Al-Timimi’s

Should Violent Speech Be Free Speech?

1. Should al-Timimi’s advocacy of violence be unlawful? Why or why not?
2. Might we have more to fear from the suppression of free speech (even speech like al-Timimi’s) than from its free expression?

Apply relevant concepts and arguments from the course textbook and cite at least one scholarly source in addition to the required text.

Solution

Should Violent Speech Be Free Speech?

Should al-Timimi’s advocacy of violence be unlawful?  Why or why not?

Al-Timimi’s violent, conspiring comments against the US should definitely not be protected by the First Amendment.  His comments were dangerous and presented to be evil and destructive towards the US.  These were not opinions or similar to such – which is protected by the First Amendment.  This is the difference as to why he is incarcerated for life.  Opinions are just that… they don’t threaten people or their lives.  Unlike opinions, he sought to destroy the US during a fragile time of war.

Do you think that al-Timimi’s rhetoric rises to the level of criminal support of terrorist organizations according to the standard set in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project? 

According to the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, in Section 303 it makes it a crime for anyone to provide “material support or resources” to even the nonviolent activities of a designated organization.  So yes, his rhetoric comments rise to the level of being illegal and should not be supported by the First Amendment.

Might we have more to fear from the suppression of speech (even speech like al-Timimi’s) than from its free expression?  If so, how?

I don’t think we need to suppress our right to freedom of speech, but we need laws to also protect us and clarify the difference between one voicing their opinion rather than making threats.  That’s where the real difference comes in to differentiate the two.  People need to understand the difference between having an opinion rather than making threats and possibly acting on them.