US based on freedom of speech. Unless you criticize the dogma that drives jihad. Then you will be prosecuted.

(And remember to report anything suspicious. Unless its islamic terror related. Then say nothing or get sued and humiliated)

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’

The day after a horrific shooting spree by a “radicalized” Muslim man and his partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a group of Muslim activists that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech. She said:

The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.

Assuring the pro-Muslim group that “we stand with you,” Lynch said she would use her Justice Department to protect Muslims from “violence” and discrimination.

Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France’s clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American,” said Lynch. “They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

“My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'” said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that “edges toward violence”? What exactly are “actions predicated on violent talk”? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.

Loretta Lynch, at a press conference yesterday, termed the San Bernardino shootings a “wonderful opportunity” to change the nature of police work:

We’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.

H/T M.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “US based on freedom of speech. Unless you criticize the dogma that drives jihad. Then you will be prosecuted.”

  1. Yes, we need some examples of what she thinks is speech edging to violence. Or do they want the latitude to make it up as they go along.

  2. …and the historians scratched their heads and wondered about all the death, destruction, heartache and misery, for it was only for reticence of appearing unkind that it all fell…and even they cried.

  3. There are hundreds of websites with incendiary rhetoric. They don’t dare “lynch” ’em all – so to speak.

    Don’t forget her audience –

    Here’s a snip from the LA Times:

    ynch was speaking during an “armchair conversation” in a Virginia suburb of Washington at a dinner being held by the Muslim Advocates, a national legal advocacy group for the rights of Muslims.
    Scheduled far in advance of Wednesday’s shootings, in which 14 people died, it was Lynch’s first appearance as attorney general with the Muslim community.
    Although she did not speak directly of the San Bernardino shootings at the event, Lynch said there had been a “very disturbing rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric” since the Paris shootings three weeks ago.
    On another site, maybe CNN, she states twice that the FBI is THE LEAD in this current investigation. IOW, in the firs snip she was making nice with a Muslim audience…
    Here’s a good explanation from Hot Air:

    Via BuzzFeed. To be honest, I’m not sure my headline captures what she’s saying. Watch the clip and ask yourself if she’s talking about hateful acts or hateful speech. Not so clear, is it? She mentions speech and rhetoric and the First Amendment but she keeps coming back to prosecuting actions. If all she’s saying is that she’ll charge anyone who acts violently towards Muslims, that’s not newsworthy. That’s her doing her job. If what she’s saying is that she’ll charge anyone who speaks violently about Muslims, that’s something else. She could have spoken perfectly clearly on this subject if she wanted to. The fact that she didn’t means she intended to be vague. How come?

    You have the right to say you hate a particular person or a particular group. You don’t have the right to try to harm that person or group. One is speech, protected by the First Amendment, the other is action. The gray area is when someone uses speech to encourage someone else to act violently. Even then, speech is usually protected. You can say, e.g., “let’s kill the atheists” without fear of going to jail. If you say that, though, to someone who seems like he really does want to kill some atheists and there just so happens to be some atheists nearby at that moment, then you can be prosecuted for saying it. That’s incitement. The rule courts follow in analyzing a case like that is whether the speech was intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent lawless action. Because of that, it’s almost impossible to be guilty of incitement in most situations. If you’re addressing an angry mob, you’re in the danger zone. Anywhere else — especially if your speech consists of writing, not spoken words, since writing can’t trigger “imminent” action — and you’re safe. Threats operate similarly. If you say “the atheists should be killed,” courts will chalk that up to hyperbole or political grandstanding and refuse to let the state prosecute for it. If you say it, though, to a group of atheists while your hand rests uneasily on your holstered semiautomatic, well, that’s different. That threat seems real. You can go to jail for that.

    She’s a scare monger without a white cone hat…

    • The problem with this analysis is that it is ignoring the way this administration has been ignoring the Consitution and the US Code since Obama was sworn in, and getting away with it. They may think that they can get away with prosecuting people for speech.

      • Obama was sworn in? As I remember it, he flubbed the oath so many times in a row that they agreed he would do it later in private at the white house where we are told. it eventually went well but there is no record of it.

  4. She’s selling the jihadi narrative to a jihadi audience.
    And if she wants to go after speech inciting to violence, she will close 85% of the Mosques in America.
    We will keep her to her word.
    Be careful what you wish for, Ms. Loretta.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.