You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Dhimmitude not complete in Arizona
2005-07-03
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that the First Amendment covers a letter published in the Tucson Citizen that suggested killing local Muslims to prevent deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote in the Supreme Court opinion that the "letter does not fall within one of the well-recognized narrow exceptions to the general rule of First Amendment protection for political speech" and that the Citizen cannot be sued for publishing it. "The court was very clear in that regard that this is protected speech because it's part of a public dialogue on an important issue, which is the war in Iraq in this case," said Michael Chihak, editor and publisher of the Citizen.

"We're very pleased that the court ruling was unanimous," Chihak said. "It shows that there's clear constitutional grounds protecting what we did in printing the letter."

In the ruling, Hurwitz noted that members of the Islamic community were apprehensive after the letter was published.
Good. Oh, wait. He said "apprehensive," not "apprehended."
"The suggestion in the letter to the editor that the intentional murder of innocent civilians like at the WTC or those blown up by the terrorists in Iraq is an appropriate response to the deaths of American soldiers is no doubt reprehensible," he wrote. But no matter how offensive the Dec. 2, 2003, ...
I would provide a link, but anything over 1 week old requires payment, and I'm too cheap
... letter was, Hurwitz wrote, and though it did have SAY DOOM in it it did not advocate "imminent lawless action." No violent acts resulted from the letter. Instead, it generated more letters, which is what the First Amendment is all about, Hurwitz wrote.

The ruling sent the case back to Pima County Superior Court to dismiss the lawsuit's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Ha. No contingency fee. Go chase an ambulance

I wonder if they have ever read Rantburg?
Posted by:Jackal

#4  "...intentional murder of innocent civilians" - I thought that was the definition of insurgency. Where's my dictionary?
Posted by: Super Hose   2005-07-03 22:42  

#3  Well, I guess if Churchill and al-jazeera can print shit like that, so can anyone else. Dune loons and far left peckerheads don't like anyone else horning in on their "first amendment" tactic do they?
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2005-07-03 12:05  

#2  The letter still is free speech - good to see that there still are outposts against dhimmitude out there. This is the same law which allows imans to scream 'Kill Infidels! Kill Jews!' in the mosques every Friday.

Still, its stupid. Not only would the terrorists not stop (since they themselves seem to kill mostly muslims) but targetting innocent is, by definition, terrorism -- I dont care what religion the targets belong to.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-07-03 12:04  

#1  The suggestion in the letter to the editor that the intentional murder of innocent civilians

free speech. stil em stoopid leter. teh kkk has em opinyen to. so duz farakan. guesn they all fit for publishen.
Posted by: muck4doo   2005-07-03 02:33  

00:00