WIRE —
There’s nothing in the First Amendment that says we have to like Mark Basseley Youssef. Or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Or Sam Bacile. Or Nicola Bacily.
Those names all appear to apply to the same person, the man behind production of the controversial, crudely done video that has angered Muslims worldwide.
But the 45 words of the First Amendment do require that we protect Youssef’s rights, under whatever name, to express views and hold opinions that others find offensive without fear of being silenced or targeted by the government.
And with much of the world operating under a very different concept — and often under different laws — regarding the scope of free-speech protection, we need to keep in mind that what happens here to unpopular speakers can easily be misunderstood elsewhere by the unknowing, or distorted by the dictatorial.
In Youssef’s case, the novice filmmaker is also a convicted criminal, having pleaded “no contest” in 2010 to a credit-card fraud charge involving the use of fake names.
He was sentenced to 21 months in prison, but was released on parole in June 2011 with conditions barring him from accessing the Internet without approval and from using any name other than his legal name.
The video, “Innocence of Muslims” portrays Islam’s revered Prophet Muhammad as a religious fraud and sexual deviant. Youssef was arrested last month and charged with lying to federal investigators who, in the wake of fatal rioting overseas, were looking into production of the video. Prosecutors claim Youssef applied for a passport under one name, applied for a driver’s license under another name, and used a third name in connection with the video.
On Oct. 10, Youssef denied violating his probation conditions. He’s being held without bail because officials fear he’ll flee the U.S., in part to hide from Muslim extremists who have vowed to kill him for his blasphemy.
If prosecutors can prove in court that that Youssef is Nakoula or Bacile or Bacily, the situation would seem fairly straightforward. He violated terms of parole. Back to jail.
But like the very Middle East conflict into which the man has thrust himself, little is “straightforward” about this situation, including his legal predicament and its implications for free expression in the U.S.
Youssef’s prosecution for violating parole conditions seems to have moved extraordinarily quickly in comparison to the usual pace in such cases.
Some claim the White House is pushing the case “through the back door” to do what it cannot do openly: punish Youssef for producing a film that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “disgusting and reprehensible.”
As for Youssef’s potential violations, such prosecutions take place every day. If federal officials had not reacted, it’s likely that critics would be attacking them for doing nothing.
But bearing the gold standard of free speech internationally also means special obligations for the United States. What some may see as a procedural response to a parolee’s misstep may instead echo worldwide as mere subterfuge for circumventing our basic freedoms.
U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Nov. 9 as the next step in Youssef’s saga. The judge is walking a fine line. Move too quickly and the matter will be seen as appeasement to those who want Youssef kept in jail and as a repudiation of centuries of U.S. free-speech protection. Move too slowly and Youssef likely remains jailed — with the same effect.
The challenge for Judge Snyder and for prosecutors is to keep the process moving, as transparently as possible, and to separate the parole issues from the political ones.
Holding bigoted religious views is indeed reprehensible — but not illegal. If the government wants to prosecute Youssef on a charge of deliberately and directly inciting violence with his video — if proven, one of the few, very narrow legal restrictions on free speech — it should do so, and make its case in public.
The First Amendment is not a shield for lawbreakers, but it is one against government officials who would use the letter of the law to void the shelter of its 45 words.
GENE POLICINSKI is senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn. Contact him at gpolicinski@fac.org.
Opinion
It's easy to misunderstand what's free speech
- Opinion
-
-
Excuses for data sweep sound hollow
Perhaps 2013 will go down as the year privacy and civil liberties became too inconvenient for government. Listening to assorted officials defend massive programs that scoop up vast amounts of data certainly gives that impression.
-
I pay property taxes ... please fix my road
Imagine paying thousands of dollars every year in property taxes and at the same time watching your roads literally crumble under the strain of increasing traffic. Unfortunately, some won’t have to imagine this because I’ve just described your reality.
Maybe you have even asked your County Commissioner why property tax money isn’t being used to maintain your road. He probably responded, “Almost all of your property tax money goes to public schools. Only about 15 percent goes to the county and most of that is not for roads.” -
Vision 2020 conference loaded with speakers
I hope everyone is having a wonderful summer — playing in the water, grilling, enjoying time with family; maybe preparing for vacation. But for Oklahoma educators, I hope your plans include a trip to Oklahoma City, July 9-11 to attend the State Department of Education’s Vision 2020 professional development conference.
The conference is free to all Oklahoma educators. -
The Oklahoma Standard
The “Oklahoma Standard” was a term coined during our state’s response to the tragedy of April 19, 1995. The connotation has many layers: the standard of trained first responders, the standard of non-trained first responders (neighbors helping neighbors), the standard of our faith community, the standard of welcoming out of state relief workers that arrived to help. In short, meeting the need and answering the call without reservation or inhibition.
-
The Mankato, Minn., Free Press: Stop gridlock on farm bill
The Mankato, Minn., Free Press: Stop gridlock
on farm bill
With a hopeful sound of gridlock cracking, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday that he will vote for the House farm bill even though he has “concerns.” He reasons that “doing nothing means we get no changes in the nutrition programs.”
He may be merely pragmatic but we’ll take it. Rural Republicans are tired of the delays and want the five-year subsidy measure enacted. -
Crazy Kim and the Tippy Twos
Kim Jong Un certainly seems crazy. But sound mind isn’t a requirement for predictable action. Tyrants often mask steady goals with wild behavior. One need only think of world pests like Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein to realize entire regions can be thrust into unwanted global crises.
Like Castro and Saddam, Kim Jong Un has made clear he’s dedicated to expanding his ability to harm America and her allies. The difference is, he has a nuclear capability, not a borrowed or boasted one. North Korea has a proven record of long-range missile development that could ultimately hit the American mainland. -
Don’t blame the President; it’s us
June 17 marks the 41st anniversary of the second Watergate break-in. This is a good time to take a look back and reflect on what can happen when a corrupt administration throws a protective cloak around the misbehavior of a gang of unscrupulous cheats, liars and crooks.
On the morning of June 18, 1972, millions of us were unaware of the festering corruption that would ultimately rot our confidence in the president. We did not know that his administration was using the FBI as a tool to wiretap telephones of reporters regarded as unfriendly to the White House. We were oblivious to the fact the administration encouraged the IRS to audit media representatives whose reporting criticized the president. -
2 bills aid Oklahoma students
I recently attended two ceremonial bill signings at the State Capitol to celebrate legislation I feel is of vital importance to Oklahomans.
-
Time to roll back the Patriot Act
It’s time. It’s time for President Obama to live up to his own words. It’s time for Congress to do its job. It’s time to contract the ever-expanding national security state. And it’s time to roll back the Patriot Act. In Washington, elected officials are circling the wagons. The Obama administration claims that its Internet and telephone surveillance programs are legal; the ones we know about, indeed, are. But just because something is legal and can be done does that mean that it should remain so and continue to be done? No. Laws are made and unmade all the time. And the argument that vast, dragnet-style surveillance has stopped terrorists at the lamentable expense of privacy is exactly the same argument that the Bush administration made about torture: Better to sacrifice our principles and a few people in the hope of saving many.
-
Time to roll back the Patriot Act
It’s time. It’s time for President Obama to live up to his own words. It’s time for Congress to do its job. It’s time to contract the ever-expanding national security state. And it’s time to roll back the Patriot Act.
- More Opinion Headlines
-
Excuses for data sweep sound hollow
