Journalism school dean: The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed

posted at 8:01 pm on January 21, 2015 by Allahpundit

Unusual, not because it’s rare to see an American journalist bowing to Islamic sensibilities on depictions of Mohammed but because typically they don’t go so far as to demand legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Wickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

The most current issue of Charlie Hebdo again has Mohammed on its cover. This time, he appears crying under a headline that reads: “All is forgiven.” Well, apparently not. Ten people have been killed during protests in Niger, a former French colony. Other anti-French riots have erupted from North Africa to Asia. In reaction to all of this, Pope Francis has said of the magazine, “You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”…

In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying “fire” in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.

If Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.

Amazingly for a J-school prof, none of that is right. The Supreme Court hasn’t used the “clear and present danger” test for First Amendment cases in decades. The test now for inflammatory speech is the Brandenburg test, a strciter standard that allows the state to criminalize incitement only in narrow circumstances — when the speaker intends to incite violence and violence is likely to quickly result. Charlie Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoons may have met the “likely” prong of that test but they sure didn’t meet the “intent” part. The “fighting words” doctrine is still good law but it too has been gradually narrowed over time. Today, for the moment, it’s limited to “direct personal insults” between people who are face to face. That’s the key difference between publishing an offensive cartoon and, to borrow the Pope’s recent analogy, stepping up to a man and insulting his mother. From the Supreme Court’s perspective, those situations are apples and oranges. I appreciate Wickham’s candor in trying to expand “fighting words” to allow censorship of all kinds of offensive speech, though; I’ve worried about that myself, as longtime HA readers know. If speech can be criminalized because it angers a man to the point where he wants to attack you, why should we limit it to speech said in his presence? “Fighting words” is a potential trojan horse for smuggling all sorts of exceptions for “hate” into the First Amendment. I’m surprised more lefties aren’t as forthright as this guy is in making the case for it.

Someone should poll the media on whether they agree with Wickham’s “heckler’s veto” assumption that it’s Charlie Hebdo’s staff, rather than, say, the jihadis like Al Qaeda who put a bounty on them and ended up murdering them, that’s guilty of “incitement.” I’d be curious to see the numbers.

Update: I misspelled Wickham’s name at one point in this post. Fixed now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

but…but…you post with the wisdom of someone 35

Younggod on January 21, 2015 at 11:26 PM

Well certainly wish not to venture into your mature bailewick Plato

kenny on January 21, 2015 at 11:37 PM

ALL political ideologies are a religion and ALL religion is ultimately translated into political ideology.

Younggod on January 21, 2015 at 10:37 PM

Before you embarrass yourself further, please consult a dictionary.

Return here when you can type something more than infantile moral relativism and psychobabble.

captnjoe on January 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM

I for one am pretty sick of hearing about this Charlie Hebdo stuff. It was a failing newspaper and from what I gather they were a bunch of Commies, so my sympathy for them doesn’t go as far as it does for the Jewish victims in the market. If in power, these types would instill the same kinds of terror that Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao and all the rest have-history shows this to be their modus operandi.

Personally, I derive no pleasure from caricatures of Mohamed, nor do I care if someone chooses to.

As always, there are issues of slander and liable. Islam can sue if it likes. Seems that Charlie Hebdo is “making bank” these days so it could be worth their while.

However, elected officials and other public figures aren’t traditionally protected as much as private citizens when it comes to these issues, but, again, let a court decide. No matter the verdict, it would be interesting and set some kind of precedent, at least in international law. That is, can someone considered to be a deity or intimately connected to a deity, or holy in some way be protected? How would you decide what a bona fide religion is as compared to a mere “cult”? Go by numbers of the faithful? How long that sect has been around? How many places of worship they have?

Thing is, if Mohamed really did channel the words of Allah via the Archangel Gabriel, then I would think that being all-powerful Allah he can squash evil doers with a mere thought…not with a bunch of fanatics dreaming of lurid pleasures of the flesh in the Hereafter meting out Allah’s justice with swords, bombs, or assault rifles.

