Ali Al-Timimi

10/8/09
Blog #2 Option #1



As a Supreme Court justice considering a First Amendment appeal of Ali Al-Timimi’s case. My decision is to uphold the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard for prosecuting incitements against the government. Under the right to free speech, people are allowed to have and express any opinions and ideas they may have. And even when that speech becomes hateful and threatening they still have the right to express it until direct proof of immediate and or imminent threat is discovered. Brandenburg himself was protected because even though he made threats of revenge against the government, he never told anyone to do anything specific and he never referenced any kind of specific action or time it would take place. He also never mentioned any individuals specifically but rather just the government as a whole and we are within our rights to make statements about what should be done within or to our government, so long as we don’t immediately incite any direct and specific violence.

I agree with philosopher John Stuart Mill in his beliefs that all citizens have the right to their opinion and to express it no matter how unpopular it may be. Brandenburg may have racist and revolutionary ideas that many people do not agree with, but as long as they express their beliefs peacefully and do not force their views on others, they’re protected by free speech. Mill said, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

I also believe that the harm principle is important when considering the use of Brandenburg v. Ohio standards. Free speech protects our right to express our opinions and exchange ideas. But those rights should be restricted only when speech is intended to lead to the imminent and immediate harm of other people. When speech directly incites that a specific person or organization should be the target of violence and that certain people should and or will carry out that violence the speech should no longer be protected under First Amendment rights. When a speaker is telling a particular person or group of people to directly do something harmful, he is no longer expressing an idea he is directing and inciting harm on another person.

Given the facts concerning the Ali Al-Timimi case it is my decision to uphold the conviction. It is my opinion that Ali-Timimi’s words and actions are not protected by freedom of speech. If Mr. Timimi had only expressed his views and made statements concerning what he feels should be done then he would be within his rights. However, according to the testimony from his conspirators he did more than just speak his views. Stated within Count 1 article 3 in the indictment against Timimi, on or about September 16 Ali Al-Timimi told his listeners that American troops that who were likely to arrive in Afghanistan were legitimate targets of the violent jihad and that his listeners had a duty to engage them. During that same time he also discussed obtaining military-style training from Lashkar-e-Taiba, a known terrorist sect, in order to join the mujahedeen (violent jihad) against American troops in Afghanistan. Around September 17, 2001, Timimi advised his listeners on how to reach the Lashkar-e-Taiba camp undetected. Then those listeners traveled to the Pakistan Embassy in Washington D.C. to apply for Visas to travel to Pakistan. Then on or around September 18 and 19 his listeners traveled to Pakistan. Timimi would have been within his rights if he had only expressed his opinion verbally. But once he started giving instructions, that his listeners followed by traveling to Pakistan, then it becomes cleat that Mr. Timimi and his followers were headed towards an imminent violent confrontation with U.S. troops.

Around October 15, 2001 during a meeting Al-Timimi told another group of listeners that they were obligated to help the Taliban in the face of an attack by the United States (article 20). Around October 21, 2001 Al-Timimi counseled an associate that they were obligated to the Taliban, and “the Arabs with them” by “body, wealth and word even if some find that distasteful” (article 21).

There are plenty more charges against Al-Timimi mentioned in the indictment. However I feel that those that I have mentioned above are sufficient to support my decision to uphold Al-Timimi’s conviction. When Al-Timimi told his listeners that American troops would be legitimate targets, he specifically incited harm against a specific group. It could still be argued that there was no proof yet, that he was inciting imminent harm though. But when he advised that they also receive military style training, then travel to D.C. for visas, then the travel to Pakistan with instructions on how to remain undetected where they received training with various firearms, it showed that Al-Timimi’s words were leading to the eventual yet immanent harm of U.S. troops. He also told his listeners that they were obligated to do these things, he convinced them that they perhaps didn’t have a choice. He also told them to keep their meetings a secret. Keeping their plans and ideas secret does not allow for a free exchange of ideas, telling people that their obligated to follow an idea is also not a free exchange. And thus for reasons like this Al-Timimi is not protected by freedom of speech because his words went beyond just speech, he gave specific instructions and ideas that would have immanently led to the harm of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.