American Law Professor: Islamic Scissors Beat First Amendment Paper

I should probably wait for one of my blawging betters to take down Seton Hall law professor Bernard Freamon for this remarkable Op-ed, Danish Trojan Horse: Law and the Muhammad Cartoons, but I just can't let this one go by without comment.    

As a  "Muslim African American law professor", Freamon feels it is his "duty" to explain the Danish cartoon controversy, correct any misunderstandings we Americans might have about the modern usefulness of the right to free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, and offer a little free legal advice to any Muslims pondering what to do about their offended feelings.  Keep in mind, this fellow teaches law at a respected American law school.

Freamon starts right off by asking the reader to assume an unproven fact as true: that the cartoons "satirize the Prophet Muhammad".  On that the Prophet might beg to differ. What's being satirized, obviously, are radical Muslims who purport to engage in murder and mayhem in Muhammad's name.  Get it professor? Muhammad is a metaphor in the cartoons, which are actually a part of a serious political discussion about free speech and intimidation.

Freamon then moves on to explain that we Americans need to reassess this whole free expression thing:

The incident and the furor it has created, including the violence and needless loss of life, raise profound questions about the continued viability of a liberal and universalist approach to free expression in our rapidly changing and increasingly pluralist world. Constitutional lawyers who want to blindly defend the action of the newspaper forget that the idea of freedom of expression evolves and deepens as history progresses; the issues surrounding free expression today are considerably different from the issues that confronted Justice Holmes when he penned his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States in 1919.

Let's break down this down.  The "incident" (the exercise of free speech), "raise[s] profound questions about the continued viability" (we need to reconsider) "the liberal and universalist approach to free expression" (free expression) in our "rapidly changing and increasingly pluralistic world" (that means the world as changed by the arrival of Islamic fundamentalism). He continues, "constitutional lawyers who want to blindly defend the action of the newspaper forget that the idea of freedom of expression evolves and deepens as history progresses" (I can only guess he's trying to say that constitutional lawyers obsessed with defending the speech that has had long-standing protection under our constitution need to get with the European hate speech program); "the issues surrounding free expression today are considerably different from the issues that confronted Justice Holmes when he penned his famous dissent in Abrams...." (forget about the principles that are the basis of American jurisprudence relative to free expression, it's just not compatible with Islam).

It gets even more amazing:

"By the same token, Muslims should also be deeply concerned because, by their reaction to the events, Islam-bashers (and even some so-called Muslim governments) now see that much of the Islamic world suffers from a huge complex about its role in history; they are craftily using this sensitivity to provoke Muslims to commit senseless acts of violence..."

So you see, its the "Islam bashers" who are "craftily" using Islam's inferiority complex to provoke senseless acts of violence. Freamon continues that theme by suggesting that the cartoons are a "Trojan Horse" being used by hate mongers for the purpose of harming Muslims.  Accordingly, Muslims should use the criminal law process to expose and punish the publishers. I like the "Trojan Horse" analogy but I guess my Homer is a little rusty; I thought it was the Greeks who jumped out of the gift horse and attacked the Trojans, not the Trojans who jumped out and attacked themselves. If that's supposed to be a legal theory of recovery, good luck.   

Freamon then shamefully compares the publishing of the cartoons with the Rwandans who broadcast the names and addresses of Tutsis in order to effectuate the Rwandan genocide, pointing out that "freedom of expression" was rejected as a defense in that case by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  He neglects to mention that, under such circumstances, free expression wouldn't be a successful defense anywhere. Finally, because Denmark is becoming "a hotbed of skinheads and anti-Muslim violence" (he offers no examples) Freamon urges Danish prosecutors to reconsider their "blatantly political decision" not to prosecute the cartoon publishers under Danish hate speech laws, lest any future provocations lead to a situation like Rwanda.

Although Freamon is suggesting that Muslims in Denmark are at risk of being slaughtered by angry Danish mobs, those of us living in the real world know a threat when we hear one.  As usual when a "moderate" Muslim speaks, American law professor notwithstanding, the message to the West is invariably "shape up or else."  Both for his casual dismissal of the First Amendment jurisprudence that has protected America from the hate speech follies that are currently tormenting Europe and for the outrageous insinuation that Islam's violent rampage over the cartoons is the product of a Western conspiracy, Freamon is a scoundrel.  Nevertheless, and as Justice Holmes himself might have suggested, his views need to be broadcast and judged by the intellectual marketplace.  I hope freedom-loving bloggers everywhere will join me in exposing this clown.   

Link: JURIST - Forum: A Danish Trojan Horse: Law and the Muhammad Cartoons.