Lastly, Jesus while on the cross had the power to destroy all his enemies right then and there, and chose not to-he instead forgave them. We Christians at least should therefore be cognizant of that and not to try play God ourselves. Let God deal with those that attack Him. We, however, certainly have the right to deal with those that attack us. If they ask for mercy and forgiveness, and turn away from the sin of inciting violence, that’s a different matter. But I’m not holding my breath on that one.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM

When you limit free speech, it’s no longer free!

TomCoats on January 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM

Mohammed channeled Gabriel whenever he got in a jam. Sometimes he would channel Gabriel when he did not get his 20 percent of the booty from raids on Pagan commercial caravans moving between Mecca and Baghdad

kenny on January 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM

Mohammed channeled Gabriel whenever he got in a jam. Sometimes he would channel Gabriel when he did not get his 20 percent of the booty from raids on Pagan commercial caravans moving between Mecca and Baghdad

kenny on January 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM

Sounds about right. The robbery thing always made him stick out quite a bit from the others of the major world faiths.

Also, I find it interesting that info about Mohamed has been whispered repeatedly through the centuries-by Muslims no less.

And then they get all pissed off when non-believers bring up those naughty bits, or if Muslims dare to publicize them (Rushdie comes to mind).

Hypocrites.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 22, 2015 at 12:46 AM

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 22, 2015 at 12:46 AM

One of the most spiritual moments was when Mohammed took the nine year old daughter of Abu Bakr off a teeter-totter, dressed her in older lady clothes and then married her. Abu Bakr then became father-in-law and then successor to the faith after expiration of the prophet.

kenny on January 22, 2015 at 1:21 AM

No, this has happened before and always on the subject of Christianity.

Younggod on January 21, 2015 at 10:28 PM

Well, Allahpundit is an atheist and Ed is an extremely tolerant Catholic, so I’m finding your claim irregular to say the least. I’ve bashed Christians on this forum for years for having their heads up their arses about the accepted canon, and have been called out repeatedly for being a gnostic. So, no. It’s not that.

John the Libertarian on January 22, 2015 at 1:27 AM

Until there is an admin change over at Morgan State, do not let your kids attend.

Free speech is free speech.

Limited speech is limited speech.

The First Amendment is about protecting offensive speech.

When politicians are able and permitted to tell us what can and cannot be said of any person, group, religion, organization, leader or government, we have reached a point where we all are no longer free…in speech or anything else for that matter.

Still have people, to include family members, tell me that it is against the law to say nasty things about President Obama…because he is the President.

My God, if we ever arrive at that point.

Sieg Heil!!!!” as a common greeting isn’t that far away.

coldwarrior on January 22, 2015 at 4:03 AM

Yeah, Mohammed can kiss the highest part of my ass.

Arnold Yabenson on January 22, 2015 at 4:38 AM

What, exactly, is “journalism school”?

In all seriousness – what do they teach there? How many classes can you have about asking questions and writing what you find out?

How can you have an entire school devoted to something anyone can do off the street? It’s nothing more than commons sense. You ask questions, you look at documents, you write your findings.

Now, you may or may not be a good writer – but that isn’t “journalism”, that is “writing”.

Or, you may or may not be very smart, or know very much about the subject matter on which you are reporting – but “journalism school” isn’t going to fix either of those things.

It’s the same nonsense as “education” being a major. I’d much rather have a teacher teaching history who has a degree in history than a teacher teaching history who has a degree in “education. Same for math, chemistry, biology, etc.

Journalism schools were created solely to make journalists feel like they are in a “profession” as opposed to a job. There is nothing academic to be learned about “journalism”. It’s absurd.

Monkeytoe on January 22, 2015 at 7:50 AM

Monkeytoe on January 22, 2015 at 7:50 AM

And this guy proves it – he is the Dean of a “journalism” school and has no understanding of what free speech is, and no understanding of current American jurisprudence regarding free speech.

Yet he is teaching others about this stuff?

Sad.

