American Muslims Launch Petition to Limit Free Speech

Todd Starnes, Fox News, September 27, 2012

Islamic leaders in Missouri and New Jersey are calling for lawmakers to limit free speech after an anti-Muslim film sparked outrage across the world.

The Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City has launched a petition calling on Congress to “establish a law against insulting one’s religion.”

“We understand the First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and, as such, prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, etc., but when the allowance of ‘free’ speech incites violence it should be banned,” read a statement from the Islamic Society.

[Editor’s Note: More on this story can be found here.]

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    Launching a petition to crack down on free speech.

    The irony.  Too much.

  • Goetz von Berlichingen

    What they are saying is that the victims of Muslim violence are to blame for “incitement”, which is identical to the statement that a well-dressed attractive women is inviting rape, something else at which Muslims excell.

  • guest

    This should be more than enough proof that muslim integration is not a good thing.  First they want to take away our freedom of speech, and who knows what next.  They believe it’s okay to harm and kill “infidels”, but they must not be criticized.  If this doesn’t wake up all the fools who sympathize with the muslims, then what will?

  • WmarkW

    And putting  Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in jail over technical parole violations will encourage them to think the US will capitulate this way — create enough violence, and we WILL find an excuse to incarcerate someone over speech. 

    When we jail people for insulting Islam, the terrorists have won.

  • anarchyst

    “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” would be good advice for ANY foreigner that comes to MY country.  If they don’t like it here, LEAVE. . .I used to put up with the diatribes of foreigners . . . I was able to “put them in their place” by stating to them” If life is so good in your country, WHY did you come here??”  “Go back to where you came from”.  The look of shock on their faces and the dead silence was priceless.That being said, BOTH zionism and islam are political systems masquerading as religions . . . I would require all zionists and muslims to register with the U S State department as “agents of a foreign government”.  Any subversive acts (which HAVE already happened and should have been prosecuted) would be punishable under federal law and would subject these (and other like organizations such as the $PLC, ADL, etc.) to sanction, indictment of their officers, confiscation of all property and assets and a one-way trip OUT of MY country. . .Fellow travelers would also be eligible for the same treatment. . . .
    For organizations such as CAIR, ADL, $PLC and others, assets should be frozen, their officers indicted and arrested. Mass deportations should take place. I don’t care what others think. Islam and muslims are incompatible with the United States of America and have no business here . . .WE ARE AT WAR . . . the islamists and their fellow travelers are using our own Constitution against us. . . THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “MODERATE” MUSLIM. This is evidenced by the lack of criticism (and outcry) from the so-called “moderate” muslim community.

    • Moderate Muslims would be Iranian-Americans who fled before Khomeini. But- there are not many of them, and I suppose they’re atheists anyway …

  • anarchyst

    The Constitution means just what it says. . .if muslims don’t like it, LEAVE!  Get out of MY country!

    • Puggg

      We often hear the phrase “The Second Amendment to defend the First Amendment, the First Amendment to defend the rest.”  To the Koran-obsessed Jihadist, it’s “The Second Amendment to crack down on the First Amendment.”  Then, burquas and clitordectomies mandated (hint:  It’s not birth control, Sandra Fluke).

  • NorthernWind

    It’s not our fault that they cannot handle cartoons and rubbish YouTube videos. You don’t see Christians acting this way and their religion is insulted far more frequently.

  • RisingReich

    The 4th Crusade is coming, you stupid towel heads.  Just keep it up.  

  • potato78

    Whites would like to have unlimited free speech.

    Muslims would like to have limited free speech.

    Blacks and hispanics would like to have unlimited affirmative action.

    Orientals would like to have limited affirmative action and unlimited free speech.

    Christians would like to have unlimited free speech and no affirmative action.


