(For inciting a crime)? Suppose the following would happen:
-a local imam preaches a sermon at a local mosque, calling on all muslims to commit violent acts. A young man, inspired by the sermon, goes out and commits murders. Could the victim’s families sue the mosque for this?
I assume that mosques are owned by some kind of society, that would carry insurance.
Could victims sue for damages and recover?
Sure.
Possibly. Depends how large the organization is and whether they decide to bother with insurance.
You can sue for anything you want. Whether you’ll be able to recover damages is another matter.
The question would be “is inciting violence considered protected speech, which is speech protected by the first amendment”. The answer is likely perhaps, depending on exactly what was said and whether it might be consider hate speech. For example, if someone were to stand up and say “I wish all the local politicians were gone” that would be looked at differently than if someone stood up and said “someone go kill the mayor”. Although I still think it may be hard to prove causation, assuming someone listening goes out and kills the mayor.
Why sue the mosque? Why not sue the imam that actually made the speech?
There’s an unfortunate tendency to take acts that are done by individuals and try to spread the responsibility for the acts on to an entire group.
There are cases where collective responsibility is legitimate. But it’s often invoked too quickly and we should always stop and ask ourselves if it’s justified.
Except the mosque has chosen the iman as a leader in the community and has given him the forum to address the community. If the leaders of the mosque know what’s going on and do nothing, perhaps they too are responsible for their actions.
Note that I’m just using the mosque example because that’s what the OP asked about. Same analysis potentially applies with other religious groups.
Also the mosque is likely to be the one with deep pockets while the iman may be living off the charity of others and can’t be touched. Always sue the one with the deep pockets.
As a general rule, incitement is only civilly or criminally actionable if it calls for imminent violence. The classic example is that you can say “let’s blow up the mayor’s house tomorrow,” but you can’t say “let’s blow up the mayor’s house right now!”
As to whether you can sue the mosque itself, assuming the imminence standard is met, that depends. Employers are vicariously liable for certain torts committed by employees within the course and scope of their employment. How the course and scope is defined and which torts give rise to vicarious liability depends somewhat on the jurisdiction. Assuming the imam’s speech was given as a sermon in the mosque, rather than (for example) just as a diatribe during dinner at a friend’s house, he would very likely fall within the course and scope of his employment.
The mosque might also be directly liable for his speech if there is evidence that its governing body explictly or implictly authorized the imam to make such speeches or otherwise encouraged such activity.
How long do you want this to stay in GQ? Can we reframe the question? Could a Christian church be sued? Here’s a guy (first hit in my search) “Popular Facebook evangelist Joshua Feuerstein” who, as recently as July 29, called on all Christians to assassinate abortion providers. Why is your interest only in Mosques?
Isn’t this question easily answered as to whether or not the Mosque has a legal personality? If not, it’s the individuals.
Imams get hired by the Mosque community I believe, so I think your distaste for spreading blame is inappropriate in this case.
^
And did the mosque give a notarized authorization to let the imam to speak on their behalf on things leading to violence and other extra-legal actions?
Does your employer give you a notarized authorization to act on its behalf?
This brings an Eagles song to mind (“Get Over It”); the line that springs to mind is “The more I think of it old Billy was right / Let’s kill all the lawyers / Kill 'em tonight.” Does that mean that the Eagles should be sued every time a lawyer gets killed?
Depending on context, protected speech should be protected. We use violent speech on a regular basis (not just the US - all cultures). Shakespeare (“take arms against a sea of troubles,” for example), Sun Tzu (all of the Art of War), etc.
Specific threats and incitements, however, are not protected speech. To say “you should kill every [whatever sort of person]” could be construed as a terroristic threat (state law, in most cases) or inciting a criminal act (be it riot, homicide, etc).
A thing that disturbs me is how society seems to increasingly ignore context. My friends and family in the public education sector tell me that things that I say every day (e.g., “I’m gonna’ kill you,” or similar jocular superlatives) would get me suspended or expelled from a high school these days.
If the incitement to violence is real, credible, and intentional - yeah, that needs to be addressed. If I tell a lady-friend that I’m going to kill her because she’s taking too long to get ready to go out… not so much.
Under current law, speech is protected unless it is incitement to imminent violence. If the Imam said all Americans should be killed he would be protected and could not be sued. If he said after this meeting go out and kill the first american you see, he would not be protected and could be sued.
As for suing the mosque, generally employers are liable for their employees actions if they are taken in the course of the employment duties and they failed to stop the employee. Thus sermons would fall under employment duties and liability could be established if they could show that the imam had engaged in previous incitement the mosque had failed to stop.
People here don’t seem to be distinguishing between the government and private individuals when it comes to free speech. The first amendment prohibits the government from passing laws that restrict speech (with some exceptions). It does not prohibit private individuals from winning damages caused by someone’s legal speech.
There’s also a difference between criminal and civil law. The fact that an action is not illegal doesn’t necessarily protect someone from civil litigation. For instance, if I’m at fault in an auto accident but haven’t broken the law, I won’t be cited with a crime but I will probably be held liable for damages.
There is no distinction as to the issue of whether violence-inducing speech is actionable.
Religious institutions can and have been sued for the effects of their speech. A recent example would be Synder v. Phelps, where the infamous Westboro Baptist Church was sued for inflicting emotional distress on the family of a dead Marine by protesting at the Marine’s funeral. In the end, the Supreme Court said that the protesting was protected; but their rationale was that it was done in a public place, and picketing in a public place is protected under the First Amendment. (It can be subjected to some minor restrictions, but Westboro obeyed those.) So far as I can tell, there was nothing special about it being religious speech.
However, as to whether anyone (church or otherwise) can be sued in civil court for incitement to violence, I’m not sure. Presumably speech that met the standard set out for criminal law (namely that the speech advocated “imminent lawless action” against a specific person or group) would be actionable under civil law, but as an armchair lawyer I couldn’t say much more than that.
I don’t think we can assume that the Imam presiding at a particular mosque is an employee of the mosque/the corporation or entity that owns the mosque. You’d need to look into the exact relationship, but it need not be an employment relationship and, in other religious traditions, it commonly isn’t. So vicarious liability for the acts of an employee might not be the right way to analyse this.
Well, it depends on the sect but Islam is less centralized than most Christian sects. So it’s unlikely there is anyone else for the imam to be an employee of.
He doesn’t have to be an employee at all, does he?