Monkeytoe on January 22, 2015 at 7:51 AM

DeWayne Hickham can be described in one word: dhimmi.
Ok, two words, and here’s the other: idiot.

sadatoni on January 22, 2015 at 7:51 AM

He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently

Basically, he would want criminalized Barry Obola’s Troll of the Nation speech.

Reuben Hick on January 22, 2015 at 7:58 AM

Yes, but don’t make that same post here about Christianity. You’ll get locked, blocked, and banned.

Younggod on January 21, 2015 at 8:51 PM

First, you couldn’t be more wrong. There are, and have been, many anti-theists on HA that have been nothing but insulting towards Christianity. They don’t get banned for their comments.

Second, you are conflating the public realm with the private realm. If HA chose to ban those who insult Christianity they would be exercising their right to freely associate. But there would be no call to the police demanding the arrest and prosecution of those who insulted Christianity because such a call would go unheeded.

If DeWayne Hickham wanted to start his own website where he banned anyone who posted anything he found offensive I would defend his right to do so, even if I do find him to be an incredibly ignorant moron, but who he chooses to privately associate with is not a criminal matter.

NotCoach on January 22, 2015 at 8:00 AM

Mohammed channeled Gabriel whenever he got in a jam.

kenny on January 22, 2015 at 12:32 AM

He might have been channeling someone, but it wasn’t Gabriel.

CurtZHP on January 22, 2015 at 8:01 AM

all speech should be free at all times and in all places and corollary all people need to be educated to understand ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me’ ….if the gods can’t stand a little ribbing now and then, they really aren’t gods – too fragile

clandestine on January 22, 2015 at 8:01 AM

Given this dim bulb’s take on the First Amendment, is it any wonder these same leftists have such a jaundiced view of the Second Amendment?

CurtZHP on January 22, 2015 at 8:01 AM

No. Free speech ends at yelling ‘FIRE’ in a theater. Insulting the ‘Mo’ is more like farting in a men’s room.

Willys on January 22, 2015 at 8:02 AM

Return here when you can type something more than infantile moral relativism and psychobabble.

captnjoe on January 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM

Typing words in all caps indicates it’ll be a while.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 8:05 AM

Yes, but don’t make that same post here about Christianity. You’ll get locked, blocked, and banned.

Younggod on January 21, 2015 at 8:51 PM

What’s the evidence for this?

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 8:07 AM

Here is a politically incorrect statement: Christianity is a disease. It must be eradicated.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 8:11 AM

Okay, so that test disproves Younggod’s rants.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 8:11 AM

What’s really strange is that the very concept of an honor culture seems lost on Americans… America has since abandoned its honor culture in favor of free speech absolutism.

Stoic Patriot on January 21, 2015 at 8:28 PM

I think generalizations about Americans is pretty much an empty argument since we have had several generations of enforced diversification. There is no longer any “typical American”.

If you wish to generalize demographic segments, then you could compare some segments of society where disputes over honor end up in courts rather than outside the bar or, as gangs seem to prefer, via drive-by shootings.

I think the internet has done amazing things in terms of incivility. A few decades ago, many things that are said to each other, even here on this website today, would be considered “fighting words” and no jury would convict the offended person from knocking the teeth out of the jerk who said those things. Today, the anonymity of the internet might get some people banned, whereas in face-to-face, the police are called, people shot, tazed or otherwise given a tune-up prior to getting a permanent criminal record and huge legal bills.

The Progressives, of course, have segregated society so that the savages representing Islam, illegal aliens and the ferals representing the urban demographic are permitted to be as violent as they want, gang rape and even to homicide (ref: Chicago).

Reuben Hick on January 22, 2015 at 8:15 AM

Journalism schools were created solely to make journalists feel like they are in a “profession” as opposed to a job. There is nothing academic to be learned about “journalism”. It’s absurd.

Monkeytoe on January 22, 2015 at 7:50 AM

I agree 100 percent and I’m a reporter. Even though I had a background as a playwright, it took me about six months to learn how to write correctly for a newspaper (I mean style, not content).

It’s not academic. If you can gather facts, tell a story and follow the correct style, that’s all you need to know. It’s like learning to ride a bike.

