Month: February 2012

The most controversial of our universal human rights has often been our freedom of speech.

Our most successful approach to defending our human rights and human dignity is to begin with the principle:
— Choose Love, Not Hate.

Without such boundaries, our freedom of speech can be abused by those who seek to deny human rights and human dignity. Our freedom of speech can be abused to denigrate others of various identity groups. Our freedom of speech can be abused to mock, degrade, lie about, and slander others. Our freedom of speech can be abused to incite others to commit violence against other people. I am not just writing about such abuses from a theoretical perspective, but I have been a repeated victim of such abuse myself, as a result of my own stand for our universal human rights and human dignity.

But what is the answer? Can we deny freedom of speech?

The most balanced, consistent position is to use our own freedom of speech responsibly and fearlessly, and to obey the laws in our communities regarding slander and those who seek violence. Those criminal laws exist so that responsible men and women could have some defense from such attacks by those who abuse our freedom of speech. For this to be successful, we must be consistent in two areas.

1. We must NEVER respond to abuse of freedom of speech with our own abuse, intolerance, and violence. Our ethical mathematics must recognize that two wrongs only equal two wrongs; they do not make a right. We must have the right to disagree in our shared Earth, without the penalty being abuse, intolerance, and violence.

2. We must obey and expect our courts and law enforcement to obey criminal law, and not give even the appearance of favoritism. We must all understand the penalty for assaulting another human being, for slandering another human being, and for inciting mobs to commit violence, among other criminal activity.

However, we must challenge those who would abuse our freedom of speech, as well as those who disregard the need for consistency in law and order for a cohesive society.

In the United States of America, this issue was recently addressed in a case in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, where an alleged assault took place during an October 11 Halloween-type parade in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. During the season of Halloween in the United States, people regularly dress up in costumes, some of which are ridiculous, some of which invoke characters as monsters, and some of which are even offensive. The holiday is generally viewed as relatively harmless by most of the American public. During the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade, several individuals dressed up in costumes, one as a “zombie Pope,” and another as a “zombie Muhammad.” Such costumed representations were no doubt offensive to some Catholic Christians and to some Muslims. Ernest Perce, one of these paraders was with a group called the “Parading Atheists of Central PA,” was dressed in a costume as a “zombie Muhammad,” and stated that an individual, Talaag Elbayomy, had allegedly attacked him and was charged by the police with harrassment.

The Cumberland County magistrate, Judge Mark Martin, dismissed the case for lack of evidence, and claimed that there wasn’t sufficient evidence in the case. Mr. Ernest Perce claims to have a video that was taken place that captures some of the audio and environment of the alleged attack. He also claims to have audio of some of the magistrate’s comments. According to the audio of the magistrate’s comments, Judge Martin proceeded to instruct Mr. Ernest Perce V on why he should not insult followers in Islam, as an abuse of his freedom of speech. Judge Martin reportedly later stated that this had no bearing on his court decision.

CNN affiliate WHTM (ABC 27) reports that the arresting police officer, Sgt. Brian Curtis stated that Mr. Talaag Elbayomy grabbed the paraders beard and sign. According to the news report at WHTM, “Although Elbayomy denied touching Perce at trial, Curtis said he admitted grabbing Perce’s sign and beard the night of the incident. Talaag Elbayomy said he was at the parade with his wife and two kids and felt he just had to do something. In fact, he too called police because he thought it was a crime for someone to depict Muhammed in such a way. He has since learned otherwise.” WHTM interviewed Sgt. Brian Curtis after the incident at the parade and quoted the police officer as stating “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him.”

We may all object to those who are obnoxious and offensive. I certainly don’t agree with or accept these characterizations of religious figures that are offensive to others, and I think it is a mistake to do so. But that subjective perception does not allow the violation of another’s freedom of speech, and it does not allow someone else to physically grab signs and things on your body. Our freedom of speech is not just in Pennsylvania, and not just in America.  This American Constitutional right is also a universal human right for all people – everywhere in the world – even when we don’t like it. Judge Martin decided to ignore Mr. Elbayomy’s reported statement that he touched Mr. Perce’s sign and beard. Having myself had my signs grabbed and been pushed many times in the past, I have seen the police refuse to get involved and simply let people sort it out. In my experience with numerous protests, law enforcement typically does not get involved until one party physically starts grabbing another individual.

This incident certainly may have gotten more press than a minor conflict deserves.

But the appearance that Judge Martin decided not to defend our citizen’s freedom of speech is deeply troubling. While Judge Martin states that this is not the case, there is certainly an appearance of this inclination from the audio report. Judicial officers are responsible for accepting such freedom of speech as part of their professional responsibilities.

Furthermore, the precedent that Judge Martin’s decision sets is unnerving, and  it is against American principles.  It is not keeping with America’s Constitutional rights of freedom of speech to allow someone to use admitted physical coercion to deny unpopular, even obnoxious and offensive speech.  If we disagree with such obnoxious and offensive speech, the remedy is obvious, we have our own freedom of speech to express our views.  But the idea that physical coercion can be tolerated to deny others’ freedom of speech is simply wrong, not only in America, but also anywhere in the world.  Judge Martin claims to have had military experience.  Based on his decision, one can only wonder what he thought he was fighting for.

This case is not about Islam or atheism – it is about the freedoms we have and the truths that we hold self-evident as Americans and as human beings.  It is about freedoms that we all have the right to take for granted, without having to wonder if someone else will now believe they are entitled to physically accost us when we exercise those freedoms.

It sends the wrong signal at the wrong time that silencing others can be excused if there are “not enough witnesses,” and that physical violence can be an answer to opinions and speech that we don’t like.  The incident itself may have been small, but the judicial misconduct is serious.  Once again, Pennsylvania authorities have the opportunity to do the right thing, and they make a different choice.

It is troubling to see yet another figure of authority in Pennsylvania with such a cavalier attitude regarding their responsibilities to society.  One can only hope that the state authorities in Pennsylvania will start to realize the need for them to act on such issues, and demonstrate their willingness to be consistent on human rights for all people.

(Note: George Washington University professor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley has provided his own commentary on this incident and the court judgment by Judge Mark Martin, with reported responses by the judge and by Mr. Perce.)