    • “Orientals would like to have no affirmative action and unlimited free speech.”
      Yeah sure Mr. potatohead, but you forgot that they also really would like:
      No copyrights laws
      No labor rights laws (including children)
      No minimum wage
      No trademark infrigement laws
      No environmental laws
      No industrial espionage acts
      No quality control
      No healthcare regulations

      Unlimited immigration to the US
      Unlimited Social Security benefits for their foreign parents
      Unlimited students cheating
      Unlimited cantonese/mandarin in government agencies
      Unlimited  brothels
      Unlimited  gambling
      Unlimited Littering
      Unlimited spitting
      Unlimited snatching of bus seats
      Unlimited queue-jumping
      Unlimited access to private garbages and recycle bins, ETC,ETC,ETC

      Nice try Feng !

      • potato78

        “When it comes to U.S. deficit reduction, many investors would rather
        Congress “kick the can down the road” again than let 2013 start with a
        blast of fiscal austerity not seen since the Vietnam War.”

        “That’s not to say there aren’t risks, especially considering U.S. lawmakers’ past inability to compromise on fiscal issues.”

        What do you think of the fiscal cliff coming?

    • Well, it sounds like English Mr. potatohead, but I can’t understand a word you’re saying.

      Oh I get it ! Like humour, but different, right ?
      Sorry, I’m too busy right now, can I ignore you some other time?
      Silly kid…but keep trying Feng !

  • Diamond_Lil

    Muhammad was a pedophile.  It is a fact that Muslims don’t want anyone to mention.

  • Civilized people allow others to insult their group without resorting to violence. But try insulting blacks in the ghetto and see what happens. Try insulting Mexicans in the barrio (or maybe even Mexico) and see what happens. Try insulting Islam in Muslim areas and see what happens. All of the above groups are barbaric to the extent that you should fear for your safety if you disrespect their group. But it’s perfectly safe to insult white Christians in their presence. Proof that white Christians are morally superior.

  • Reuben H, I have a slightly different perspective: civilized people are, in fact just as violent as anyone else, but we suppress it sometimes, leading to neuroses analyzed by Sigmund Freud in “Civilization and its Discontents.”  I have a long-term familiarity with the non-violent resolution of disputes through the legal system, through litigation which has become increasingly complex and difficult.  I wonder whether it is not time for “civilized people” to reassert their right as members of the human race to express their thoughts violently when morally necessary.  

    WHEN MORALLY NECESSARY?  That is, when the judicial systems of legal litigation in the courts fail us, when lawyers are less than heroic and serve no truth but the All Mighty Dollar…..I imagine you would agree that 14th Century France was a Civilized Country, right?  If so, I recommend you read a book, “The Last Duel” by Eric Jager about the last officially, royally sponsored, trial-by-combat permitted under ancient and noble traditions of Indo-European law and tradition.  Was the American West Civilized?   Perhaps you should watch the Movie “High Noon” with Gary Cooper and Grace Kelley.  Or maybe you should pull out a DVD or CD and listen to and watch Richard Wagner’s Opera “Lohengrin”, the story of a trial-by-combat in 11th Century Brabant under the reign of Heinrich der Voegler (“Henry the Fowler”) or consider the dignity afforded dueling in the old German Universities, or in the traditions of the American South and West (from New Orleans’ “Dueling Oaks” to Tuscon’s/Tombstone, Arizona’s OK Corral).   In the time of “the last Duel”, Trial-by-Combat was the final recourse after all “paper” judicial processes had been exhausted.  “To Let God Decide.”Dueling is an entirely civilized though violent substitute for a failed judicial process, and our judicial process has failed.  Mass popular justice has a more unsavory reputation, but as late as 1946-7, President Harry Truman refused to take action against the so-called “lynching crisis” allegedly taking place then  in post-World War II USA because it was a “political question”.  Truman stated, correctly, that it was the traditional right of the people to pass judgment on other people—without the assistance or interference of the state.  It was Truman’s acquiescence on THIS question to Hubert Humphrey, and other radical liberals, that led to the 1948 Civil Rights act and the “secession” of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party.  How exactly do you think that President Truman’s original position, that private violence can be permitted when politically sanctioned, was morally wrong?  Why should individuals, private people, NOT have the right to form private militias (subject to being “well-regulated”, which I would construe to mean disciplined or make arrangements for “private duels?”  Why should we NOT have the unquestionable human right to seek vengeance or private justice when the public system is broken?  I submit to you that the public system is broken, and it was only working WELL when the system does not overly interfere with or limit individual or private freedom, including the “sovereign” right of every citizen to resort to violence WHEN MORALLY NECESSARY.