Walter L. Newton on January 22, 2015 at 8:19 AM

Morgan State. Like who cares…

they are nobody.

Nradude on January 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM

I agree 100 percent and I’m a reporter. Even though I had a background as a playwright, it took me about six months to learn how to write correctly for a newspaper (I mean style, not content).

It’s not academic. If you can gather facts, tell a story and follow the correct style, that’s all you need to know. It’s like learning to ride a bike.

Walter L. Newton on January 22, 2015 at 8:19 AM

My undergrad degree is Political Science – which is another absurd degree (and one I regret, I wish I had obtained a hard science degree). The idea that there is any “science” in politics is ridiculous. The degree is essentially yesteryear’s high school civics dressed up as college education.

There are many, many absurd degrees. But, I suppose that is a whole different topic.

Monkeytoe on January 22, 2015 at 8:37 AM

Morgan State. Like who cares…

they are nobody.

Nradude on January 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM

Yes, but it can be viewed as a sort of canary in a coal mine.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 8:39 AM

DeWayne Hickman? Wait a minute, is this article putting us on??? Dwayne Hickman??? Ya gotta remember him, Dobie Gillis (and his beatnik buddy Maynard G. Krebs), the fictitious person of “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” “You rang?”

soghornetgunner on January 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM

Where does it say that people can use religion as an excuse to commit violence?

albill on January 22, 2015 at 8:52 AM

I did a search for DeWayne Hickham’s reaction to Piss Christ, the portrait of Madonna made from dung, and other forms of free speech that were designed to inflame emotions to the point of possible violence. Apparently Mr. Hickham is OK will all forms of free speech that incites the call to violence except when it involves Muslims.

Mr. Hickham also apparently has nothing to say about students at liberal universities protesting, rioting against a speaker with conservative views or shouting that speaker down–both are forms of violence as the speaker can fear for his/her safety.

And Mr. Hickam apparently has no problems with Muslims calling for the death of all Jews, the death to those that refuse to convert to Islam, or the Jihadist terror threats.

Hmmm, Only when Charlie Hebdo staff are murdered by radical Islamists does Mr. Hickham spring to action, not to defend the innocent victims but to defend the murderers.

Some say that Piss Christ and other examples have not incited violence and therefore they are not fair examples.

But Mr. Hickham said he was against all free speech that “might” incite violence. Well, that includes just about everything ever said.

Lets look at some examples that “might” incite violence:

1. Pro-abortion speech or activities
2. Pro-life speech or activities
3. “What do we want, dead cops, when do we want it, now.”
4. “Hands up, don’t shoot”
5. Union leaders suggest that there should be blood in the streets
6. Political speech of all kinds
7. Speech against Jews, Gays, Lesbians, etc.
8. Comedians who insult and make fun of others
9. Remember the Kent State students protesting the Vietnam War who were shot by the National Guardsmen–I guess we can assume that all protests and protest speech “might” incite violence.

And the list is endless. Just about anything anyone says that could be provocative or insulting or even in disagreement “might” incite violence such as riots, assaults, murder, etc. all because one or more people came to believe that it would be justified.

The problem with Mr. Hickham’s suggestion, is that it is unknowable what “might” incite someone to violence. Recently a teacher was murdered by one of her students because he didn’t like what she said in class.

If we banned all speech that might incite violence, we would all become mimes. But even then the middle finger could be interpreted as an insult and “might” result in a fight.

So, I’ve come to the conclusion that Mr. Hickham is a complete moron.

I have a better solution Mr. Hickham. People need to lighten up and grow a thicker skin because insults and hate speech are here to stay and neither are ever justification for violence.

BMF on January 22, 2015 at 9:03 AM

I don’t recall the “toxic talk” clause in the U.S. Constitution…

PatriotRider on January 22, 2015 at 9:03 AM

Limiting speech to protect the crazy violent people around us. Don’t say it because he’ll go crazy and shoot. Then what ca we do with him because Jug Ears closed Gitmo.

