, if you teach in the United States something that is unconstitutional, i.e. suppress free speech, perhaps you need a one way ticket to another country.
Because I am a US Navy veteran, here, in the United States, as long as this constitution is adhered to, upheld, preserved, protected, and defended with American blood, sweat, and tears, your call to suppress free speech against Islam and Mohammad falls on deaf ears.