The Southern Poverty Law Center has been bleeding the Klan dry for a long time. Take away their money and the Klan is just a bunch of a-holes in white sheets.
Why not go after al Qaeda and their fanatical Imam supporters the same way?
Lets start with this online magazine that taught the Tsarnaev’s how to build bombs. Is there any way that an International effort could be setup to sue the people responsible? Follow the Southern Poverty Law Center’s example and file case after case. Bleed these fu*kers dry.
I much rather see the law used to fight these fanatics then bullets. Go after the Imam’s that preach hate. Hold them and their organizations responsible for crimes that are committed by their followers.
Where are you going to try them, and how can you compel them to attend, much less pay up when they lose? The Klan is an internal enemy - they have street addresses and such. Just where do you serve papers to al Qaeda?
If the lawsuits were to extend to the nations that support them it might make some slight, barely perceptible difference. And then only in the most ideal yet unlikely circumstances. Easier to just use the Iraq War strategy and sue someone else, gain nothing, then declare ‘mission accomplished’.
I was thinking more of the Imam’s in mosques that preach hate. They’re in cities with addresses. Those mosques have assets that can be taken in suits.
The majority of mosques are responsible and good people attend them. The terror experts *know the few *that are preaching hate. Those are the ones that need to be targeted.
Just like the Klan has regional cells around the country. If violence from their followers can be identified then the local Klan group that’s responsible gets sued.
Internet sites that preach hate would be ripe targets for law suits. The Boston bombers for example left evidence on their computers that shows the sites and videos that saw.
Someone registered and maintained those sites. That’s who you go after with suits. At a minimum the site comes down. Maybe you take some of their money too.
It’s all about holding people responsible for preaching hate.
No not run by Al Qaida. The fanatical Imam’s preach the same hate message. But they aren’t necessarily in contact with Al Qaida. I’m only talking about incidents where you can tie followers violent acts back to their Imams.
If a fanatical Imam’s followers don’t commit violence then you can’t sue. They haven’t done anything wrong.
It’s the same with the Klan. People hate black people and organize to talk about it. They aren’t in contact or controlled by a group 600 miles away.
Either the Imams are organizing and coordinating incidents, or they are practicing their free speech rights. Unless the Imams are breaking the law by inciting violence (and there are specific legal hurdles to demonstrate that) you won’t get very far. And if they are doing that, you can go after them with criminal charges.
Would they be good targets? It’s very, very difficult to prosecute someone for speech in America, and doubly so for religious speech. If a magazine did give explicit instructions for how to build bombs, and coupled that with instructions that Muslims should use those bombs against American targets, then yeah, maybe you can sue. But Imams who simply preach that America is arrogant and poised to fall, or who celebrate damage to American’s worldwide? Or those who simply preach antisemitism and the idea that Jews ought to be thrown out of the Holy Land? Those last two are religious beliefs, sincerely held. Who’s to say that their religious beliefs are invalid and they may not be expressed? I don’t think most of this stuff is actionable and I do think that most of it is protected speech under the First Amendment, as freedom of speech, religion, and sometimes press. Hate speech is frequently protected, and you can’t simply snip out those protections without endangering free speech as a whole.
Interesting. I was curious to float the idea and see what others thought. I know The Southern Poverty Law Center has been successful going after the Klan and other Neo Nazi groups. Every dollar taken away is money they can’t spend on their hate activities.
But the fanatical Imams and Mosques also have religious protection.
Sure I can say hateful things under the First Amendment. Cops won’t lift a finger.
But if people at my local bar hear me calling my neighbor a dirty, thieving, prick that needs a serious butt whopping. I better hope that my neighbor doesn’t wind up in the hospital with his face smashed. I’ll probably be paying his hospital bills. Trying to claim that I didn’t mean for anyone to take me seriously probably won’t help.
Their web site has a case docket. Listing cases and court decisions. There’s a bunch of them. It’s more manageable if you narrow the search to a specific agenda, They’ve been doing this work for quite awhile.
I don’t know if their approach would work for the Boston bombing case or not. It’s just an interesting idea that I floated here.
Seems like the Aryan Nations/Richard Butler case involved direct action by guards of the property…
I would think you’d need something tying the Mosque/imam to a specific act of crime.
I’m not sure what you mean by every dollar taken from them is something they can’t use in their hate activities. Are there actual problems with this in the US?
I’m familiar with cases like
But I would think post 9-11 these would be pretty rare. General the “US sucks” and “Israel should get out of Palestine” and Allah hates America isn’t any worse than what counts as protected speech.
If outside the US - and actually directly related to serious conspiracy against the US - we do have a method of serving them (at least in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) - but usually they aren’t in any condition to show up in court afterwards.
The SPLC is mainly a fund raising scam. It has 256 million dollars in assets and spent 1.6 million on litigation costs in 2011. They are rated a F by Charity Watch. Meanwhile the KKK has an estimated 2,000 members. What the SPLC does is sue some rascist group which has almost no assets to mount an effective defense, win a big settlement which is never collected, and then use the suit to fundraise from gullible liberals. Read Harper’s magazine story called “The Church of Morris Dees”, the prize winning expose by the Montgomery Advertiser, or the story “King of the Fearmongers” in the Weekly Standard.
Trying to claim that I didn’t mean for anyone to take me seriously probably won’t help.