Herb on January 22, 2015 at 9:27 AM

Well then – didn’t Sabrina Rubin Erdley’s lie incite violence? Shouldn’t she be in jail?

ramesees on January 22, 2015 at 9:45 AM

Does the Journalism Dean understand English?

How can danger be “clear and present” if the danger is not present? The terrorists had to drive there to commit their violence, which means the “danger” was not present.

Seriously…

taznar on January 22, 2015 at 9:52 AM

Given the deplorable and pathetic state of the ‘Fourth Estate’, the profession of journalism, it’s hardly a surprise that a leader of a Journalism school is little more than a craven and pathetic ideologically driven schmuck who holds the values of this nation, and in particular one of it’s greatest – which specifically protects his profession – in utter contempt.

In his incredibly shallow mindview, he fails to see that the very ‘exceptions’ that he defines can easily be used against him and his profession to silence them if they become inconvenient to those in power.

But to the delusional left, they believe that they can order and mandate thoughts.

When Orwell wrote 1984, he was envisioning a wanker like Wickham leading the Ministry of Truth.

Athos on January 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM

Ridiculous… I mean if you follow this person’s thought process, ANY language could fall under the “might cause violence” rule. Didn’t this dude ever see an episode of “Dynasty?” People were getting always slapped for saying just about anything!

dpduq on January 22, 2015 at 10:01 AM

This is great news! Clearly in order to stop any speech we don’t like all we need to do is become violent about it and it shall be prohibited.

How stupid can you be to believe that is the correct solution?

brainpimp on January 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM

Erdogan: Cartoons Depicting Mohammed “Have No Place Within Freedom Of Thought”

It’s almost as though leftists have absolutely no idea what freedom of thought actually is.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 10:07 AM

Nradude on January 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM

I thought the same thing. For anyone who’s not familiar with Morgan State; the school is a joke. The only reason Maryland doesn’t close it down is because of the school’s status as a historically black college.

There’s only one reason USA Today would give space to someone from Morgan State: They’re trolling.

Mahna Mahna on January 22, 2015 at 10:18 AM

If this were applied evenly (we all know it wouldn’t be) it would clearly include a limit to saying things that anger those crazy republicans. Things like “The second amendment only cover the military’s right to bear arms.” Or, “Why do you hate Black people?” Sharpton and Bloomberg beware.

bagsblab on January 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM

Insulting Jesus Christ, Christians and Jews is perfectly acceptable however, because tolerance.

Just goes to show you that violence and terror really are effective tools, and that islam is a conquering political system – not a peaceful, respectful religion.

KMC1 on January 22, 2015 at 10:22 AM

I have a fundamental problem with the idea that the “fighting words” principle applies to the written word. It’s one thing to get in someone’s face or personal space and insult them in a way that provokes a physical reaction.

But it’s something else to put something in print which, on matter how offensive, the reader can choose to put aside, forget, and maintain a physical distance between himself and the person penning the offending material.

I don’t understand why the “fighting words” doctrine applies to the written word at all.

Chuckles3 on January 22, 2015 at 10:25 AM

The Left’s War on the Bill of Rights continues.

RedPepper on January 22, 2015 at 10:29 AM

Morgan State University…. hmm. Lived there and know the school well. It’s not known for well, really deep thinking. no offense to any graduates on this site – however, I honestly doubt there are any.

HomeoftheBrave on January 22, 2015 at 10:35 AM

He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently

And just who or what agency would be the decider on which speech falls under the exception?

BacaDog on January 22, 2015 at 10:37 AM

He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently

Wouldn’t that pretty much consist of anything that leftists disagree with or dislike?

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 10:39 AM

Morgan State- Head Start for young minority adults.

Anti-Statist on January 22, 2015 at 10:40 AM

“The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Toxic talk is also protected by the 1st Amendment, and ought to be.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 10:40 AM

A lot of African Americans endorse Islam, why I do not know.

grumpyank on January 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM

A lot of parents now know which journalism college they don’t want to send their kids to.

earlgrey on January 22, 2015 at 11:02 AM

Yes, the way I see it, honor requires me to respect the integrity of other honorable individuals, and hence their free speech.