    • Les H

      Make NO mistake, islam will NOT back off on their demands until forced–they WILL use violence if necessary–so, be MORE prepared.

      Jihad is here and the violence is close.

      • rightrightright

        Place Muslims’ violent global reaction to a mildly entertaining video (which nobody forced them to watch) in the context of Muslims’ takeover of public spaces in our main cities for their “prayers”.  The latter is a grab for our territory, to “normalise” such spaces as being the property of Muslims.  The former is a lunge towards globalising their sharia law into territories in which they are still very much minorities.  

  • Part of the reason why liberals are so much in bed with Muslims (despite the decidedly anti-gay, anti-tolerant positions of the latter) is that liberals see temperamental Muslims as the tool to take away our freedom of speech.  Sites like Amren or VDARE that liberals despise would be very difficult to host in Canada or Europe, thanks to freedom of speech modifications made in part to appease Muslims.  (Muslims, in turn, view liberals quite correctly as their useful idiots.)

    Yet another problem besides the others raised here with their proposed modification to our First Amendment is that there’s no real way to cleanly separate one’s religious views from one’s political views, they are intertwined together as part of one’s general philosophy.  Banning negative remarks on a person’s religion has the effect of also banning criticism of his political beliefs.

    • razorrare

      Yes…Ideology is a political religion…if we were to ban inciteful comments that lead to violence then the  MSM,ADL,JDL,SPLC,NAACP and other like-minded orgs leaning left ideologically should be the first to be banned for their promotion and support of anti-White policies that quicken the genocide of our people…

      Some countries are unfit for democracy…Edmund Burke–“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things,that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.Their passions forge their fetters.”

      • razorrare

        Excerpt taken from Pat Buchanan’s article–America’s Last Crusade–

        Came then Barack Obama. With the “Arab Spring” beginning in 2010, with dictators being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Syria, Obama embraced the movement as his own.
        But Obama received a rude awakening. As the Arab dictators began, one by one, to fall, also unleashed and now surging and spreading through the lands they had ruled were the four horsemen of the Arab apocalypse: tribalism, ethno-nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Americanism. So we come to an elementary question:
        If the Islamic world is so suffused with rage and hatred of us — for our wars, occupations, drone attacks, support of Israel, decadent culture, and tolerance of insults to Islam and the Prophet — why should we call for free elections, when the people will use those elections to vote into power rulers hostile to the United States?
        If the probable or inevitable result of dethroning dictator-allies is to raise to power Islamist enemies, why help dethrone the dictators?
        During the Cold War, the United States took its friends where it found them. If they were willing to cast their lot with us, from the Shah to Gen. Pinochet, we welcomed them. Democratic dissidents like Jawaharlal Nehru in India and Olof Palme in Sweden got the back of our hand.
        During the Cold War and World War II, the critical question was not whether you came to power through free elections — after all, Adolf Hitler did that — but are you with us or against us?
        Ideology, as Russell Kirk admonished us, is political religion, and democracy worship is a form of idolatry, the worshiping of a false god, a golden calf, an idol.
        And — while this may border on a hate crime — some countries are unfit for democracy. As Edmund Burke remonstrated: “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
        With hatred of America rampant across the Arab and Islamic world, we face anew a defining moment. What now is our mission in the world? What now should be the great goal of U.S. foreign policy?
        What global objective should we pursue with our trillion-dollar defense, intel and foreign aid budgets, and pervasive diplomatic and military presence on every continent and in most countries of the world? Bush I’s New World Order is history, given our strategic decline and the resistance of Russia, China and the Islamic world.
        Bush II’s democracy crusade and Obama’s embrace of the Arab Spring have unleashed and empowered forces less receptive to America’s wishes and will than the despots and dictators deposed with our approval.
        All three visions proved to be illusions. With America headed for bankruptcy, with new debt of $1 trillion piled up each year, perhaps John Quincy Adams’ counsel may commend itself to a country weary from a century of crusades.
        “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

  • dd

    Here’s what one guy thinks of Muslim complaints.

