'Downs said Mehanna was simply being prosecuted for refusing to help the FBI. "This is a pattern we have seen before, when the FBI is trying to pressure people into becoming informants and when they don't, they go after them for free speech. Tarek Mehanna's is a classic case," he said.' [1]
Ever heard of Tarek Mehanna?
Probably not, but you may recall his name later if running afoul of the U.S. government for something said.
A little context:
"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tried to file a brief in support of Mehanna during his prosecution but was refused the opportunity by the presiding judge. The ACLU had argued that Mehanna had consumed information freely available on the web and that his freedom of speech was of paramount importance, even if the material was offensive, anti-American or pro-violence. "This is a big case. Weakening the First Amendment is a slippery slope. Certain federal judges seem to ignore it at will," said Nancy Murray, a director at the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU." [1]
Apparently the government did not like Mr. Mehanna's views, or what he had to say, even if supposedly (see: 1st Amendment) protected in this right, as only expressing a view, and neither having planned or conducted anything violent. For having committed no crime, other than free speech, Mr. Mehanna could be incarcerated for life.
To paraphrase a well-worn, and true saying: Mr. Mehanna today—tomorrow, you.
1) 'US prosecution of fundamentalist Muslim seen as setback for free speech,' The Guardian
US prosecution of fundamentalist Muslim seen as setback for free speech | World news | guardian.co.uk
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