Note the qualifier, “honorable”.

petefrt on January 21, 2015 at 9:09 PM

Exactly. It’s a limit you choose to enforce upon your own behavior. In an Islamist, it’s a limit that you demand be enforced upon your neighbors’ behaviors.

Ultimately, the appropriation of conflicts by heads of state, gradually shifting them towards more secular motivations, as well as exasperation and abandonment of belief or at least of the importance of highly specific doctrines led to an easing of perpetual conflict, and when expanded upon, resulted in religious pluralism / tolerance.

The Western world typically regards this as an advancement, but an honor culture would view this as shameful surrender, and an abandonment of one’s duty.

Stoic Patriot on January 21, 2015 at 10:59 PM

I don’t think the West has lost its honor culture completely, to some extent it has just turned inward. Liberty demands that you let go of your reactions to what you perceive as the dishonor of those around you, and focus on how your own honor expresses itself in your own actions.

ALL political ideologies are a religion and ALL religion is ultimately translated into political ideology.

Younggod on January 21, 2015 at 10:37 PM

Only if your religious ideology turns outward rather than inward. See above.

GrumpyOldFart on January 22, 2015 at 11:13 AM

He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently

And just who or what agency would be the decider on which speech falls under the exception?

BacaDog on January 22, 2015 at 10:37 AM

The Ministry of Truth, of course.

GrumpyOldFart on January 22, 2015 at 11:14 AM

A few points:

1 – It is rare to zero that Hindus, Buddhists, Christians or Jews get so violent on a worldwide scale when their religious leaders, founders, etc. are attacked.
2 – This “regulation” is an open door to more censorship. Appeasement? Won’t stop.

We westerners, Americans in particular, really appreciate this freedom of speech. Self-censorship is ok – can be called responsibility – but there are levels of responsibility. People differ – some have moral bases, others pragmatic.

Part of our US problem (and western Europe to an extent) is that culturally, we were raised on personal responsibility (not abdicating to others all the time for our actions) and the freedom to question our belief systems, government systems, education systems, etc.

When you are raised in a top-down environment (tribal, religious, cultural, etc.) this freedom to question authority does not exist. Frankly, I think this type of thinking (freedom to challenge without fear of repercussion) is the crux of the problem. Different from most cultures? Yes. Awkward? Yes. Freedom, YES.

MN J on January 22, 2015 at 11:15 AM

I’ll say here what I said in the comments of this guys column the other day.

“You should move to an ISIS controlled area and bow to your new overlords now.”

What a turd this guy is.

Psycotte on January 22, 2015 at 11:18 AM

Liberal democracy standing alone cannot succeed. The aftermath of the French Revolution is a great example of it. Our democratic republic has stood for as long as it has because of the Christian ethics that influenced the majority of the people within it.

It is Christian ethics that demands tolerance for individuals who make unethical decisions. This tenet of Christianity has become a driving force within our community above any other tenet. However, as a society amplifies tolerance beyond its proper boundaries, the less affect society has in curtailing abherrant and harmful behaviors on the whole. A handful of deviants can be tolerated. A plurality of deviants changes the society. Guess what? We are all deviants. However, it is our constant striving to adhere to those Christian ethics, despite our naturally deviant behavior, that saves us. Unfortunately, over time, deviancy wins out without the powerful grace of God that comes through a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The great American experiment is a good example of that. As opposed to the aftermath of the French revolution that patently rejected Christian ethics, the American colonies of the late 1700s were probably the most Biblically literate in the world with a large population that adhered to those principles. It has taken over two-hundred years before the amplification of tolerance has finally eroded the emphasis of Christian ethics.

Look to the first French Republic. That is our future as we leave our Christian ethics behind. I suspect our Bonaparte is alive today somewhere waiting in the wings.

jya lai on January 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM

Puppet.

nico on January 22, 2015 at 11:51 AM

Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

This is part of the misunderstanding that “free speech” applies to any- and everything. The First Amendment pertains to the government not being allowed to suppress speech. If you call me an a-hole, I have every right to knock out your teeth. Of course, we are and will both experience the consequences of our “speech”.