  • I bet I know which one Barrack Hussein Obama Wants!

  • pdelag

    It sounds as though the film ‘outrage’ was deliberately whipped up just so  they could make these demands.  Giving us a taste of what they can do if the world does not comply.  Same in Europe.

  • Hey muslims STFU. Islam is a hate cult.

  • MartelC

    Pork has been effectively eliminated from many school lunch programs.

  • MartelC

    We all know by now that our elites are so desperate to make us minorities that everything takes a back seat to adding of anyone who isn’t us. 

    Recently, in England it was revealed that officials were literally ignoring and dismissing RAPE charges against pakis because the victims were white english girls.
    So are  silly concepts created by rich white slaving owning males like ‘free speech’ going to get in the way of diversity? Pity the thought. Our elite are increasingly uncomfortable with free speech as obama has demonstrated – Groups like the ADL have been pushing to criminalize speech for years. 

  • Christians and Jews face assaults on their  icons daily, yet they rarely commit violence in response. Seems it would be more appropriate to ban muslims instead of speech

    • Larry Klein

      I’d say we have to limit the argument to Christians. If the Jewish religion was maligned in the States, the ADL, SPLC, etc. would be all over the perps. In Europe you’ll be thrown in jail. So it’s hard to know how the Jews would react in a case where the deeds were unpunished. Probably not as violently as the Muslims, of course.


    Well, we have to have diversity, don’t we? What could be more diverse than a population that consists of some who favor free speech and others who don’t?

  • Larry Klein

    They’re less than 5% of the population here and they’re already getting some traction. Just think what’ll be like when they get to 15-20%, and the yellow bellied whites will crumble every time.

  • mikebowen55

    A lot of them probably don’t even read the koran anyways.

  • mikebowen55

    He need not worry then as the ministry of homeland tyranny is indeed investigating and taking action against those who insult muslims.  Proof of that is found in the recent arrest of the “innocence of muslims” creator.

  • mikebowen55

    Agreed.  We never used to be so “civilized” as you call it and we did not have these problems.

  • And thus it starts! How many of those who oppose  our way of life have stated that WE will be overcome from within? Even Obama has said  that our CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS are actually of non-rights of the GOVERNMENT! In other words the GOVERNMENT NEEDS MORE POWER OVER THE PEOPLE…… just as he also said that under his government, The cost of our POWER BILLS, they have to increase!! AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE PROMISED THINGS FOR FREE. They will always vote for the one who promises the pie in the sky. OUR GOVERNMENT is currently trying to give away our soverign  rights under the CONSTITUTION, to the U. N.

  • TonyWestfield

    The citizenry of America opened the door with our acceptance of The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in 1919 (the Schenck case), when the overrated Justice Holmes gave us his magical philosophical Trojan Horse about shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.  

    We are hypnotized by concepts such as “clear and present danger” which lead us to loosen our grip on free speech rights. As is always the case when we humans compromise our principles, things only get worse, never better.  Now we are tortured and stultified by “hate speech” laws.

    We need to take out the big eraser and remove every law that pertains to speech.  Period.  For better or for worse, Justice Hugo Black was right in his “absolutist” view of the First Amendment.

    If somebody is truly speaking in a way that presents an imminent danger, shoot him in the face and be done with it.  That’s why the Second Amendment follows the First.

  • anarchyst

    You are correct.  Zionists are not trying to start a “caliphate”. . . However, the “dual-nationality” zionists infest the US State department and will be responsible for starting WW3.  Check it out for yourself . . . you will find that most of the influential “foreign policy wonks” are dual-nationality israelis with American “citizenship”.
    Best regards,