On the other hand, Mohammed was a serial raping, murdering, pillaging and lying pedophile of a psychopath. So come get now. I dare you.

Nutstuyu on January 22, 2015 at 12:12 PM

I suspect our Bonaparte is alive today somewhere waiting in the wings.

jya lai on January 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM

How tall is Killary?

Nutstuyu on January 22, 2015 at 12:12 PM

Toxic talk is also protected by the 1st Amendment, and ought to be.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 10:40 AM

Yes, but technically, only towards the government.

Nutstuyu on January 22, 2015 at 12:14 PM

Here’s what I don’t get…

He’s upset about a publication in FRANCE and the resulting riots in NIGER (and elsewhere in MUSLIM populated countries)…

So he wants to amend our First Amendment to … stop that?

WhirledPeas on January 22, 2015 at 12:30 PM

Yes, but technically, only towards the government.

Nutstuyu on January 22, 2015 at 12:14 PM

No, not technically. Otherwise it would say “technically” in the Amendment.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM

What gets lost in all of the chitchat about free speech by journalists is that Islam is rooted in an honor culture. In honor cultures, those who insult one’s honor, one’s family, one’s friends, or one’s faith must die.

Yeah…I’ve seen that up close, fer sure.

‘Honor killings’.

We’ve had a few cases here in Texas.

WhirledPeas on January 22, 2015 at 12:38 PM

Toxic talk is also protected by the 1st Amendment, and ought to be.

Star Bird on January 22, 2015 at 10:40 AM

Yes, but technically, only towards the government.

Nutstuyu on January 22, 2015 at 12:14 PM

The government can not pass laws restricting speech. PERIOD. That the government operates outside the law in so many manners at so many times is another matter altogether, but the constitution itself is crystal-clear.

gryphon202 on January 22, 2015 at 12:43 PM

J-school dhimmi!

potvin on January 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM

Yo can pee on Virgin Mary, display her with cow dung but disrespect for the religion that creates all the carnage & mayhem in the world is a no-no. Having to show up @ airport 3 hours early is not because of radical Christians. These people have changed the way we do business around the world

RdLake on January 22, 2015 at 1:05 PM

Reward violence and senseless killing with extra respect and acquiescence of any demands made by the killers.

If we don’t reward homicidal maniacs, we might not get more of them.

Wait… we want more homicidal maniacs? I guess we do.

If you think we don’t please show one case where rewarding a behavior resulted in less of that behavior.

I’ll wait while you do a strenuous search of all human history; I still don’t think there’s a single case of that occurring.

So rewarding violence clearly is a request for more violence.
Why do we need more lunatics killing innocent people?

gekkobear on January 22, 2015 at 1:17 PM

Well, we knew J-school grads had dodged all hard science, but who knew the First freaking Amendment was a mystery to them, too?

SeahawkBurrrton on January 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM

Simple solution – we’re going to have to round up some posses of Jews and Christians and have them star trashing/beheading people who offend them. I’m sure the Left will be ok if we drown some Muslims in pigs blood – maybe the new Iowa Congresswoman can get us some fresh?

katiejane on January 22, 2015 at 1:44 PM

The EU has law like the dean wants. What it has done, is prevent criticism of any religion that does not tolerate criticism (a.k.a. free speech). It has facilitated the rise of islam in the EU, and the oppression of anyone who has issues with this duality

islamists belong to one nation, the nation of islam. Any other nation is an insult to the one and only nation, which is the body in submission. A nation cannot be left in peace until it submits

Until all speech conforms to islam, there will be no peace

The concept of free speech, and freedom of religion, are not rooted in islam, but come from the Judeo Christian belief in free will

Here is the difference between islamist religious coercion and Judeo Christian free will: When God created Adam, he showed him the Tree and warned Adam if he ate of that Tree he would die. Adam was allowed to chose, and accept the consequences.

The dean of the Eden law school would have built a fence around the Tree to protect Adam from himself, or to protect Eden from collateral damage. The Edenic nation of the Levant would have cut off Adam’s head for insulting God. Jesus would have said: he who has never defied God, cut the head

entagor on January 22, 2015 at 1:48 PM

Spectacular fail on the “reasonable person” test, unless of course you care to believe its OK to react with violence when your religion is insulted. Which has never been an acceptable response in the history of the United States.

OpportunityCost on January 22, 2015 at 2:06 PM

Yes, but technically, only towards the government.

Nutstuyu on January 22, 2015 at 12:14 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems very clear that the government is not to create laws that will stifle freedom of speech, especially in regard to matters of politics, religion and culture.

Neitherleftorright on January 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM

DeWayne Wickham is just trying to insure that he’d be killed last.

hepcat on January 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM

I vow to insult the [email protected], murderous, thieving, goat humping scumbag mohammed on a daily basis. If any retarded towel heads have a problem with that, we can discuss that with them and a .44mag, or a .357hp if they prefer. See, unlike these morons, I’ll offer a choice.

Andy__B on January 22, 2015 at 3:30 PM

Freedom go to hell! (popular scream and sign in the Muslim world)

Is that not “fighting words”?

profitsbeard on January 22, 2015 at 3:52 PM

A cartoon (even one viewed upside-down) gives 7th century barbarians and university professors (but I repeat myself) the right to kill people.

growl on January 22, 2015 at 3:53 PM

Actually…for me it begins there now.

ProfShadow on January 22, 2015 at 5:17 PM

Morgan State. Like who cares…

they are nobody.

Nradude on January 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM

You give ’em too much credit, much like their so called teachers.

Laura in Maryland on January 22, 2015 at 7:49 PM

Morgan State Fixed. Off the college list for next fall.
Muhahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

DevilsPrinciple on January 23, 2015 at 12:49 AM

I think everybody is missing the point. This is about the First Amendment, but not necessarily about free speech. Sure free speech is part of it, but the real travesty is that this professor is trying to establish islam as a state religion. “Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…” Although this is just a journalism “professor” (obviously non-STEM) who does not even consider protecting the same constitutional provision that is protecting him, not Congress. The progressives have been relying on the non-establishment provision for years to keep crosses from public view, not reading the bible as literature \, and hundreds of other travesties, they don’t think it should apply to a direct establishment of islam and sharia. Where is the tar and feathers. All public monies should be withheld from this puke, not necessarily because of his beliefs, but because of his lack of logic.

Old Country Boy on January 23, 2015 at 9:01 AM

My turn to paraphrase what Dean Wimpham said: “We must accept that the Islamic masses tend to be stupid and violent.”

Olo_Burrows on January 23, 2015 at 9:56 AM

Screw you and Mohammed to.

casaler on January 25, 2015 at 8:10 AM

How long before the magnificent work of Salvador Dali is obliterated from Morgan State art history classes? How about the great works of Auguste Rodin? Bottacelli? Gustave Dore?

Each of these great artists caricatured Mohammed’s torment in Hell— as related in Dante’s trilogy “The Divine Comedy” [Inferno XXVIII, 19-42].

The same forces that massacred cartoonists in Paris and plot to destroy the magnificent fresco of Dante’s Inferno in Bologna’s Basilica di San Petronio remain at work today.

And if Western academics are too craven to fight this battle, what’s to stop the global Taliban from silencing any and every expression Muslims deem “offensive”? Archived depictions of Mohammed serve as a poignant reminder that such imagery has been part of Western AND ISLAMIC culture since the Middle Ages— and serve as a resource for those interested in defending free expression.

Terp Mole on January 25, 2015 at 11:02 AM

Ironically, the Dean’s “material support” fatwa violates free speech limits. No less than the Supreme Court upheld that determination in a 6-3 decision that stopped an aid organization from consulting with the PKK.

The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

“Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.

Newly elected Republican Governor Hogan has a duty to fire this state employee and prosecute this wacademic fraud for inciting mass murder.

Terp Mole on January 25, 2015 at 11:03 AM